9/11 AND AMERICAN EMPIRE: Intellectuals Speak Out, Reviewed, By Carolyn Baker
"Surely there can be no higher duty for academics and other intellectuals at this time than to expose the big lie of 9/11, thereby undermining the primary pretext for the global domination project."
Morgan Reynolds, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Texas A& M University (P. 115 of 9/11 And American Empire)
Professors David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott have edited a masterpiece of critical thinking and scholarly analysis in this collection of articles by intellectuals who have broken silence on the atrocities of September 11, 2001. I have revered Peter Dale Scott for many years, having used his books and articles in my college history classes. This wise elder, professor emeritus of English, is one of few in academia who have addressed the United States government's half-century role in drug trafficking and money laundering, and he has offered us the concept of deep politics, which "posits that in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed collectively, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so. Like all other observers, I too have involuntarily suppressed facts and even memories about the drug traffic that were too provocative to be retained with equanimity." Scott's co-editing of this volume is particularly significant because if ever the issue of deep politics were germane, it is in relation to 9/11
David Ray Griffin, professor emeritus of religion, theology, and philosophy is the critical thinker's thinker, having authored two previous masterpieces, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About The Bush Administration and 9/11 and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. If you have been privileged to watch Griffin on video or DVD, you must confess that his demeanor, as well as his research on 9/11, adds a human dimension to his analysis that conveys both compassion and objectivity.
As a member of academia myself, I am buoyed by the caliber of scholars included in the Griffin-Scott volume, particularly in the light of what I consider higher education's abject paranoia regarding skepticism of the official story of 9/11. As I stated when recently interviewed by Jason Miller at Civil Libertarian Blogspot, professors at the end of their academic preparation often emerge with rigid concepts of how they "should" think or how they "should" teach, to such an extent that they become almost terrified of being viewed as conspiracy theorists and develop what I call "conspiracy phobia" in which case, they become as intellectually stilted and irrelevant as the tormenters of Galileo during the Spanish Inquisition. At one time in history the notion that microscopic organisms called bacteria even exist, let alone foster and spread disease, was considered an outlandish violation of reason and logic, as was the theory that the earth was not flat or that human beings would someday travel around the globe in "flying machines." Academics of those eras took enormous pride in their ability to think critically and not engage in fallacies of logic, but history has proven that for these individuals, things were anything but what they seemed.
Currently in so-called progressive discourse about 9/11, there appear to be two perspectives regarding the political, economic, geopolitical, Constitutional, and social significance of the event. The first group believes that 9/11 was used opportunistically by the Bush administration to extend its global domination project and that the administration knew the attacks were coming but allowed them to happen; the second group believes that more than having foreknowledge, the Bush administration, in fact, orchestrated the event. Within these two perspectives, there exist myriad theories regarding the evidence for either allowing the event or orchestrating it.
Some individuals believe that physical evidence is important to analyze, while others do not. Still others believe that some other object besides a plane hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, while other individuals are virulently opposed to that notion. I personally believe that a consideration of the physical evidence, although it has virtually all been destroyed and removed from any possibility of examination, is relevant, and I disagree with those who assert that debates regarding the physical evidence are a distraction from the analysis of motive, means, and opportunity. For me, it is not either/or but both/and. Critical thinking demands an inclusive examination of all facets of any crime.
Although I've used the term critical thinking, I have done so without defining it. Here is one comprehensive definition:
"Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness."
In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of critical thinking is asking questions which is due, in part, to my preference for questions rather than answers written in stone. This is the paramount reason for my enthusiastic support for the 9/11 truth movement. As long as a community of thinkers, and indeed, the citizenry at large, continue to question the events of September 11, there is at least a spark of hope that at some point, with the proper conditions and at the right time, that spark might be fanned into a flame of revolution. And of course, as our Founding Fathers incessantly reminded us, there are many ways to make revolution besides the use of bombs and bullets, and if we are not willing to do so once a democratic republic has become antithetical to its principles, then we do not deserve to live in a democratic republic. Citizenry in a democratic republic, the Constitutional framers told us, is attended by momentous responsibilities, including the willingness to "alter and abolish" it should it cease to be a democratic republic.
