Decades are acknowledged historical markers, signaling the birth of a new generation, and the transition between adjacent but different cultural times. Since September 2001, the inaudible and noiseless foot of time (1) has advanced by almost two decades. And two generations are now alive who did not see 9/11, and will derive only from school, movies or conversation the knowledge of an event that happened during their infancy.
There is no intent here to debate the multiple explanations and theories of the deed, thus boring the reader to an Olympic degree. He that writes or talks longer than the reader or hearer is willing to attend, is guilty of an injury which he cannot repair, and takes away that which he cannot give.
Suffice to note, however, that, with a masterful semantic stroke, those who debunked the official version of the event have been collectively labeled as “truthers.” A new word intended to suggest oddity, contempt and ridicule – while, in evocative Orwellian new-speak, branding as liars those who sought to find a more realistic explanation than the untenable, unbelievable but officially peddled tale.
That the sanctioned interpretation of the physics involved is beyond scorn has been established. That Building 7 fell down spontaneously compares with the biblical miraculous parting of the Red Sea to let the Jews cross it without getting wet.
But I cannot forget the presentation at the conclusion of the official inquiry conducted by NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). A multi-million dollar effort condensed into a tower of thick books, – thousands of pages each.
Delivering the presentation was NIST’s very director Shyam Sunder. At the end of which, a Physics Teacher, David Chandler, was allowed to show an experiment he conducted at his school, by measuring very accurately the acceleration of Building 7 during the collapse, which was actually the acceleration of gravity. A feat possible only through a controlled demolition.
Unable to contest the evidence, or to provide a contrary tenable explanation, the prestigious director chose to say that, “Gravity is the force that keeps together the universe.” An answer – said David Chandler later – that I would expect from a student who didn’t even open the text-book he should have read for the interrogation.
It’s reality outperforming comedy. In a clever British TV serial of years past, an elected representative protests with the minister-in-charge about the opening, in her district, of a chemical plant, producing meta-dioxine. For, earlier on, a plant in Italy producing dioxin had actually exploded, severely poisoning a large number of people living in the area.
Hoping to get the better of the argument, the minister assures her that, unlike dioxin, ‘meta-dioxin’ is perfectly safe, for that ‘meta’ makes all the difference. Whereupon the representative asks what ‘meta’ means. Unable to answer the minister turns to Sir Humphrey – secretary and head of Administrative Affairs – for help.
“It’s very simple – says Sir Humphrey – ‘meta’ means ‘with’ or ‘after,’ and sometimes ‘beyond’. It’s from the Greek. In other words, ‘with’ or ‘after’ dioxin, and sometimes ‘beyond’ dioxin. It depends on whether the case is the accusative or the genitive. With the accusative it is ‘beyond’ or ‘after’ – with the genitive it is ‘with’. As in Latin, of course, where the ablative is used for words needing a sense of ‘with’ to precede them.
But the representative insists on knowing. This time the secretary says that ‘meta-dioxin’ is an ‘inert’ compound of ‘dioxin.’
“What does ‘inert’ means?” – asks the determined inquirer.
After a split-second pause, Sir Humphrey has the answer, “It means that it is ‘not ert.’
“Wouldn’t hurt a fly” – adds the minister’s personal secretary who is also present.
With the 9-11 report, and caught with the proverbial pants down, NIST pulled back the study and re-published it a few months later, arbitrarily adding 2.5 seconds to the actual measured time of collapse, while admitting that “for a time” building 7 fell indeed at the acceleration of gravity.
I suspect that no one told Shyam Sunder that oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse (2). More likely, I think that the Shyam Sunders of this world have no concern about overburdening the credulity of the audience. And they assume that academic titles enable their bearer to rather depend on prestige than reason.
For the whole story even calls into question what does it mean to be rational. As far as we know, Aristotle was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for his view, today, seems un-impressive; namely that some people can do sums. Thanks to the intellect, he said, man is a rational animal and partakes of the divine. The intellect is shown in various ways, but most emphatically by mastery of arithmetic.
A strange conclusion but there’s a reason. The Greek system of numerals was very bad, so that the multiplication table was quite difficult, and only very clever people could make complicated calculations. Today even cheap smart-phones can do sums faster than many clever people, but no one contends that these useful devices are instruments of God. With NIST, however, the conclusions of the report would not even have passed Aristotle’s test of rationality.
But I digress. Some readers may wonder how American ‘millennial’ high-school students will learn about 9/11. What I report are examples.
Common to all those examined, Osama bin Laden is uniformly assumed to be the organizer, manager, director and mastermind of the enterprise. None mentions that the US State did not even charge him for the crime.
Example A) “The prime suspect for the attacks was Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi dissident. Bin Laden had been granted sanctuary by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban are a group that sought to set up their version of a pure Islamic state, banning such things as television and music.”
