9/11 Explains the Impotence Of The Anti-war Movement
anti-war movement has proven impotent to stop the war in
Iraq despite the fact that the war was initiated on the
basis of lies and deception. The anti-war movement
stands helpless to prevent President Bush from attacking
Iran or any other country that he might demonize for
harboring a future 9/11 threat.
September 11 enabled Bush to take America to war and
to keep America at war even though the government`s
explanation of the events of September 11 is mired in
controversy and disbelieved by a large percentage of the
the news media`s investigative arm has withered, other
entities and individuals continue to struggle with
unanswered questions. In the six years since 9/11,
numerous distinguished scientists, engineers,
architects, intelligence officers, pilots, military
officers, air traffic controllers, and foreign
dignitaries have raised serious and unanswered questions
about the official story line.
Recognition of the inadequacy of the official account of
the collapse of the twin towers is widespread in the
scientific and technical community. One of the most
glaring failures in the official account is the lack of
an explanation of the near free-fall speed at which the
buildings failed once the process began. Some scientists
and engineers have attempted to bolster the official
account with explanations of how this might happen in
the absence of explosives used in controlled
recent example is the work of Cambridge University
Dr. Keith Seffen, published in the Journal of
Engineering Mechanics and
reported by the BBC on September 11, 2007. Dr.
Seffen constructed a mathematical model that concludes
that once initiation of failure had begun, progressive
collapse of the structures would be rapid.
example is the work of retired government scientist Dr.
commissioned by CounterPunch to fill the gaping void
in the official report. Garcia concludes, as does
Seffen, that explosives are not necessary to explain the
near free-fall speed at which the WTC buildings
and Garcia each offer a speculative hypothesis about
what could have happened. Their accounts are not
definitive explanations based on evidence of what did
happen. Thus, Seffen and Garcia bring us to the crux of
the matter: To understand the buildings` failures,
we must rely on theoretical speculative models, because
the forensic evidence was not examined. Their
explanations thus have no more validity than a
speculative hypothesis that explains the failure of the
buildings as a result of explosives.
rationally choose between the hypotheses, we would need
to see how well each fits with the evidence, but most of
the evidence was quickly dispersed and destroyed by
federal authorities. Most of the evidence that remains
consists largely of human testimony: the hundred
witnesses who were inside the two towers and who report
hearing and experiencing explosions and the televised
statement of Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the
WTC properties, who clearly said that the decision was
made "to pull" WTC 7.
six years after 9/11, money, ideologies, accumulated
resentments, and political careers are all allied with
the official story line on 9/11. Anyone on a Republican
mailing list or a conservative activist list, such as
Young Americans for Freedom, knows that fundraising
appeals seldom fail to evoke the 9/11 attack on America.
The 9/11 attacks gave
neoconservatives their "new Pearl Harbor"
that enabled them to implement their hegemonic agenda in
the Middle East. The 9/11 attacks gave Americans
boiling with accumulated frustrations a foe upon whom to
vent their rage. Politicians, even Democrats, could
show that they stood tall for America. George W. Bush
has invested two presidential terms in "fighting
terror" by invading countries in the Middle East.
September 11 doubters are a threat to the legitimacy of
these massive material and emotional interests. That is
why they are shouted down as "conspiracy theorists."
But if the government`s story has to be improved by
outside experts in order to be plausible, then it is not
irrational or kooky to doubt the official explanation.
of the American left-wing are also frustrated by 9/11
doubters. CounterPunch, for example, views 9/11 as
blowback from an immoral US foreign policy and as
retribution for America`s past sins in the Middle East.
Manuel Garcia shares this viewpoint. In the September
12, 2007, CounterPunch, Garcia writes that
"rationalists and realists" are people who see 9/11
"as blowback from decades of inhuman US foreign policy."
Viewing 9/11 as a government conspiracy,
whether in deed or coverup, lets US foreign policy
off the hook.
This is a legitimate
point of view. But it has a downside. September 11 was
the excuse for committing yet more inhuman deeds by
initiating open-ended wars on both Muslims and
US civil liberties. Defending the government`s
account, instead of pressing the government for
accountability, was liberating for the Bush
the official account, the story is one of massive
failures: the failures of US intelligence services, the
airport security, the failures to intercept the
hijacked airliners, the failures to preserve evidence.
If a common front had taken the Bush administration to
task both for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks and
for an explanation of 9/11 so inadequate that its
plausibility depends on outside experts, Bush could not
have so easily shifted the blame to Afghanistan and
Iraq. Most 9/11 doubters do not insist on the US
government`s complicity in the deed. Failure to
protect, or incompetence, is a sufficient charge to
deter an administration from war by turning it against
itself with demands for accountability.
one was held accountable for 9/11 except Muslim
countries. This is the reason the anti-war movement is
CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
Paul Craig Roberts
him] was Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.
He is the author of
Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider`s Account of
Policymaking in Washington;
and the Soviet Economy and
Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy,
and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of
The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and
Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name
of Justice. Click
here for Peter
Brimelow`s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts
about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.