Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Five Reasons People Deny 9/11 Was An Inside Job

I have never re-posted a story on here before. In light of recent events in my personal life, I've felt the need to revisit this excellent column by Douglas Herman that I originally posted on March 2, 2007. Of course, sadly, this article won't make a difference to the people it applies to

by Douglas Herman
February 26, 2007


Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world — a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community — want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.

2. Complacency.

Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer "to get along to go along," to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief (aside from sports) would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint — but only the mildest, acceptable complaint — and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.

3. Cowardice

Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion (contrary to the state and the corporate media that is), they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought

4. Conviction

Conviction — to be convinced of one's rightness — and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually. A great many believers (in the official story) are as convinced of the Kean Commission version of 911, as we skeptics are of their error. These believers claim, with many, many intelligent professionals to back up their claims, that steel does weaken and melt from fuel fires and big buildings do indeed collapse, that falling concrete does indeed pulverize into micro-sized dust particles, that incompetence does not necessarily indicate evil. We truthers, in turn, claim the mass of incriminating evidence overwhelms the experts and trumps their testimony. So who is more right? Time will tell. But the only way we will ever convince these true believers (our co-workers, friends and family) of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. And every day more and more disgruntled citizens are becoming convinced we may have a point.

5. Collusion

A secret activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of FRAUD. The definition of collusion. The US media colludes every day. They collude with the White House or Pentagon or State Department to perpetrate some fraud or other. And many of us collude right along with them. The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government — NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials — know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank. Privately they may not agree with many aspects of the official version but, publicly, they will NOT utter a single statement, will NOT go on record, publicly, with a single dissenting word. Not while there is money to be made. And so, of all the 911 deniers, they are most complicit with the crime.


And sometimes a combination of all of them.

Footnote: A tip of the cap to those activists at 911Blogger.com. Not only do I read the columns posted there but the remarks (an addiction) and sneers from the trolls. This column is dedicated to the 911 activists everywhere, in recognition of the five types of people you run up against every day — and I mean against.

Aging iconoclast, antiwar leftist, touchy-feely environmentalist and admirer of pioneers, eccentrics and free thinkers, Douglas Herman wrote the slow-moving crime novel, The Guns of Dallas, available at www.amazon.com.

No comments: