Truth may not be possible in this society, in which case we are chasing a chimera. But there are different kinds of truth, and the kind that is publishable in Time or Newsweek or on Teevee, or that can be established by a congressional inquiry, is not necessarily what we are after or will be satisfied with. I like my new word, aletheia. It's a little awkward, syntactically, but maybe it will open some new horizons and take us beyond measuring the worth of ideas in terms of what their imagined effect will be on others, or in terms of what other ideas they might be "associated" with. The word itself is a case in point, since it is often associated with Martin Heidegger, who is often associated with Nazism. Fortunately, being as unversed in philosophy as I am in Greek, I didn't realize this until I had already discovered the word and decided to adopt it. Now I have a sense of possession and refuse to give it up, no matter what Heidegger had to say about it or what others have had to say about Heidegger. I may read Heidegger someday, but for the moment I am glad to have a new word.
For one thing, I like the negative aspect of it. If 9/11 truthers agree on little else, they agree that the official account is false -- not only not true but a pack of lies, omissions and distortions. In addition, as I have said before, the best evidence for US government complicity in 9/11, which automatically means guilt given the incomparable power of that government, is that it happened at all. None of it would have been possible without government sponsorship, and even if part of it did happen by some fluke (e.g., one plane crash), an innocent government would have solved the case long ago, and not with a ridiculous fairy tale about suicidal whiskey-swigging lapdance-loving Muslims who couldn't fly a Cessna doing impossible acrobatics with commercial airliners, but with a credible story and convincing evidence. If a plane crashed in Shanksville or into the Pentagon, there would be proof, in the form of evidence nobody would question. Ditto for the WTC. We would not be going round and round about questions like "Were cell phone calls possible from airplanes flying over 5000 feet in 2001?" (the answer to that one now being clearly "No," but still unacknowledged by officialdom), "Can Boeing 767s hit buildings flying at 540 mph at 1000 feet, and can they even fly at that speed and altitude without breaking apart? (unanswered), "Can a backhoe pick up a piece of molten steel?" and "Can a video that shows a 767 penetrating a steel and concrete building like a hot knife into butter be real?" It is simply impossible to imagine that the federal government, with all its resources, could not have answered all these questions, and many more, a long time ago if they had wanted to. And what possible motive could there be for not answering them, and prevaricating, if the government itself was not guilty?
An unanswered question is not what we normally think of as truth. It is not "proof positive." We can't send anybody to jail on the basis of an unanswered question. But in this case the unanswered questions, particularly since there are so many of them, do constitute aletheia, whose literal meaning, according to the anonymous Wikipedia author, is "the state of not being hidden; the state of being evident." It is evident, simply from the unanswered questions, that 9/11 was an inside job. It is equally evident that the government is not going to indict itself. It is also evident, to me at least, that they want us to know they did it (MITOP). That is the only explanation for the obvious bungling of what could have been an undetectable false-flag operation. One can imagine a million ways a "terrorist" attack could have been feigned and blamed on a designated enemy, with no questions asked. I don't believe in "stupidity theory." Somebody made a conscious decision to do it this way, to "shock and awe" us into acceptance and resignation.
Green may not have read my articles (e.g., on "Transparency Theory"), but he has read Salandria, and should have understood more of what he read, instead of about 50%, which appears to be the case. In his 1971 essay "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Model of Explanation," almost every word of which, with the appropriate substitutions, can be applied to 9/11, Salandria clearly says there are two reasons for the perps to show their hand. One is to prevent everybody from seeing the light at the same time by making "selectively orchestrated revelations of their bloody work," which Green seems to have understood, crediting himself with having this "epiphany" (his word) after seeing NASA's thermal survey showing inexplicably long-lasting hot spots at Ground Zero (apparently applying his experience as a psychologist to make this discovery). If he had read further, however, he would know that the second purpose of these purposeful revelations in the JFK case was intimidation -- to show those who did understand "what was in store for any quixotic citizens who saw fit to oppose the new rulers of our land."
Another point Salandria makes in the same passage that Green cites, but ignores, is apropos:
I have long believed that the killers actually preempted the assassination criticism by supplying the information they wanted revealed and also by supplying the critics whom they wanted to disclose the data. Does it not make sense that if they could perpetrate a coup and could control the press, they would have endeavored to dominate likewise the assassination criticism?
Though Green may not have read my articles, if he is a serious student of Salandria he has read my book (Correspondence with Vincent Salandria, 2007), or John Kelin's Praise from a Future Generation, 2007. From either book he could have learned something about the dangers, not to mention the immorality, of using guilt by association to discredit others. He might have thought twice about aligning himself with Victoria Ashley, who aligns herself with Josiah Thompson in her smear of Jim Fetzer et al. Vince has quite a bit to say in our correspondence about Thompson, e.g.:
(3/1/94) On Thompson, I believe he was an agent from the beginning. I met him when I was called to get him and other peace demonstrators out of jail. He then curled around me trying to get me to write Six Seconds in Dallas with him. I separated myself off when he saw the front entry throat hit as an exit [wound] caused by exiting bone. Perhaps this is a delusion of grandeur, but I feel that he was sent in to give me media exposure and thereby neutralize and/or co-opt me.
(4/7/2000) ...after Six Seconds in Dallas was published, I invited him over to my home for a party.
At the affair, I put to him how he could have written the last paragraph of Six Seconds which concluded with the question of what does all of this prove? He answered his question by flatly stating that it did not prove a conspiracy.
"Tink, how could you write that?" I asked him.
He answered: "An error in exposition, Vince. An error in exposition."
After comparing notes with Ray Marcus about it, he and I concluded that Thompson was an agent....
Now, so many years later, Thompson's "error in exposition" is converted into another explanation. Thompson currently describes himself as an agnostic on the issue of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.
We also know from the government documents that he was approached for possible employment by the CIA prior to the assassination.
Salandria wrote that "a full explanation of this thesis [of transparent conspiracy] must await another occasion." I'm afraid that 9/11 has supplied that occasion, and I have tried to articulate a fuller explanation, but it doesn't really go beyond what Salandria told us in 1971 (see "MITOP and the Double Bind"). What is different is the degree of disclosure, of evidence, of aletheia. Plausibility of denial has become pretense of denial. Green says "now, the facts that matter politically are in." No. Thermitic dust is not a smoking gun, and certainly not a basis for concluding that the "ruling class" did it. The stupidity of this leap is exactly contrary to the conservative strategy of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and will have the opposite effect to what (I hope) Green intended. The evidence has been in for a long time, at least since 2004 when David Griffin's New Pearl Harbor became available, and for many from the get-go. I was not one of the first to see it. I needed Griffin to lay it out for me, though I did have my suspicions. In hindsight, everything is clear, simply because it happened. It's like Big Brother (pun intended) hitting Little Sister in plain view of Mommy, and then exclaiming, "I didn't do it!"