That Rumbling You Hear is the Crumbling of the Empire    

Jenna Orkin

September 25  New York City   This morning the blog received a comment that the video "9/11:  Confronting the Evidence"* was on RAI, a major Italian television network, during prime time on Saturday night.**  The show included an extensive interview lasting about ten minutes with Mike.  This report seems accurate since visits from Italy to which was also featured on the tape have skyrocketed.  

Not only are "things moving under the carpet" as Mike is fond of saying; the walls of the edifice are cracking and those things are scurrying all over the place.  The frantic moves on the part of the Bush administration to shore up the only levees that matter to them are transparent to FTW readers as a case of, "Methinks they doth protest too much."  Of course, as we all know, FTW readers are not the mainstream.  

But the United States is La-la land; the rest of the world is getting it.  Even New York City which is known for its snooty attitude to the rest of the country, preferring to think of itself as "a small island off the coast of Europe," still believes itself to be the liberal bastion it was thirty years ago, its hometown paper, the venerable Times, a beacon of forward thinking.  The gavel-pounding of old school liberals like Paul Krugman on the Op-Ed page foster this image while in the pages that count - the News - there is a blackout on some key truths.  Those of us who've worked on the environmental disaster of 9/11 from day one know this only too well.  But that is subject for another story.  

Left-leaning editorial pages are an ingenious ingredient in a right-wing mix, like the sweet tunes of the Pied Piper, leading the reader to lethal conclusions.  Just as the mainstream media have not considered the war games on 9/11 (or even, for that matter, whatever happened to the anthrax investigation) to be news that's fit to print, they have taken years to acknowledge Peak Oil and then, only with a limited hang-out.  How useful is it to tell everyone we have an oil crisis when in your next breath you tell them we can fix it with ethanol, hybrids and that good ol' American can-do spirit?  And how useful is it when the information you withhold - the economic and social implications of that crisis - is the most critical?  

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.  One of the most strenuous arguments heard to the idea that the Bush administration perpetrated 9/11 is, "There would have had to be thousands of people keeping the secret."    This argument is based on several false assumptions, the first being that you would need thousands of people all knowing the big picture.  But people, especially in government bureaucracies, have specific jobs.  Only those at the top of the pyramid know the whole picture or even why they're doing what they're being asked to do.  

The second false assumption is that carrying off such a scheme is impossible.  But as pointed out by Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker,    "by the time the world learned of the existence of the Manhattan Project because of the horrific news from Hiroshima, the project employed 43,000 people at 37 facilities in 19 states and Canada...Another example would ve [sic] the stealth bomber, until it was decided to unveil it. Also, in the Second World War, the Germans did not learn for several years that the British had invented radar and were using it."  

The reasons for disbelief in Bush involvement in 9/11 are not rational but emotional.  Invariably, the people who argue most forcefully against the idea are those who have not read Crossing the Rubicon.  One hears nonsensical arguments such as, "What about the hijackers?" as though Mike and other researchers were suggesting that Dick Cheney was piloting all four of the crashed planes.  

But Europe and the rest of the world are not so invested in believing that the United States is honorable.  Also they have reason to know better, many of them coming from the perspective of one who's been under our boot.   

Unfortunately, being far away, they are also more easily misled about logistical matters, for instance by hoaxes such as those perpetrated by Thierry Meyssan soon after the attacks, that no plane hit the Pentagon.  The Neo-Cons have been able to use this also as a weapon in their favor, for some Washington natives who witnessed a plane flying into the Pentagon thereafter wrote off all U.S. conspiracy allegations as crackpot.  

Much discussion has taken place among 9/11 writers about certain well-intentioned websites and researchers who have been misled by hoaxes.  Does their reputation suffer forever from guilt by association with an idea which was later shown to be false?  Or is the spread of dissent in general a good thing because it makes people question the fundamental story as put forth by the Bush administration?   

But enough of hoaxes.  While the various missile and nuke theories used to intrigue a number of people ("It looks like a porn site," my son observed - with disdain, I hasten to add - about one such website) the fact remains that the war games prompt crucial questions and present unassailable evidence of Bush administration involvement in the attacks.  The war games are the Rosetta stone of 9/11.  And every day the world is hearing more about them and every day more people are listening.    

*9/11:  Confronting the Evidence was produced by Jimmy Walter. (put link to reopen if you want to.] **Thanks to Piano B for the message from Italy and to all our other blog readers and correspondents who have been so vital in sustaining FTW