I Guess I Should Leave The Country

If you haven't yet gotten in on the 911 conspiracy scene, I would recommend you do so. There is an enormous amount of very compelling evidence to suggest that it was an inside job, while the "evidence" supporting the official story is pretty weak. I'm not going to speculate here on motives or details, but if you are hesitant to believe in conspiracies, or your patriotic sentiment is causing you to keep your eyes closed to the legit scientific evidence that exists, you need to get over it. Emotion and pride are no reasons to ignore the laws of physics, which in this case is exactly what is happening for too many Americans. I'm not saying anything definitive here, but this warrants serious consideration.

Perhaps the most compelling case to be made yet comes from Brigham Young University professor of physics, Steven Jones. He has presented his findings online here. Not only is he a physics professor, but he specializes in metal-catalyzed fusion, solar energy and something called archaeometry. This isn't some whack-job spouting nonsense from the dark recesses of his ammunition filled bomb shelter. All you'll find here is an honest attempt to apply objective science to the events that occurred that fateful day. I highly recommend you read over it. Searching the internet will bring up a plethora of conspiracy theories on the topic ranging from intriguing to patently absurd, but this is the best I've found.

Not only has Professor Jones publicized his conclusions, but he has made some significant mainstream noise as well. He was invited to appear on MSNBC's The Situation to present his findings. As is typical of the MSM, this wasn't a real attempt to report on the subject, but rather a chance to make the author look stupid and to try and bury the thing before it really starts to gain some steam. The self-proclaimed "libertarian-leaning conservative" Tucker Carlson, of Crossfire fame, hosted the show and made a complete fool of himself in the process. Not only did he refuse to play the video footage the professor had provided, but he only gave the man a few minutes to try and sum up his 26 page paper before cutting him off and moving on to some sports story.

In response to this fiasco, Tucker received a flood of calls and emails requesting that Jones be put back on the air and allowed to give a more adequate summary of the evidence he found. Tucker's reply was predictable and highly insightful, as I believe it shows the real reason why Jones was allowed on the show in the first place. Here's what Tucker had to say:

"If you really...even considered it a possibility - how could you continue to live here? You couldn't. You'd leave the United States on the next available flight and not come back. You'd have no choice." And also, "If you really believe the U.S. government killed 3,000 of its own citizens for no reason and lied about it and invaded Afghanistan as a result of something it did, you ought to leave the country.. because that's so terrible.. so evil, that your tax dollars go in to support it make you complicit in it. if you really believe that, you ought to leave."

Notice that Tucker makes no attempt whatsoever to address any of the evidence presented by Professor Jones. In fact, nowhere in his paper does Jones accuse "the U.S. government" of having been behind the plot. He simply states the facts as he sees them and calls for a full federal investigation. Tucker made that up on his own, probably as part of his attempt to make the whole idea seem more ridiculous. Not only that, but his statements are very divisive. If you think any of this warrants any consideration, you should leave the country. God Bless America! That's the land of the free that we've all come to love so much. These are the same tactics used by the Bush administration in trying to claim that those who were against the Iraq war were "aiding terrorists" or not "supporting the troops," - all attempts to squash dissent and tow the official line.

But let's dissect Tucker's statements a little more carefully.

"If you really...even considered it a possibility - how could you continue to live here?"

What Tucker is saying here is that if you don't believe that government is a benevolent institution that would never harm its citizens, you should leave the country. If you don't believe that Washington is inhabited by good-hearted, patriotic, protectors of the public welfare, rather than self-serving sycophants intoxicated with power and beholden to corporate and special interests, then your conscience should weigh on you to the point that your only choice is to hop the next flight to Cuba. Notice how not only is he trying to make it seem ludicrous to believe such theories, but even the thought of considering them is enough to warrant you leaving the country.

"If you really believe the U.S. government killed 3,000 of its own citizens for no reason and lied about it..."

Several parts of this phrase stand out. One is a refusal to believe that governments would harm their citizens, or two, is the belief that governments do and have harmed their citizens, but that the U.S. government is somehow different than all other governments. Those familiar with history will know that neither of these statements are true. Governments killed over 160,000,000 of their own citizens during the 20th century. American politicians have shown no hesitation in killing civilians in foreign lands and no qualms about sending their own off to die in foreign conflicts. Is it so hard to believe that the same thing could happen at home?

