By Craig McKee
When it came to big lies, Adolph Hitler was the expert. But when he said that it’s easier to get people to believe a big lie than a small one, he was telling the truth.
This is the strategy that was employed on September 11, 2001.
To get to the truth, I believe that we need to know everything about how this massive illusion was perpetrated that day. It was a big lie – bigger than most of us are willing to imagine. It was so enormous and so complex that most 9/11 truthers feel the need to boil it down to a manageable size to make the case that it was indeed an inside job. We feel we need to keep the scope of the deception small or risk alienating those who might believe us.
But there’s a problem with this. After a decade, the strategy has fallen short because it puts too many eggs in one basket. Our fear of being ridiculed if we discuss controversial 9/11 subjects has narrowed our focus to the point that the whole movement is prepared to rise or fall on our ability to convince the world that the twin towers were intentionally demolished.
Of course, there is almost unanimous agreement within the Truth movement that the towers were indeed brought down by means other than planes and jet fuel. But that virtual unanimity has still not led to the breakthrough that we all seek.
There aren’t any prime time specials on network TV about the controlled demolition of the towers, and there aren’t any major exposés in the New York Times or the Washington Post about how the 9/11 official story is a web of lies.
The best we’ve done in recent months was getting Geraldo Rivera to admit on Fox News that the destruction of Building 7 looked like a controlled demolition. Even with this suspicion, Rivera rejects the possibility that the U.S. government was involved. (Having said this, I think the Building What? campaign in New York is an excellent strategy because its aim is simply to get an investigation into the destruction of that one building – a foot-in-the-door approach.)
The problem with sticking only with explosives, thermite, and the towers is that you won’t convince the world that they should revise their conclusions about 9/11 because one element of the official story is suspect. Why would one element of the story be a deception and not the rest? It doesn’t make sense. The fact is that ALL OF THE OFFICIAL STORY IS AN ILLUSION. And we shouldn’t be afraid to say so.
Now I do understand the risk of getting behind a controversial theory only to have it destroyed later. That’s why I am cautious about doing so. But I don’t believe this should eliminate the debate in advance. If someone advances a theory – like Dr. Judy Wood suggesting the use of directed energy weapons, for example – then the theory will stand or fall on its merits.
There are things about the official story that are crying out for examination that have been relegated to the “fringes.” Was there doctoring – or outright faking – of the visual record of that day? There’s plenty of reason to be suspicious here. But to even suggest this will cost you your credibility with many in the movement. This topic, it is alleged, will bring ridicule to the movement and lead to it being dismissed by the throngs of open-minded people who are apparently teetering on the brink of being convinced.
On the live CNN coverage (visuals courtesy of WABC), we clearly see what appears to be a plane flying behind the south tower before a fireball emerges from the other side of the building. Unfortunately, the on-air hosts of the show don’t see this. An eyewitness being interviewed reports that the building is exploding but makes no mention of a plane. It takes a producer off camera to introduce the possibility that a passenger airliner hit the building. Not proof of anything, but intriguing nonetheless.
Then there’s the famous “nose out” shot where the nose of the plane appears to emerge through the other side of the building. This same shot on different networks is accompanied with a bizarre fade to black as if someone noticed the “error” and tried to mask it. Add to this the dozens of other visual anomalies, and there’s at least something worth investigating.
This doesn’t happen, however. Mentioning TV fakery offers Truthers a one-way ticket to the loony fringe of the movement. But it shouldn’t. Drawing controversial conclusions that have no facts behind them is one thing; but suggesting that suspicious elements should be looked into further should be encouraged.
I have a lot of questions about the destruction of the towers that aren’t being answered by conventional controlled demolition alone. Why was there so little left of the 110-storey buildings? Why did vehicles catch fire and even melt when trees and paper was left untouched? Why are some vehicles flipped upside down when others are not? What can account for molten metal under the rubble for three months?
If any of those who believe in playing it safe have answers for these questions, I’m all ears. James Gourley, who is behind the Toronto 9/11 Hearings, suggests the cars could have burned because of thermite that was carried through the air during the destruction. He wrote this in a rebuttal to a paper by Dr. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds. I don’t know that Gourley’s claim is possible, but at least the question was addressed. Most people won’t even do that.
I believe we are willing to let too many elements of the official story stand unchallenged. Some of our most respected names don’t want to question the government/media claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon, for instance. It’s incredible to me that the Pentagon evidence is considered too controversial to even be discussed. We’ll soon see how the Toronto Hearings plan to handle this.
“Shock and awe” is a term that was popularized during the Iraq War, but the idea had already been put into use before that war began – on 9/11. The doctrine – originally called “rapid dominance” – was created in 1996 by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade. One of the goals, they wrote at the time, was to “seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary’s perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels.”
This is a perfect description of how we were all dazzled and disoriented on that day. We were not literally a battlefield enemy on 9/11, but we were opponents to be subdued psychologically.
The official story of 9/11 is a complex web of lies designed to overwhelm us. To find the truth, we have to be willing to take that story apart until there is nothing left. The sooner we get together and start, the better.