Or as Professor and Ret. Lt.Colonel, Karen Kwiatkowski, states in her article in 9/11 American Empire, entitled "Assessing The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory" :
'To question the official 9/11 story is simply, and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American."
Two chapters in the book are devoted to physical evidence, one by Physics Professor, Steven Jones of Brigham Young University and engineer, Kevin Ryan. For those who insist that physical evidence is not important in the discourse regarding 9/11, I would simply ask: Why have Jones and Ryan been so harassed by their superiors for their assertions? If discussion of physical evidence is irrelevant, why would there be any backlash against the "peripheral distraction" of analyzing it?
Swiss history professor, Daniele Ganser, in his article, "The 'Strategy Of Tension' In The Cold War Period" makes one of the most profound statements in the book when he says that "It is important to stress that all of the theories about 9/11 are conspiracy theories," adding that a conspiracy is merely a secret agreement between two or more persons to engage in a criminal act-nothing new or unusual in the field of historical research. Therefore, says Ganser, "Once we realize that none of the theories can be dismissed on the grounds that it is a 'conspiracy theory', the real question becomes: Which conspiracy theory correctly describes the 9/11 conspiracy?"(P. 80)
The "strategy of tension" is essentially psychological warfare which targets the emotions of humans and aims to spread maximum fear. Not only are political opponents discredited through incessant terrorist attacks, but most importantly the innocent are kept in a state of tension, which serves the purposes of those benefiting from the attacks.
Carolyn Baker, Ph.D. is author of COMING OUT FROM FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANITY: An Autobiography Affirming Sensuality, Social Justice, and The Sacred. She is also author of U.S. HISTORY UNCENSORED: What Your High School Textbook Didn't Tell You. Both books are available at her website: www.carolynbaker.net.
An apt acronym for GOD provided by Mike Ruppert, a former Los Angeles Police Department detective who blew the whistle on the involvement of the CIA in drug trafficking in Los Angeles.
Thank you for putting 9/11 back on the front page of OpEd News, where it should remain until the American people and Congress are willing to investigate the events of that day as well as the ongoing fallout of those events. The research done by the likes of David Ray Griffin, Ray McGovern, Steve Jones, Webster Tarpley, Jim Fetzer, and so many others, must be brought to a public forum and not lost on bookshelves gathering dust as years pass and more current issues come to occupy the forefront.
by
Angelo (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 174 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 10:56:31 AM
Thanks Russ. I am no longer affiliated with FTW since it went out of business late in 2006. I have my own website at www.carolynbaker.org and am doing a lot of work to promote my book. You are invited to become a subscriber for free to my daily news email list.
by
Carolyn Baker (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 11:53:10 AM
I always look forward to your articles. Will buy this book once I get through the pile of books on my nightstand...also thanks for posting a comprehensive def of 'critical thinking' -- it seems many Americans need to regain this skill.
by
anechoic (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 11:45:32 AM
"they become almost terrified of being viewed as conspiracy theorists and develop what I call 'conspiracy phobia'"
To not only academics, but Americans in general, their "credibility" ranks as high as their credit rating in things they value. They fear being relegated to the periphery of the herd as much as anything.
by
Russ Wellen (58 articles, 1029 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 335 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 12:01:01 PM
Yes, but in my experience, academics seem more phobic. It's an ego issue, i.e., "I don't want to be perceived as Galileo until 10,000 other academics agree with me."
by
Carolyn Baker (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 12:17:53 PM
...and to add, perhap, my own understanding, someone once questioned as to how I could belive that the American Leadership would "do this to there own" my responce was This Link as it is Very clear that the event Was A Conspiracy, it is simply a question of who were/are the conspirators.
The very Idea that the Building collapsed, as having been unforseen by the Conspirators as it is/was a Known Fact of History that the architechs, and engineers, who originally constructed the Building Did so building/planning for them to be capable of withstanding a Strike/Impact from a Large aircraft, (747) tells greatly, as it was the unforeseen fire from the fuel load that caused the eventual structural damage that led to the collapse.