Some will undoubtedly argue that if there were a conspiracy, it would have been uncovered by now by the ever-vigilant lapdog... I mean watchdog media. This is simply naive and has rarely been the case in U.S. history. The state does not answer to the media over any matters of real importance. It does put on a very good show in an attempt to maintain the illusion of an impartial, pro-active media that serves the public interest, but it just that; an illusion. The real issues are very easily buried under a mountain of distraction and rarely ever come to light in the MSM.

The use of the words "own citizens" here is also interesting. What are citizens anyway? Well, to power hungry politicians, they are often nothing more than cash cows waiting to be milked and cannon fodder ready to be sacrificed to the gods of war. One hallmark of those who crave and seek power is their disdain for the individual and their willingness to sacrifice him for whatever goal happens to suit their fancy. There are plenty of pure power seekers in American politics just like there have always been everywhere throughout history. They have never had much regard for their "own citizens."

The third thing that stands out is Tucker's claim that there was no reason for such a thing to occur. This statement comes completely out of the blue. Never did Tucker consider and try to refute the various possible reasons for a conspiracy. He simply states that there couldn't possibly be a reason and dismisses the entire thing off hand. I've written about the topic of conspiracy before,here, with emphasis on how people often try to use sleight of hand to dismiss them without actually having to examine them. This is a textbook example.

...that's so terrible.. so evil, that your tax dollars go in to support it make you complicit in it.

This awkwardly worded statement is the most preposterous of all. If a man steals $5,000 dollars from me and then uses that money to buy a hit on someone else, I am hardly responsible for the murder. Taxes are not paid voluntarily by American citizens. We do not get to decide how or where these funds are spent or who gets to do the spending. The assertion that every citizen who pays taxes is somehow complicit in every action its government takes is not only wrong, but coming from Tucker, a supposed libertarian, it is downright dishonest. This is a scare tactic pure and simple. Tucker would make having an open mind about the possible motives and perpetrators of crime tantamount to committing the very crime itself. The wider he can make the divide seem, the scarier the whole idea is, the more likely people are to push it aside out of fear and guilt.

One more thing intrigues me about this whole episode, and that is the fact that Tucker seemed extremely ignorant of the entire idea that there may have been a conspiracy theory surrounding the events of September 11th. These ideas have been floating around on the internet for years and are so ubiquitous that it is difficult to find any information about 911 without at least inadvertently stumbling upon them. This is especially true of someone like Tucker who's job it supposedly is to be on the forefront of current events. Not only that, but even if Tucker somehow avoided ever coming into contact with these ideas, he at least knew Jones was coming on the show right? He knew what the topic of conversation would be. He had ready access to the entire paper Jones had written and to the video footage the professor had sent him, which he most likely watched and then decided not to play.

Why then would Tucker act on screen as if he had never heard of anything like this before? Why would he say things like "We appreciate you coming on, even if I don't understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them." He is playing the part of the confused viewer. The average person would have probably been confused by the professor's scientific explanations, especially since they were choppy and incomplete due to lack of time. Tucker plays on this perfectly and makes it seem as if even he can't understand something so complex, and by default, so ridiculous.

This is pure acting. Tucker knew full well exactly what the professor was trying to say. He was carefully prepped on the fine points of the paper so he could respond to the professor's accusations and carry on an intelligent conversation. This is evident both from the segment itself as well as from the fact that this is the way all these shows work. He would never have gone on the air with a guest without thoroughly understanding exactly what was going to happen. So what can we make of all this. This whole thing seems to me like a carefully crafted attempt to put out the conspiracy fires before the wind starts fanning them. Instead it seems Tucker has caused a spike in interest in the topic and even greater suspicion among viewers due to his odd and childish behavior.

Was 911 a conspiracy? Could certain Americans in or out of government office have devised and hatched such a sinister plan? What would there motives have been? What did they stand to gain? How is it that so few people seem to know about it? These are all questions you will have to answer for yourself. One thing's for sure though. Tucker is no more a "libertarian" than I am a totalitarian socialist.