9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of "Conspiracy Theory"
By Paul Craig Roberts
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25339
Global Research, June 20, 2011
While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.
A
“conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a
conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that
is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media
pimps.
For
example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy
theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and
opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government
does not endorse.
In
other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its
Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by
which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should
ignore.
When
piles of carefully researched books, released government documents, and
testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Oswald was not President
John F. Kennedy’s assassin, the voluminous research, government
documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as “conspiracy theory.”
In
other words, the truth of the event was unacceptable to the authorities
and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of
authorities.
The
purest example of how Americans are shielded from truth is the media’s
(including many Internet sites’) response to the large number of
professionals who find the official explanation of September 11, 2001,
inconsistent with everything they, as experts, know about physics,
chemistry, structural engineering, architecture, fires, structural
damage, the piloting of airplanes, the security procedures of the United
States, NORAD’s capabilities, air traffic control, airport security,
and other matters. These experts, numbering in the thousands, have been
shouted down by know-nothings in the media who brand the experts as
“conspiracy theorists.”
This
despite the fact that the official explanation endorsed by the official
media is the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history.
Let’s
take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation,
which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it
comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful
of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians
who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the
CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all
intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is
believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which
carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.
In
addition to outwitting every intelligence agency of the United States
and its allies, the handful of young Saudi Arabians outwitted the
National Security Council, the State Department, NORAD, airport security
four times in the same hour on the same morning, air traffic control,
caused the US Air Force to be unable to launch interceptor aircraft,
and caused three well-built steel-structured buildings, including one
not hit by an airplane, to fail suddenly in a few seconds as a result of
limited structural damage and small, short-lived, low-temperature fires
that burned on a few floors.
The
Saudi terrorists were even able to confound the laws of physics and
cause WTC building seven to collapse at free fall speed for several
seconds, a physical impossibility in the absence of explosives used in
controlled demolition.
The
story that the government and the media have told us amounts to a
gigantic conspiracy, really a script for a James Bond film. Yet, anyone
who doubts this improbable conspiracy theory is defined into irrelevance
by the obedient media.
Anyone
who believes an architect, structural engineer, or demolition expert
who says that the videos show that the buildings are blowing up, not
falling down, anyone who believes a Ph.D. physicist who says that the
official explanation is inconsistent with known laws of physics, anyone
who believes expert pilots who testify that non-pilots or
poorly-qualified pilots cannot fly airplanes in such maneuvers, anyone
who believes the 100 or more first responders who testify that they not
only heard explosions in the towers but personally experienced
explosions, anyone who believes University of Copenhagen nano-chemist
Niels Harrit who reports finding unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples
from the WTC towers, anyone who is convinced by experts instead of by
propaganda is dismissed as a kook.
In
America today, and increasingly throughout the Western world, actual
facts and true explanations have been relegated to the realm of
kookiness. Only people who believe lies are socially approved and
accepted as patriotic citizens.
Indeed,
a writer or newscaster is not even permitted to report the findings of
9/11 skeptics. In other words, simply to report Professor Harrit’s
findings now means that you endorse them or agree with them. Everyone
in the US print and TV media knows that he/she will be instantly fired
if they report Harrit’s findings, even with a laugh. Thus, although
Harrit has reported his findings on European television and has lectured
widely on his findings in Canadian universities, the fact that he and
the international scientific research team that he led found unreacted
nano-thermite in the WTC dust and have offered samples to other
scientists to examine has to my knowledge never been reported in the
American media.
Even Internet sites on which I am among the readers’ favorites will not allow me to report on Harrit’s findings.
As
I reported earlier, I myself had experience with a Huffington Post
reporter who was keen to interview a Reagan presidential appointee who
was in disagreement with the Republican wars in the Middle East.
After he published the interview that I provided at his request, he was
terrified to learn that I had reported findings of 9/11 investigators.
To protect his career, he quickly inserted on the online interview that
my views on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions could be dismissed as I
had reported unacceptable findings about 9/11.
The
unwillingness or inability to entertain any view of 9/11 different from
the official view dooms to impotence many Internet sites that are
opposed to the wars and to the rise of the domestic US police state.
These sites, for whatever the reasons, accept the government’s
explanation of 9/11; yet, they try to oppose the “war on terror” and
the police state which are the consequences of accepting the
government’s explanation. Trying to oppose the consequences of an event
whose explanation you accept is an impossible task.
If
you believe that America was attacked by Muslim terrorists and is
susceptible to future attacks, then a “war on terror” and a domestic
police state to root out terrorists become necessary to make Americans
safe. The idea that a domestic police state and open-ended war might be
more dangerous threats to Americans than terrorists is an impermissible
thought.
A
country whose population has been trained to accept the government’s
word and to shun those who question it is a country without liberty in
its future.