Example B) “Bin Laden had developed his plan while leading the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. His experience in Afghanistan convinced him that superpowers could be beaten. He also believed that Western ideas had contaminated Muslim society. He was outraged when Saudi Arabia allowed American troops on Saudi soil after Iraq invaded Kuwait. He therefore began a series of attacks seeking to drive Americans out of the Middle East. 9/11 was the most spectacular in this series of attacks.”
Example C) “High levels of poverty ignored by undemocratic and corrupt governments (of unmentioned states) provided bin Laden with a pool of disaffected young Muslims who saw the United States as the evil source of their misery and the supporter of Israel’s oppression of Palestinian Muslims.
Example D) The terrorists hit America because “they hated our freedoms” – reference being made to President Bush’ address to the nation. Ignored is that Bush used 9/11 to destroy the nation of Iraq and assassinate its leader, under the pretense of inexistent weapons of mass destruction. Or that – after thousands of American soldiers and at least one million Iraqis had been killed – he joked during a dinner party, pretending to look under the table for “weapons of mass destruction.” Confirming the opinion of many that, as president, he was but an idiot with occasional flashes of imbecility.
Nor I found anywhere mentioned the curious connection between 9/11 and the think-tank–produced government document – a plan for the XXI century to be “The American Century,” thanks to self-evident exceptionalism, and with the help of “a new Pearl Harbor” required to implement the plan.
Al Qaida is usually cited, but seemingly ‘en passant.’ Which makes sense, considering that Al Qaida is currently a US ally in the destruction of the Syrian state and its leader Assad.
In yet another educational endeavor, called “The Memory Project,” 9/11 is compared to the Holocaust, having as an introductory theme a poem by a Marianne Goldstein, titled “9/11 and the Holocaust.”
In none of the examples I found a reference to the spontaneous collapse of Building 7.
On the whole and as expected, what is at best an un-scrutinized opinion is inculcated as fact, therefore preventing possible sparks of curiosity among the students.
There’s no need to look into the seeds of time and say which grain will grow and which will not (3), in the mind of the students. For what will eventually remain and take hold is that truth is but the opinion of the powerful.
Just as millions of European students have learned that England declared war on Germany in WW2, because Germany invaded Poland. Ignoring that the USSR had simultaneously invaded Poland – and that both Germany and the USSR were but recovering lands, inhabited by their respective people and arbitrarily excised through the mad terms imposed by the “Allies” at the end of World War 1 and through the previous Treaty of Brest Litovsk.
A point that, if not ignored, may have prompted some incautious student to ask, “If England declared war on Germany to defend Poland, why did not England declare war on the USSR for the same reason?” One more question better left unanswered.
In the vein of historical analogies, the sinking of the Lusitania was to the American intervention in WW1, what 9/11 has been to the US intervention and destruction of most of the Middle East.
For history, which undertakes to record the transactions of the past for the instruction of future ages, would ill deserve that office if she condescended to plead the cause of open liars, or to justify beneficent annihilation and humanitarian mass-murder.
Which, in both instances – WW1 and 9/11 – are the pleadings and the reasons for war given by the powerful. After all, President Woodrow Wilson – as American students are taught at school – joined, totally unprovoked, the combatants in WW1 to “make the world safe for democracy.”
Also, given that history seems but a narrative of successive villainies, treasons, usurpations, massacres and wars, one of the most wide-spread and popular justification is that ‘human nature cannot be changed.’ A meaningless statement without first defining ‘human nature’ – and when used as an explanation it is certainly false. He who utters the maxim with an air of conclusive wisdom, means that all men everywhere will always continue to behave as he does or others do in his home town.
A little anthropology would disprove his belief. In fact human nature is extremely variable, according to the circumstances of education and the sum-total of beliefs inculcated or acquired from and through the surrounding psychological, religious or sectarian environment.
Many agree that all the world is a stage and all men and women merely players (4) – … but not all players who make or create the conditions for wars are on stage.
In the instance, ever since the end of the 18th century, one large and usually ignored player was/is the house of Rothschild, by far the most successful financial institution in the history of mankind. Shrewd lenders of money to governments, they quickly learned how to convert wealth into political power. And just as quickly as their wealth grew, they expanded their influence with most princes, kings and governments of Europe.
Attributed to the founder of the Rothschild family is the quote, “Let me issue and control the nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
Another talent of the Rothschilds was the art of smuggling on a grand scale, often with the unofficial approval of the governments whose laws they violated. It was also pragmatically accepted that a branch of the Rothschilds would finance the enemy of the state they funded through another of their branches. Well known is the trick of Nathan Rothschild, whereby he acquired the greatest share of England’s debt at a fraction of its worth, following the battle of Waterloo.