Hence the original conspirators wouldn't have foreseen the collapseing event and it's greater loss of life/consequence...leaving it open to the idea that they would have planned/foreseen a Much more Minor "loss of life"
Not really in the manner of International terrorists seeking to cause widespread fear, and panic.
Coupled that to the timing of the event wherein we seem to find International Terrorists attacking a Building that, the last time they attacked it, they planned it for the hour of the greatest occupancy this time, seemingly, they planned it for a time of the LEAST occupancy
Again, Not really in the manner of International Terrorists seeking to cause widespread fear, and panic.
Very telling clues/hints that suggest something other then what is 'currently known' at face value as having been in operation at that time.
by
Mr. Robin Parsons (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 64 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 1:20:50 PM
I would like to state that all those theories are based on one particular crime the Bush regime had committed- the abandonement of the due process by proclaiming the 9/11 an act of war thus bypassing the proper investigation and trial.
Without that mechanism the 9/11 cannot be properly looked at. If the trial was commensed the actual process of that mechanism would prevent the Bushites from fulfilling that agenda. They effectively destroyed the rule of law thus developing one anomaly after another like we can see sometimes in glass being broken in pieces. The tragic thing is that so far that particular aspect of the 9/11 event had not been properly addressed. But the truth stays- without that trial all of that is only a rumor and we do not know who didit, why, and who benefited.
by
Mark Sashine (50 articles, 19 quicklinks, 242 diaries, 3437 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 1:40:48 PM
It is fine to conjecture but there is no way for a private citizen or organization to properly investigate to know one way or the other.
The facts are bad enough for the Bush administration. From what we know and they have admitted, Condi was warned on three seperate occasions in three different ways from three different groups to be on guard from Al Qaeda and in one case that they might use airplanes as weapons. She blew off the warnings because she wanted to concentrate on idiot-boy's missile shield.
At the very least it is negligence and a screw up of the highest order.
by
Steven Leser (209 articles, 44 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1371 comments)
on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 5:52:24 PM
9/11 Towers was bombs not planes, that's all you need
And, as Carolyn Baker personifies, and lists others, too, professors, teachers, and academia in the main, is increasingly teaching students that Nine-Eleven Op was a hoax about hijackers and airplanes, and the physics truth is the only way the 3 skyscrapers were demolished was by preset explosives ahead of time.
And those students graduating are increasing the public demand for answers, asking the question in more and more conversations: Who planted the explosives we know were in the Twin Towers?
by
meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 493 comments)
on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 12:17:27 AM
Thank you for the review, Ms. Baker. All of Dr. Griffin's books on 9/11 are excellent.
Anyone wanting to see a truly independent investigation into 9/11 should visit this website: www.911initiative.org. They are not asking for donations right now, only for people to sign on in support of requesting a new investigation. The following is from the website:
ADDRESSING THE NEED FOR A TRULY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
For over 5 years, private citizens have researched 9/11 and found overwhelming inconsistencies with the official story of what happened on the day America was attacked. For over 5 years, those citizens have demanded a truly independent investigation of the attack. For over 5 years, Americans have seen investigations which failed to investigate, and have been handed answers which failed to answer. While there are literally hundreds of questions that have been asked, which to date have not been answered, the question that absolutely must be answered is: WAS 9/11 AN INSIDE JOB? That is the only question that will never be answered in the affirmative by inside investigators, appointed by government insiders. A truly independent investigation must be of the people, by the people and for the people. It must be conducted in the full light of day, with nothing hidden, and nothing held back. Secrets are for those who have something to hide!
by
Catlover (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 83 comments)
on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 10:35:25 AM
I knew 9/11 was bogus when I saw the towers fall on live Tv. The Tv anchors even suspected as much. I at the time even correctly assumed it was the same group that was involved in the assasinations of the 60's and John Lennon. Though the latter will be disavowed even by main stream 9/11 conspiracists. I don't need critical thinking or acedemics to "validate" my intuitive impressions. I need what we all need.
