None So Blind
A Lament
By Tom Breidenbach

Liberal commentators regularly assert they “just can’t,” “won’t” or that they “simply refuse to believe” IX XI could have been an inside job . Yet such irrational and emotive statements merely confirm the cognitive impairment of their speaker. It is a firm matter of historical record that governments, very much including our own, have planned and executed horrendous, even murderous acts of deceit in the past, including ones against their own people. Denying this would be denying the dynamics of power as they’ve been understood since remote antiquity, and those who decry even the possibility that IX XI was an inside job (in spite of the vast array of evidence as well as eminent expert, professional, and military opinion clearly indicating it was) are stretching an already tenuous appeal to American Exceptionalism, the fallacy that “it could never happen here.”

Who would deny the Tuskegee experiments against African American prisoners, or the MK ULTRA mind control experiments of the ‘60s and ‘70s, or that the government recently legalized the testing of carcinogenic agents on members of minority communities, to cite just a few examples? What liberal voices reveal in their abjectly anti-intellectual denial that IX XI might have been a “false flag” intelligence operation intended to trigger public support for the geopolitical aims of the new administration is their own arrogance, specifically their less-than subtle sense of their own privilege and superiority. “The government might dispose of members of social, racial and ethnic minorities,” their reasoning implies, “but it would never kill with such brazen indiscrimination as was the case on IX XI.” It would never, in other words, kill “me!”

Meanwhile, a critical look at the public record reveals that government officials have repeatedly lied about almost every aspect of IX XI, prior to which they (a) reorganized the national security apparatus in a way that appears to have facilitated the attacks, (b) obstructed field investigations that would have prevented them, and (c) issued directives that confused longstanding national security procedures. They have alternately confessed to and denied receiving multiple advance detailed warnings of the attacks from an extensive variety of credible domestic and international sources. And they have sought to obscure their own close and deep historical and financial ties to international forces playing a part in IX XI. They have suppressed and destroyed material evidence pertaining to multiple aspects of the attacks and even reclassified published material supporting the “inside job” argument (meaning that it is no longer admissible in US courts). And they have deliberately contorted the public record to fit the official account of events. Ignoring the testimony of numerous witnesses to various aspects of the IX XI tragedy that directly contradict the official account, and in manifest conflict of interest, officials have pointedly neglected to investigate IX XI from any angle other than that presuming the entire government’s absolute innocence; this was the narrow — and given the record incredible — course to which the 9/11 Commission was hog-tied from the outset by the director of its “investigation,” Philip Zelikow, a neo-con close to the White House. (As the Commission concedes, its mandate did not include assigning “blame” for IX XI.) Meanwhile, people in and out of government have been harassed and threatened for speaking out about what they know, while many others (we must presume) remain effectively silenced.

It is not unreasonable but incumbent upon us to suspect that such blatant and determined obfuscation shields the guilty: those with the readiest means and clearest motives to plan, facilitate and effectively cover-up an event on the scale of IX XI, officials whose mentors and forbears leave a documented history of premeditating just such epochal crimes. Especially as it was these officials’ long-announced aim to implement a crusade for central Eurasian resources and global (or “full spectrum”) US military “dominance” (including the militarization of space) — a grand design contingent, in their own words, upon “a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat” to the nation such as might be announced in the form of “a new Pearl Harbor.”

Add to this the grotesque anomalies in the physical record pertaining to IX XI. Such as the numerous indications that United Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, or the government’s suspicious handling of the Flight 77/Pentagon evidence, or the fact that the virulently “weaponized” post-IX XI anthrax strain was cultured in laboratories at Ft. Dietrich in Maryland, or the several indications that the three towers to plunge from the lower Manhattan skyline at near freefall speed on IX XI were demolished by controlled demolition. What’s been characterized by a cross-section of credible academic and expert opinion as the “physical impossibility” of the official narrative for these towers’ collapse has sparked bureaucratic battles — not elaborated upon in mainstream press — that have led in one case to the firing of Kevin Ryan, an official from Underwriters Laboratories, the company which certified the steel used in the towers, only days after he’d clearly spelled out, in a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the implausibility of the official narrative of their destruction.

It is clear to any fair-minded person following the IX XI debate that independent researchers skeptical of the official story are carrying the day in a broad variety of arguments against those attempting to shore up a hemorrhaging (if mercurial) official narrative. While those toeing a slurring government line neglect to engage their detractors openly, their logistical efforts are clearly aimed at evading and obfuscating the latter’s coherent and devastating critiques. What’s frustrating to those of us following the drama is that, while the truth regarding IX XI is slowly winning out, no one besides “conspiracy theorists” seems to be paying much attention.

In his bosom-clutching dereliction of intellectual duty, the liberal intellectual is denying — in curious lockstep with the lunkhead right — that he’s been duped. Snared by conceit, he forbids attribution of any historic event to any catalyst other than that delineated by the regime, no matter how tortured and self-contradictory this official conspiracy theory is proven to be, and no matter how many people of goodwill risk life, reputation and career to set the record straight.

Copyright 2007 Tom Breidenbach

This article was first posted on Tom Breidenbach's blog, Abdiel's Room, 2007-01-27.

See also his: The Wicked Eunuch: Chomsky on 9/11

Tom Breidenbach Replies to Jeff Wells re 9/11
The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Serendipity Home Page