9/11 mind swell
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Aug 14, 2009, 00:24
As we approach the eighth anniversary of 9/11 consider this
paradox. In the post 9-11 years, the scientific evidence for disbelieving the
official government story has mounted incredibly. And the number of highly
respected and credentialed professionals challenging the official story has
similarly expanded.
Yet, to the considerable disappointment of the international
9/11 truth movement, the objective fact is that there are no widespread, loud
demands for a new government-backed 9/11 investigation. The 9/11 truth movement
is the epitome of a marginalized movement, one that never goes away despite not
achieving truly meaningful results, which in this case means replacing official
lies with official truth. What has gone wrong?
Akin to the definition of insanity, the hallmark of
entrenched but marginalized movements is that they continue to pursue exactly
the same strategy and tactics that have failed to produce solid results. They
indulge themselves with self-delusion, defensive thinking and acting as if the
world at large must surely and finally wake up, see the light and embrace the
Truth. Years and, potentially, decades go by, but this quixotic status quo
remains embedded, as if set in intellectual concrete. There is no brain tumor
to blame. Nor any mass hypnosis of true believers to prove. There is just
monumental disinterest among the dominant culture, political establishment and
the broad public that is far more engaged with other issues, problems and
movements.
The 9/11 truth movement, at best, gets meager public
attention when it is derided and insulted, used as an example of persistent
conspiratorial insanity.
Make no mistake; I concluded a few years back, after using
my professional engineering and materials science background to study the
evidence, that the official government story is a lie. As a former full
professor of engineering, I firmly believe that elements of the US government
were involved with contributing to (not just allowing) the 9/11 tragedy, but
that does not necessarily eliminate the role of those terrorists publicly
blamed for the events. Science, logic, evidence and critical thinking told me
this.
Who should we blame for the failure of the 9/11 truth
movement to fix the historical record and, better yet, identify those in the
government who turned 9/11 into an excuse for going to war, getting them
indicted, prosecuted, and punished for their murderous acts?
It is too easy to blame the mainstream media and political
establishment for refusing to demand and pursue a truly comprehensive and
credible independent scientific and engineering investigation. President Obama
with his tenacious belief in looking forward, not backward, exemplifies a
national mindset to avoid the painful search for truth and justice that could
produce still more public disillusionment with government and feed the belief
that American democracy is weak at best, and delusional at worst.
Marginalized movements always face competition for public
attention. There are always countless national issues and problems that feed
new movements and distract the public. There have been many since 9/11, not the
least of which was the last presidential campaign and then the painful economic
recession, and now the right-wing attacks on health care reform. The 9/11 truth
movement illustrates a total failure to compete successfully with other events
and movements.
This can be explained in several ways. The 9/11 movement has
not been able to articulate enough benefits to the public from disbelieving the
official government story and pursuing a new investigation. What might ordinary
Americans gain? Would proof-positive of government involvement make them feel
better, more secure, and more patriotic? Apparently not. In fact, just the
opposite. By its very nature, the 9/11 issue threatens many things by
discovering the truth: still less confidence in the US political system,
government and public officials. Still more reason to ponder the incredible loss
of life and national wealth in pursuing the Iraq war. In other words, revealing
9/11 truth offers the specter of a huge national bummer. Conversely, it would
show the world that American democracy has integrity.
The second explanation for failure is that the truth
movement itself is greatly to blame. It has been filled with nerdish,
ego-centric and self-serving activists (often most interested in pushing their
pet theory) unable to pursue strategies designed to face and overcome ugly,
challenging realities. The truth movement became a cottage industry providing
income and meaning for many individuals and groups feeding the committed with
endless websites, public talks, videos, books and paraphernalia. They
habitually preach to the choir. Applause substitutes for solid results. In
particular, it embraces the simplistic (and obviously ineffective) belief that
by revealing technical, scientific and engineering facts and evidence the
public and political establishment would be compelled to see the light. Darkness
has prevailed.
Proof of this are the views expressed days ago on the truth
movement by Ben Cohen on the Huffington Post: �I have done some research on the
topic, but stopped fairly quickly into when it dawned on me that: 1. Any
alternative to the official account of what happened is so absurd it simply
cannot be true. 2. No reputable scientific journal has ever taken any of the �science�
of the conspiracy seriously. 3. The evidence supporting the official story is
overwhelming, whereas the 9/11 Truthers have yet to produce a shred of concrete
evidence that members of the U.S. government planned the attacks in New York
and Washington.� Similarly, in the London Times James Bone recently said a
�gruesome assortment of conspiracy theorists insists that the attacks on the US
of September 11, 2001, were an inside job. It is easy to mock this deluded gang
of ageing hippies, anarchists and anti-Semites.� Truthers continue to face a
very steep uphill battle.
A common lie about the truth movement is that there have
been no credible scientific articles in peer reviewed journals supporting it. But
those opposing the truth movement will and do find ways to attack whatever
scientific evidence is produced and published. It takes more than good science
and facts for the movement to succeed.
Besides the movement having too many genuine crackpots
(possibly trying to subvert it), a larger problem is what has been missing from
it: effective political strategies. Besides pushing scientific results and more
credible supporters, it did nothing successful to make a new 9/11 investigation
a visible issue in the last presidential campaign. It did nothing effective to
put pressure on a new, Democratic-controlled Congress to consider legislation
providing the authorization and funding for a new, credible investigation. It
seems that people who want to blame the government are often unable to also see
the political path forward that requires the government to fund a new
investigation.
To its credit, Architects
and Engineers for 9/11 Truth does have a petition aimed at Congress,
demanding a new investigation, but has fewer than 5,000 signers. The petition effort in New York City to get a new investigation
is commendable, with just under 75,000 signers, but national action is needed. Pragmatically,
both efforts are unimpressive compared to other campaigns seeking political
action. To get both media attention and political support, the movement needs a
hundred times more documented supporters, willing to do a lot more than sign a
petition.
The tenth anniversary of 9/11 will come fast. The
opportunity is making 9/11 an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign. The
least delusional and defensive in the truth movement should think deeply and
seriously on what needs to change to accomplish the prime goal: having an
official investigation that compels most people and history to accept the
truth, no matter how painful it is, including the possibility that it finds no
compelling evidence for government involvement.
Contact Joel S. Hirschhorn through delusionaldemocracy.com.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor