2007-10-25
Maher, the Media and the 'taboo' of 9/11 Truth.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." – Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic. (ironically, Chomsky is not a 9/11 truther...)
_______________________________________________________________________Use of the word 'heretic', especially since the Middle Ages, is a semantic trick used by the guardians of a mythology to protect that mythology from challengers. Simply label the challenger a heretic, and you're done--brilliant, efficient, no need to engage in arguments you might lose--your only concern is when, where and how to carry out a public execution or at the very least, a house arrest. Galileo's new cosmology challenging Catholic orthodoxy certainly comes to mind.
We now have an orthodox view of 9/11: the Commission report. It has every stamp of what it should really be called--a myth, and as such, commands a devout following. Enter the modern 'Galileos'--the scientists who understand physics, and also the freethinking common man/woman who watched the event unfold and felt ill at ease with the narrative we were so quickly and conclusively being told to swallow. September 11th, 2001, has been such a central event in modern history and political policy, and an excuse for every possible aggressive action on the world stage, and an excuse for every new assault on the constitution, that it is crucial that the public come to an accurate understanding of the events of that day. At the very least, the process of discussing the events of that dark day must remain open and acceptable.
Alas, in the case of 9/11 truth, we see that it is not in the 'spectrum of acceptable opinion' for our time, since not only right-wing news outlets (FOX), but now even dependable die-hard liberal iconoclasts like Bill Maher are labelling the 9/11 truth movement as being comprised of a 'bunch of wackos'--basically, not even worthy heretics. Also, the cases of Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell illustrate just how afraid the media is to touch 9/11 truth with a 10-foot pole--better to stop the questions than to try and answer them...has any major news outlet shown the collapse of WTC7 since Rosie brought it up, and then was promptly FIRED? Certainly not, because THAT would open up having to engage in INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM. Remember that? You know, 60 minutes and such shows? No? Where is today's Edward R. Murrow? Never mind, let's just continue on with character assassination. Turn on 'The O'Reilly Factor', sit down, shut up and listen, that's what we should do. Rosie is so obnoxious and fat, after all, a true 'out-of-control Hollywood liberal'.
The recent events on Bill Maher's shows really illustrates how far this orthodoxy runs. Mr. Maher, usually considered a darling of the loud-mouthed Bush-bashing left, aired a program September 14th, where in his 'New Rules' segment he declared the 9/11 truth movement was a bunch of wackos who should 'ask their doctors whether Paxil was right for them'. Then on Oct. 19th, some hecklers in the audience gave Maher some feedback--'WHAT ABOUT BUILDING 7?', among other questions. The camera panned to the audience, showing a small banner being unfurled, barely legible, but clearly calling for 9/11 lies to be stopped. Maher, otherwise the free speech advocate, called in security and had the hecklers removed. The ruckus continued nonetheless. In his usual defiant way, Maher stated that "On this ONE issue, Bush and I agree". Too bad it's the one issue that Bush built his entire disasterous legacy upon. And, as Rudy Guiliani, 'mayor 9/11' won't shut up about it, we would be in for more of the same fear-mongering, orange-alert, "nothing matters now except our safety" policy were he to be elected. Endless war, so buy up your Hallibuton and Boeing stock while it's still affordable.
Clearly, Maher had struck a nerve with a good portion of his audience, puzzling and/or pissing many off who would otherwise watch him voraciously: "Maher-not calling into question the official story? WHAT?"
FOX news commentators followed suit; usually Maher's sworn enemy, they jumped on his bandwagon, calling him a hero (at least for that week) for silencing the hecklers. Also, they probably felt a little warm and fuzzy that he could finally give Bush a single game point.
I have to admit--I was blown away and disturbed, not as much that Maher didn't necessarily consider himself a 9/11 truther, but more by his actions which effectively close the book on the issue for him. This is the same Bill Maher that frequently invites right-wing guests to appear on his show, to at least engage them in questions. At the very least, even if you believe Maher invites guests of opposing views on to *ridicule* them, one would think he would have a Charlie Sheen or Rosie O'Donnell on, to name two high profile 9/11 truthers, so he could 'go at them'.
Astonishingly, perhaps due to getting fired from his previous post at ABC relating to 9/11 comments, but perhaps because something more insidious has evolved---Bill Maher the iconoclast is no more, at least as far as the most important topic of our time is concerned.
Sympathetic to Bill's views? We truthers are 'wackos'? Then I ask you, the reader, to survey the so-called 'serious literature' abounding that backs up the official story ('conspiracy theory #1', by the way--it's also a 'conspiracy theory'); and the alternate view that ranges from "the official story is flawed" to "the government is involved and engaging in a cover-up of a major false-flag operation designed to manipulate the American fear and psyche into an endless war with no clear enemy or goal for the sake of lining the pockets of the military industrial complex."
What one will quickly see is that the pro-official story, 'anti-9/11 truth' arguments, which are EVERYWHERE, boil down to bad physics on the one hand (how does a plane disintegrate while preserving a plastic passport of, surprise, a hijacker?--how convenient!), and ad hominem character attacks on the other--Charlie Sheen is a womanizer, Rosie O'Donnell is obnoxious and fat, these people are insane, crazy, kooks, lunatics, and now from Maher, where one would least expect it--'ask you doctor if Paxil is right for you'. Ha-ha. Not a shred of decent evidence or rebuttal consistant with any laws of physics is presented, and the 'best' answer often put forward is 'a conspiracy of that magnitude would be to hard to pull off, there would be whistle blowers, etc.', which amounts to saying 'I will never believe that it can be done regardless of how much the physical evidence indicates that the official story is woefully flawed'. It's worth pointing out that the same people have no problem believing that a conspiracy of 19 (mostly Saudi, not Iraqi, mind you) hijackers and a whole Arab underbelly society could pull of such a stunt and be completely quiet about it, as if there can only be insanely devout terrorists, and not insanely devout CIA operatives, neo-con 'hawks', or dual-citizen-cabinet-member-pro-Israeli Zionists.
On the other hand, when you look at the 9/11 truth movement as a whole, if you are not shamed by the current 'taboo' to do so, you get an intelligent array of hard facts, arguments from physics, thought provoking questions and analysis, an array of strange and incredibly disturbing 'coincidences', and most importantly, a thorough understanding of historical precedence and motive, all of which stand in stark opposition and contradiction to the amazingly unbelievable "official story". False-flag operations are known to have existed in the past (e.g. the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to Vietnam), and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that when the military industrial complex wants or needs something to get done in this country, it will happen, even if there has to be American blood involved.
Here's the very tip of the giant iceberg of evidence available to you if you do your research:
1. the fact that steel can't possibly melt or even weaken enough to make a buiding collapse at free-fall speed with the heat available from an uncontolled burn of kerosene (jet fuel). If you doubt this, consider that your steel pots and pans wouldn't melt after sitting all day on your blue-flamed (CONTROLLED BURN) stove top.
2. No steel-framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire. The official story wants to persuade that three buildings on that day collapsed due to fire, for the first time in history. The bottom part of WTC 1 and 2, which have always held the weight of the upper parts of the building, had no reason to collapse. If somehow melting were possible, as the flawed 'pancake theory' suggests, the collapse would certainly not happen at free fall speed as it did---meaning, there would be at least some structural resistance to the collapse. The ONLY way a building can collapse at free fall speed is if you remove the obstacles from under the collapsing structure---with explosives.
3. There were diagonal shears on the steel columns consistant with the use of demolitions.
4. There was sulfur found at ground zero, consistant with the use of thermate explosives, which is military grade. Why else would we find sulphur there? Anyone? Thermate cuts through steel like a 'knife through butter'.
5. The concrete was pure powder, almost completely pulverized. This only would happen with explosives. A normal building collapse would have big chunks of concrete, at least. No--we saw a thick powder, like after a volcano.
6.Several hundreds of eyewitnesses at ground zero saw, heard and felt MULTIPLE explosions. This is backed up seismic recordings.
7.Saving the best for last--perhaps the STRONGEST piece of evidence, the 'smoking gun', is the collapse of WTC7, which was NOT hit by a plane, and had two small fires burning on separate floors. Reviewing the live footage of this is extremely educational--all of the footage I have seen from different reporters remark at how the nature of the collapse bore every signature of a controlled demolition with explosives. Google 'WTC7 collapse' and watch a video to see for yourself why. Oddly, the general public has often forgotten about this building, and the media isn't to quick to remind them, either.
Of course, the mountain of problems for the official story goes on and on, I needn't repeat the list here, by all means, do your homework. Suffice it to say that it's a cruel joke, to say the least, that the American public has been fooled yet again by the powers that be, and has mostly swallowed wholesale the 9/11 truth commission orthodoxy. Thankfully the growing questions are emerging in spite of the rhetoric of 'those crazy 9/11 nutjobs' one hears daily. Hint to Fox news--if you really want to keep it quiet, don't even say anything.
Why the media silence? One can only guess, but there is surely a trail from some of the powers that be (those presumably behind the actions/and or media distortions) to most of the major media outlets in this country. Apart from that, look at the general climate in this country, even without the media---discussions of 9/11 truth are an unspoken taboo of the very type Chomsky so ironically points out. Look at how the only two presidental candidates with the balls to say anything regarding 9/11 truth--Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, have become the targets of orthodox media attack, all the while gaining the respect of a growing population who are sick of the narrowness of the current zeitgeist.
It's no surprise that to get the best picture of what's happening in and to America, one must read foreign journalism and/or independent bloggers and investigators, some of whom gather their scientific data from scientists who have risked their personal careers to reveal what they know to be true. Why should that surprise us? When has anyone expected that, for instance, the South African press had the best reporting of Apartheid? If you think our press is 'free', you haven't been reading much lately.
In any event, Bill Maher, sadly, seems to be one of the people who has either remained ignorant about WTC7, or has done his homework since, and still feels he has to stand his ground rather than back-pedalling. Either way, it's a disappointing loss for anyone who was looking for a truly heretical, iconoclastic voice in this all-to-narrow climate.