We all need for this genuine reality to somehow get a traction. A snowball effect that will not be deterred, waylayed or simply ignored. A presence in the ordinary awareness of our global citizenry that will have weight. Weight that will put this genuine reality on the Main stream table for debate, analysis and resolution. Resolution leading to the Liberation of mankind from the Illusions and terms of compliance with this monolith of dollar Power.
Not A doctor, Not a conspiracy nut, Just a simple man who knows what he sees.
Hoss
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments)
on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 5:24:45 PM
The WTC was brought down by the imminient threat of Terrorists organizing in foreign countries to stop and destroy the United States. The problem is that Americans refuse to take it seriously. My analysis is that in Order for the United States to stop these killers, America had to committ some acts of terror upon itself in order to get the attention of the American people to support the buildup of a strong American military.
The invasion of Kuwait was the first such war making America involved in stopping dictators and terrorists. When Iraq was expelled and George Sr. lost the election Bill Clinton decided to reduce the military budget. He did the exact opposite, knowing Saddam was still in power. Saddam became friends with Iran having sent Iraqi jets to Iran to evade American destruction. In my opinion more than jets went to Iran. Nuclear secrets were handed over to Iran, and now we have Iran making nuclear weapons. We may have not found the weapons in Iraq, but it is pretty clear they are in Iran. America had to go to war against itself in order to protect America from future disasters.
In my opinion 911 could have been worse. There could have been more planes used, planes used to crash into American nulcear plant facilities, smaller planes loaded with explosives and bombs or anthrax to crash into the NYSX, in New York and Chicago. And why now do it? Because if America waited the terrorists would have the Atomic bomb loaded on a passenger plane to crash or explode over Los Angeles, or Washington. Then what? Then the terrorists have committed the big hit, unlike the WTC. No...I think 911 was a wakeup call, and it was Americans waking up Americans to make them realize what we are up against. It is a whole new perspective in understanding what it takes to defend and protect America. To think we had to attack ourselves in order to build up our strength, in order to do battle against the enemies of our country gives pause to truly reflect on the obligations of America's government, and what it means to being a real Patriot. Is it bad that 3,000 Americans died on Sept. 911, or would it be worse if 911 was not committed so a worse scenario would occur killing millions by actual terrorists, because we were impotent and not ready in time to thwart their attack? I think the message is clear. Of course ordinary Americans can not understand such things, and it is sad we all do not have the right amount of education and belief at the same time, but facts are facts. If indeed GWBushs organization, that is tied to the mob of Rudolph Guiliani is responsible for 911, I might think they are terrorists, or are they real protectors of Democracy? I think they are real protectors of Democracy. But they will never admit such a claim as I have tried to explain. I think it is true to form and fact.
Indeed the falling WTC is meant to fall ON Islam to crush their radicals, and to put in place an America that will remain a beakon of light to the world for eternity.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 at 7:21:02 PM
Reply or Flag it? That's the question with subverters
Wow. Methinks sly ikster doth insist too much belief. Either the illusion is delusion, or the delusion is illusion.
Take 1, in which ikster is serious: The 'political analysis' is patently obviously plainly prima facie open-and-shut irrelevant bubble-world. To put it kindly. As if: "We had to parody the infamy of 'we had to destroy the village in order to save it,' in order to salvage it." Makes?: We had to kill Americans in order to alert Americans to save Americans. "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent."
No, look, ikster: George Hitler Worker Bush, planned and directed to Nine-Eleven Op as his way to create an 'enemy,' working at it since 1990, when the USSR went not-cricket bullocks and quit the potemkin Cold War humanicide, stranding the Bushia (Bush/CIA) alone, kicking and choking noosed on its petard, with its xenophobic misanthropic MasterRacism ugly-clear sticking out in all directions, 'twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.' For godssake, Bush Sinister, (as distinct from Bush Jughead), was who convened PNAC (Project for New American Century ... think: ten-percent installment payment on Thousand Year Reich), and screened the principals, and gave them their marching lockstep: Make us an enemy to order.
