Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

An important point emphasized by Zwicker in the final stage of his lecture was the critical need of progressives to unite behind the 9/11 Truth Movement.  

He decried as highly unfortunate the fact that so many otherwise outspoken figures from the left, notably Noam Chomsky, will deliver long lists of denunciations both foreign and domestic against the Bush Administration, then skirt away from the issue of 9/11 by adhering to the same position being drummed home by Cheney-Bush spokespersons and the mainstream media.

Zwicker cited the critical need to achieve understanding about the roots of 9/11 in order to resolve the issue of the forces behind such an effort and how to strike back in the interest of America.

Webster Tarpley used an early segment of his talk to explain the important distinctions between LIHOP and MIHOP, two basic theories being debated by critics of the official 9/11 explanations as developed by the official 9/11 Commission.  Some critics accuse the Bush Administration of "Letting It Happen on Purpose," thereby refusing to act on credible evidence that could have prevented the tragedies from occurring.  

Tarpley made a solid case for "Making It Happen on Purpose," meaning complicity in the tragedies.  The thrust of Tarpley's case is presented with accompanying slides to show that a well-organized network was afoot, and that by closely studying the evidence the ultimate conclusion was that 9/11 was not a result of looking the other way while foreign terrorists carried out villainous misdeeds.

What distinguishes Webster Tarpley from so many 9/11 critics is his emphasis upon the point that so many military and quasi-military exercises were occurring during the same period that the 9/11 tragedies occurred.  Tarpley's point is summarized in a question:  "Could all this activity in identical realms of activity be occurring by coincidence alone?"

By carrying out so many military and government exercises two factors move into play: 1) the unknowing can fall into lapses, preventing responses to events that appear to be justified; 2) the activities can dovetail in synch with the final objectives of the group carrying out the attacks.

A classic illustration cited by Tarpley is that of existing Federal Aviation Administration law calling for the scrambling of unexplained aircraft activity.  If, on the other hand, administrators and their operatives can be convinced that the aerial activity is part of a test or pattern of tests then such action will not be taken.

In addition to the following, much discussion has occurred over the activity of Vice President Dick Cheney and whether he actually delivered a "stand down" order to prevent planes from being sent into the skies to investigate unexplained activity.

Another issue stressed by both speakers was how the "false flag" scenario has resurfaced throughout U.S. and world history.  Tarpley is fond of discussing the case of Guy Fawkes in England, a plot concocted by Lord Cecil, the British prime minister, to generate war against Spain by convincing the subjects of King James that Fawkes's actions were in concert with Spanish designs.  

Familiar American examples of the "false flag" tactic include the Battleship Maine and the Spanish-American War, the Battleship Lusitania and World War One, and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the Vietnam War.  

Tarpley and Zwicker provide a staggering number of points that need to be thoroughly investigated in an independent inquiry into 9/11.  In considering the points being raised, it would appear to be virtually impossible for this many events to occur of this nature, considering the number of government exercises on or about 9/11 alone, to summarize everything that occurred as "coincidence."

While the Cheney-Bush Administration insist that we must reshape our world and domestic views, as well as remold our lives, based on what happened on 9/11, the fundamental irony is that this same executive branch has from the beginning steered Americans away from investigating what caused these tragedies to occur.

When what have been termed as defining events totally reshaping America and the way Americans live as well as how we interact with the rest of the world, should we not seek to obtain every bit of available information about what actually occurred on 9/11?  

In place of leaving no stones unturned we are instead told that to engage in such an independent public inquiry would detract from ongoing efforts to fight the war on terror.

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush tell us that to explore what occurred that fateful day is somehow a distraction preventing America from conducting the war on terror.  

What they hope Americans will not conclude is that if they learn what happened on 9/11 that the war on terror being defined by the Administration might be vastly different than what the citizenry perceives after independent inquiry.

For one thing, isn't it strange that the list of individuals accused of carrying out the Twin Towers tragedies include so many "martyrs to the terrorist cause" that have been determined to be alive?  Should this alone not raise a huge red flag?

So there we have it.  We should not proceed any further because to do so might yield information and it might stand in our way from carrying out the task we need to achieve.  

Does that sound like Orwell doublespeak from 1984?  

Increasing numbers of Americans believe so and are demanding that an independent investigation be undertaken regarding 9/11 that is not limited and political, as was the official 9/11 Report.

Zwicker and Tarpley are in the forefront reminding Americans of those crucial Benjamin Franklin words that the Founding Fathers conferred a "Republic if you can keep it."