Common to the Rothschilds and their associates is a soul of ice, immunity to patriotism and a deep-seated indifference to human suffering. Edward Griffin has defined their modus operandi as the “Rothschild Formula,” namely the ability, through their banking system, to convert debt into perpetual war and war into perpetual debt. And, we may add, pulling the strings of the marionettes involved, so that the Rothschilds would win irrespective of the outcome of the war in which they financed both sides.
The sinking of the steamship Lusitania was the conclusion of a plan that, while known at large in its outlines, is worthy of inspection in its details.
There were three key players involved, Churchill, the Rotschilds and the leaders of the American and British Jewry, bent upon the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, to make room for their own kin.
The initial instrument for the project was the universally known and infamous “Balfour Declaration,” in exchange for America’s forces joining World War 1 against Germany.
Anyway, when England and France declared war on Germany, they needed money, and money means debt. When the local banks could no longer meet the need, they turned to America and chose the House of Morgan – acting as a partner of the Rotschilds – to be the sales agent of British bonds.
Just about all money thus raised was returned to the US to buy war material. Furthermore Morgan acted as sales agent for the bonds, and purchasing agent for the war material. He was both buyer and seller for Britain, profiting from the purchase (of arms) and from the sale (of bonds).
Ironically, Morgan strongly claimed to be a pacifist. “Nobody could hate the war more than I do,” he told the Senate Munition Committee. But accusing Morgan of deception would be unfair. He was but part of the Rotschilds group. And it is easy to surmise that the same principle applies in banking as it was established at the end of the European 30-year war in 1648, “Cuius regio, eius religio” – that is, the religion of the ruler dictates the religion of the ruled. And in the Talmud – in this instance the religion of the ruler – we find this exchange,
Rabbi Chezkia asked, ‘How must we fight against them (the goy)?’ Rabbi Jehuda said, ‘By wise counsel thou shalt war against them’ (Proverbs, ch. 24, 6). By what kind of war? The kind of war that every son of man must fight against his enemies, which Jacob used against Esau—by deceit and trickery whenever possible. They must be fought against without ceasing, until proper order be restored. Thus it is with satisfaction that I say we should free ourselves from them and rule over them.”
In the meantime…. the fortunes of war were not propitious to the British. Consequently, Morgan could not find new buyers for the bonds. No new bonds meant no new arms for Britain. And a defeated Britain would default on the previous bonds.
In March 1917 the US Ambassador to England sent a telegram to the State Department describing Britain’s (financial) crisis. The remedy would be to make direct grants to Btitain from the US Treasury, which implied the abandonment of official neutrality by the Unites States. However, a declaration of war by the US would also extricate some of the wealthiest American families from potential losses, as well as opening new opportunities for profits.
But how can you convince the herd to go to slaughter for their own good, when you have earlier claimed to be the protector of the herd’s life?
Now enters the scene a mysterious character, what in stage plays is called the ‘deus ex machina’ – that is an unexpected device or character saving a seemingly hopeless situation. His name was Colonel House, though he never served in the military.
I must omit several intermediate steps. But in the main, after Colonel House entered the picture, President Wilson dealt with House directly, bypassing the Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan.
10 months before the election that returned Wilson to the White House in 1916, “because he kept us out of the war,” Colonel House negotiated a secret agreement with England and France on behalf of Wilson, which pledged the United States to intervene on behalf of the Allies.
Still, making a 180 degree turn on an election pledge, and considering the presence of many German immigrants and a large, respected American citizenry of German extraction, required an elaborate plan. It involved Morgan, Rothschild and Rockefeller buying and acquiring complete control of the press. After which, a large part of the nation’s newspapers began to denounce Germany, and call on America to take up arms against “the enemy of Western civilization.”
But this was not enough. It was in the context of this campaign, openly contrary to the general will of the American citizenry, that the (in)famous ‘Espionage Act’ was passed, branding as enemy of the state anyone who publicly opposed America’s entering WW1. Echoes of the ‘Espionage Act’ were heard in the context of the recent and equally infamous “Patriot Act.”
Which brings us finally to the Lusitania. Among other ventures, Morgan had created an international shipping trust that included Germany’s two largest lines plus one in England, the White Star line. In 1902 Morgan had unsuccessfully attempted to take over the remaining British line, the Cunard Company. The Cunard’s steamships, Lusitania and Mauritania became major competitors of Morgan’s cartel. From Morgan’s point of view the Lusitania was disposable and dispensable.
Though she was built as a luxury liner, the Lusitania was re-designed to be converted into a ship of war. All this is on public record. In fact, after suitable modifications she was returned to sea and registered as an armed auxiliary cruiser. The modifications included removing all passenger accommodations from the lower deck to make room for more military cargo.
