Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill – Buddha
Words are more treacherous and powerful than we think – Jean-Paul Sartre
By Craig McKee
Words can be used to reveal many truths. They can also obscure the truth, even in ways their users do not intend. Once a particular word used in a particular context has penetrated our consciousness, it’s very hard to dislodge.
Case in point, a favourite term of the 9/11 Truth movement: the “official conspiracy theory” or OCT. This refers to the official story proffered by the government and the “mainstream” media: 19 fundamentalist Muslims led by Osama bin Laden decided one day to punish America for being too darned free.
But it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s not a theory at all. That’s because the people who created the story know damned well it’s not true. That makes it a “lie.” So the term “official conspiracy theory” plays right into the hands of the official liars.
So, let’s stop using it. I’m sticking to “official story,” “official narrative,” or “cover story” (not the kind in Time or Newsweek).
Another insidious term that slips in to usage all too often: the “attacks” of Sept. 11, 2001. The use of this one is lazy at best and dishonest at worst. While one could justify the term on the basis that even a false flag operation is an “attack,” the fact is that most people think of an attack as coming from an external enemy.
To quote journalist, media critic, and 9/11 truther Barrie Zwicker: “Words and phrases such as “attack,” “terrorist attacks,” “September 11th attacks,” “failures” (to “act on intelligence reports” and such) are like grenades lobbed into our brains. They contain the DNA of the official lie. They perpetuate it. They are viruses that infect the public mind.”
Zwicker says the Toronto 9/11 Hearings were at one time to be called the Toronto Hearings into the Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He says he pointed this out to organizers, and the offending word was changed to “events.” But the question remains, how did it get in there in the first place?
A statement on the Hearings’ web site dated Feb. 20, 2011 contains multiple references to the “attacks of 9/11.” This sentence: “In the meantime, the credibility of the official reports on the 9/11 attacks (by the 9/11 Commission…” The bolds are mine, the mistake is clear.
Lower down in the same piece: “At the same time, there are good reasons to choose a location reasonably close to the attacks of September 11, 2001…” And at the bottom: “The Toronto Hearings Steering Committee would like to make an appeal to all citizens … committed to discovering the truth about the attacks of September 11.”
Toronto Hearings moderator Michael Keefer blew me away when he introduced David Ray Griffin on the morning of Sept. 11, 2011, the last day of the hearings. He referred to the books Griffin has written as “assessing different aspects of the evidence pertaining to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”
Wow. I imagine this was just a slip of the tongue but it does illustrate how easy it is to fall into the terminology of the lie. To my knowledge, no one drew attention to this comment or corrected it. In fact, I’ve yet to speak to anyone who even noticed it. Watch it for yourself. The offending comment occurs about seven minutes in.
A statement on the Hearings’ site from Sept. 6, 2011 about the Building 7 awareness campaign, reads: “This campaign has the power to put Building 7’s collapse in front of 10 million New Yorkers and create a groundswell of demand for a new investigation, but only with your support.”
As Adam Ruff points out in his excellent essay on the subject of words reinforcing the official story, calling it a “collapse” indicates that the building just fell down because it failed structurally in some way. Ruff prefers “demolition,” and I agree. I’d even settle for “destruction” because at least that doesn’t reinforce any official lies.
The 9/11 Consensus project, co-founded by David Ray Griffin, published 13 consensus points in Sept. 2011 that have been agreed upon by at least 85% of the panel members. Five more were added in January, including two dealing with the Pentagon. Points 4A and 5A begin: “Why the Attack on the Pentagon Was Not Prevented.”
Yes, this refers to the reasons given in the official story for the “event” not being prevented, but it still takes as a given that “attacks” occurred.
There is also an Oct. 19, 2011 press release on their site that perpetuates the problem: “In a different news story, on October 17th, Britain’s BBC’s Today Programme interviewed FBI whistleblower Ali Soufan.
“Soufan revealed – as had White House former anti-terror chief Richard Clarke some weeks before him – that the CIA deliberately blocked FBI warnings of impending hijacker attacks – warnings that could have prevented the attacks.
“These press reports lean towards evidence of domestic complicity in the attacks, long believed by independent researchers. But some pundits say that journalists are not qualified to challenge the government’s technical reports on the building collapses and the Pentagon attack – that expert opinion must be engaged if these reports are to be meaningfully challenged.”
The 9/11 feature film A Violation of Trust, which is slated to begin filming next month (featuring Ed Asner, Martin Sheen, Woody Harrelson, and others) makes this critical mistake just seconds into the film, according to several versions of the script I’ve seen dated between Feb. and Dec. 2011). A voice-over in the December version begins with: “On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked with over 3,000 lives lost.”
WRONG! The United States was NOT attacked! An elaborate false flag deception was staged to create the APPEARANCE that the U.S. had been attacked. How can a script that has been seen literally by dozens of truthers (who were asked to check the accuracy of the script) retain this massive error for so long? I don’t know whether the final film will contain this erroneous voice-over or not; the script is still being revised.
Another problematic reference is to the “crash” in Shanksville. We don’t know that a plane crashed there. What seems almost certain is that a plane crash was faked in that field in Shanksville. We can’t refer to a crash at the Pentagon for the same reason.
What about “hijacked planes”? This is used all the time even though there is strong evidence to suggest that there were no hijackings that day. I’m guilty of this myself by using “hijacked planes” as a tag for articles that mention planes. Perhaps I should have used “allegedly hijacked planes.”
The web site of the Toronto Hearings also indicates that one of the presentations was to address “air defence failures.” Once again, to call the non-response a failure assumes that the military wanted to prevent what happened. But what if it was a stand down? No failure. What if no commercial airliners were used? Again, no failure.
The English language is constantly being twisted and pulled in every direction by those who wish to mislead or misdirect us about what is really happening in and to our world. That’s why it’s essential that those of us who want to expose and propagate the truth – about 9/11 and other related events – not make it any easier for them.