Bush Sinister and Cheney and Rumsfeld from way back, (hail fellow, foul-met: treason-cell troika since before 1970), who did NOT sell their souls in a deal with the devil -- who ARE the devil. See their parts in Nine-Eleven Op. (Especially(?) Rumsfeld, in his Pentagon office, watching TwinTowers smoke-and-mirrors TV, to his 'guest' (alibi witness): "There might be another hit yet to happen," as it happens.)
And see: The first '93 Tower basement 'bombing,' also Bushia directed, (fact-check that with the blind sheik in federal country-club retirement uh, protection uh, penitentiary, today in Tennessee(?) Missouri(?)), did NOT galvanize Americans with Arab hate, (recall early days after '95 OK City 'bombing' chasing fictional 'dark complexion wearing turban' man, Bushia directed), and in analysis of failure to ignite fuse for monster-military murder to get Iraq's and Iran's oil, (to then be handed over as the baksheesh concession Saudi Royalty demands, in order to continue servicing (supplying) our account with them), decided the missing key, for a Pearl Harbor re-run, was damage to US Military property -- hence: 'bomb' the iconic Towers (again) and this time, 'bomb' a military installation, too, an iconic one if possible ... hence: Pentagon. There's your conspiracy, Occam-razored to the perfect motive, opportunity, and method.
Mass murder thousands of 'workaday' citizens, in broad daylight, grotesquely dying on LIVE TV, was NOT done, no, to 'wake up Americans' to an unclear and not present danger, no. Nine-Eleven Op mass murder was done to scare the living daylights out of Americans. Fear is all. Fear is everything. The most powerful weapon in the hands of the oppressor Bushia, is the mind of the oppressed American slaves, (with apologies to Steven Biko). Always the fear. Always, ikster. Never 'heads up.'
Elaborate excess exaggeration -- "it could have been worse" -- sounds like over-the-top inciter talk, trying to infiltrate and off-balance the 911 Truthseekers.
Ikster's entire elaborate MasterRacing war-gaming hypothecating hyperventilating, sounds like baffle-with-bullshit when dazzle-with-brilliance is an impossibility for conspiring accessories to murder. No homicide can ever be brilliant.
In my experience, the most telling hallmark in criminal Bushia handiwork, their signature pattern, is always the multiple hypotheses Press Release of who-couldamightawoulda-dunnit. Exhibit A is the Bush/CIA ready-made (1981) 5-way reply to the media question Where did AIDS come from?, four years (equals HIV incubation period) after 1976 CIA Director Bush creates first 'germ warfare' labs in Angola, ('first' microbiology labs, that is, following successfully synthesizing human interferon).
Ikster says 'they went that-a-way' and points every which-a-way. Always always always it is the insecurity of multiple possible threats and worries-blurring inconclusiveness -- that is, fear fear fear.
Take 2, in which ikster is parodying in staged exaggeration: The only nice thing I can say.
by
meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 493 comments)
on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 2:38:20 AM
Disagree or agree, that is the question! How else do you explain the evidence, the motive, the reasoning? Myself I am not condoning such acts, but trying to understand the motives? In fact Take-3 is the WTC is it not? Take-1 was the bombing in the WTC by the blind Shiek, and Take-2 was Oklahoma McVeigh right? The first 2 Takes didn't work, but Take-3 worked! Wouldn't you agree?
Another vivid imaginative thought is that if the Bushes were responsible, it should have made him the hero in the eyes of AlQaida, and made BinLadin a tag along. Making Bush the enemy to Democracy while supporting it, brings many unseemingly things to light. Bring more troops to Iraq, to fight whomever shoots first, should make rebels consider they are killing their own guys? Yeah, perhaps the fighting will end, now that terrorists realize Bush is also on their side.
Hmmmmmm... Flag or illusion? Reply or Subvert?
Got me? I only think of how to end violence.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 8:10:11 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