In March 1915, after several close calls with German submarines, the captain of the Lusitania resigned. He could face the U-boats, he said, but he was no longer willing “to carry the responsibility of mixing passengers with munitions or contraband.”
In the meantime, Churchill had given orders to British merchant ships to no longer obey a U-boat order to search merchant or passenger ships. If the merchant ships had armament, they were to engage the enemy; if not they were to attempt to ram the sub. The immediate result of the change was to force German submarines to remain submerged for protection and to simply sink the ships without warning.
As a final measure Churchill ordered to treat captured submarine members not as prisoners of war but as criminals. “White flags should be fired upon with promptitude” – he wrote.
The German Embassy in Washington was aware of the nature of the cargo loaded on the Lusitania and filed a complaint to the United States government for its violation of international neutrality treaties.
The response was a flat denial of any knowledge of this cargo. Whereupon the German Embassy made one final effort to avert disaster. It placed an ad in 50 East Coast newspapers warning Americans not to take passage on the Lusitania. It read as follows:
“NOTICE. Travelers intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies, and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or of any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters, and that travelers sailing in the war zone on ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
Imperial German Embassy, Washington DC April 22, 1915.”
Although the ad was in the hands of newspapers well in time for the requested deadline, the State Department intervened and, raising the specter of possible libel suits, frightened the publishers into not printing the ad without prior clearance from State Department attorneys. Consequently only the Des Moines’s register, in Iowa, ended up carrying the ad.
When the Lusitania left New York her orders were to rendezvous with the British destroyer Juno, off the coast of Ireland, so that she would have naval protection as she entered hostile waters. But the destroyer was inexplicably recalled. And, to make matters worse, the Lusitania had been ordered to cut back on the use of coal, not because of shortage but because it would be less expensive. A slower boat is an easier target.
One naval officer, Commander Joseph Kenworthy, had been previously called upon by Churchill to submit a paper on what would be the political results of an ocean liner being sunk with American passengers on board. He left the room in disgust at the cynicism of his superiors. And in 1927, in his book “The Freedom of the Seas” he wrote, “The Lusitania was sent at considerably reduced speed into an area where a submarine was known to be waiting, and with her escorts withdrawn.”
The rest of the story is known. The U-Boat sank the Lusitania, 1201 people died, including women, children and 128 Americans.
Just as with 9/11 there was “an official inquiry,” under the direction of Lord Mersey, to determine the facts of the sinking and whom to blame for it. Among the papers submitted to Lord Mercey, prior to the hearing, was one from a Capt. Richard Webb that said, “I am directed by the board of the Admiralty to inform you that it is considered politically expedient that Capt. Turner, the master of the Lusitania, be most prominently blamed for the disaster.
Though readers of the final report would conclude that Captain Turner was responsible of the disaster, Lord Mersey added an interesting statement at the end, “The whole blame for the cruel destruction of life in this catastrophe must rest with those who plotted and with those who committed the crime.”
Two days after delivering the judgment, Lord Mercy wrote to Prime Minister Asquith saying, “I must request that henceforth I be excused from administering His Majesty’s Justice.” He resigned and turned down his fee for services. In later years his only related comment was, “The Lusitania case was a damned dirty business.”
In America, the plotters wasted no time to whip up public outrage. However, Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, disgusted by the duplicity of his own government wrote to Wilson,
“Germany has a right to prevent contraband going to the Allies, and a ship carrying contraband should not rely upon passengers to protect them from attack – it would be like putting women and children in front of an army.” Next day he resigned.
The ensuing artificially-generated war hysteria was in the end traceable to the financial powers of Wall Street and to the newly created Federal Reserve Bank. Of which, in a foretelling statement, a previous American president, Andrew Jackson, had said, “… Controlling our currency, receiving our public monies, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it (a Federal reserve Bank) would be more formidable and dangerous than a naval and military power of the enemy.”
116,708 American soldiers and military personnel died in WW1. Though no doubt, as Woodrow Wilson said, “the world was made safe for democracy,” while the usual suspects, safely and soundly, laughed all the way to the bank.
Given that most students (and therefore most people), know little or nothing of the Lusitania disaster and its background, it is predictable that a similar fate will apply to the knowledge of 9/11 by future generations.
Though it is and will not be their fault. It’s the recurring case of enforced bigotry, induced blindness, and lavish submission to the notions of others. It retards the progress of reason, like a cloud that intercepts our views, and throws a shade over the light of truth.
For men, by involuntarily indulging a false notion, may inevitably ignore that it is false, hence being unable to ever make it true. All the while being unaware that falsehood is but one effect and externation of the rapacity of power.
References:
(1) All’s Well that Ends Well
(2) King John
(3) Macbeth
(4) As You Like It
Image Site. https://tinyurl.com/yb5nauvt