If you would like to contribute your own work, contact me at failedempire AT gmail DOT com.
Search Failed Empire
Chronicling the collapse of a failed society
Browsing through one of my new favorite blogs, BuelahMan’s Revolt, I came across an interesting piece on Julian Assange and Wikileaks. BuelahMan suggested that WikiLeaks was nothing more than a tool of the ruling elite, used to create the appearance of dissension when in fact it was merely reinforcing the status quo:
Of course, I do not KNOW what Assange’s motivation is, but I can see that Israel and the American Empire is being protected and the actions are being justified. I can see that the mass of information is being filtered by the likes of the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, and the government of Israel (among other criminals, as well). I can see that what info is let, is being released slowly and with purpose of misdirection… NOT some info dump that allows the citizenry to scrutinize and filter as we see fit. No, we need the MSM and complicit governments to let us know what we “need to know”, when we need to know it.
Now, this is a unique perspective and honestly not one that I’ve given much thought to. It could very well be accurate, but that discussion is for another post. What really grabbed my attention was B’Man’s assertion that “911 is the nut-cuttin issue of our lives”:
It is really quite simple: it comes down to the nut-cuttin of 911. When you look at what Assange says about 911, I see a hack. Why? Because anyone, at this point, who denies 911 was a demolition is either wholly uninformed, a stupid and ignorant asshole or complicit in the murders of that day. That goes for ANYONE who denies a demolition or anyone who still blathers the “official story” (friend or foe). Chomsky is another asshole, but that is a different post because I suspect he is lying about (or hiding) the true feelings he has.
I do not consider myself a stupid, ignorant asshole, but I am not quite prepared to conclude that the collapse of the twin towers was due to a controlled demolition. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility, but there simply isn’t enough evidence to conclude, without any doubt, that this is in fact what happened.
What I will say about 9/11 is this: There are many important questions about that day that remain unanswered, perhaps the most pertinent one being precisely what happened to Building 7. Another important consideration has to do with the funding of the events of that day, which the 9/11 Commission deemed, for some unfathomable reason, irrelevant. There seem to have been links between the alleged hijackers and the Pakistani intelligence agency, which coincidently had been receiving money from the United States government.
Clearly, there are many things that the government is hiding from us about that day, and clearly the official story is, to an unknown extent, a cover-up. But the sheer girth of planning and mass deception that would have been necessary to facilitate a controlled demolition makes it a difficult conclusion to reach.
To me, it seems more plausible that the official story contains a minimal sketch of what actually transpired on that day. The buildings likely were taken down as a result of two massive jet airliners smashing into them, but there was undoubtedly a certain level of government involvement in the planning of the atrocities. That is, certain neo-conservative segments of the government (think Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheny and the PNAC) were greatly interested in the occurrence of “a new Pearl Harbor,” and they likely facilitated its coming by (a) funneling money into certain organizations and (b) turning a blind eye to the mounting evidence that an attack was imminent.
That said, the collapse of Building 7 does appear to have been a controlled demolition, because there really is no other explanation. The official story of collapse by fire is, quite simply, impossible.
The problem with discussing alternative theories to the official 9/11 story is that such considerations are always dismissively dubbed as “conspiracy theories” and rejected out of hand. Here I tend to sympathize with Chomsky’s opinion of conspiracy theories, as he discussed with respect to the JFK assassination. He said, in effect, that although the official story was undoubtedly bogus, proving a conspiracy is virtually impossible and in the end is little more than a fruitless distraction. Although both the JFK assassination and the events of 9/11 involved massive government cover-ups, we stand little chance of proving it to the masses, and if we devote our efforts to this impossible task we will be missing opportunities to facilitate progress in other, more readily accessible areas.