Back to NVUSA Index @ gregmoses.net
911 and its Meta-Politics
Oct. 31, 2002
by Steve Martinot
email posted by permission
What follows is about 911; but it is not about 911. It is
really about the relation between us as people and the US
government, as revealed by 911. There have been many ways of
thinking about that day, different political interpretations of
it, but they have all boiled down to one way, because only one
account of the events has ever been given mainstream currency
(though many have been imagined). I wish to suggest another way
of thinking about it, based on the notion of what it means to be
sovereign in our thinking.
More than a year has gone by since the events of Sept. 11,
2001. To look back at that moment now means to look back through
the vast debate on it (much of which was exiled from mainstream
space); and it means to look back through what has been done in
the name of "911" by the US government, namely, wars, militarism,
interventionist and "first strike" strategies, and a vast
extension of domestic policing and surveillence. Thus, it also
means having a certain vantage point on the politics that already
surrounded those events, that gave them their meaning before the
fact and after the fact, as a kind of meta-politics of the event
which we have all lived within since then. I will use the term
"911" to refer to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, without
attributing them a political meaning, to set back from that meta-
politics, and see what it means to live within them. To discuss
it that way will mean starting with bare facts, and regard the
meanings of those facts as such.
In a "bare-bones" manner, the facts are the following. Two
planes flew into two of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, and
three of the WTC towers collapsed. An incident occurred at the
Pentagon which left part of that building collapsed and burning.
And Flight 93 met its end over Pennsylvania. Many people died,
many more people were traumatized and terrorized by the event.
And then, many more people died as a result of the US
government's response to the event, mostly in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Iraq, and Palestine, but also in the streets and
buildings of the US. With respect to these deaths, I refuse the
chauvinist choice that American lives are worth more than Afghani
lives, or Palestinian lives, or the life of an Arab grocer in his
shop in an American city. The vengence expressed by the US
government in killing Afghanis because of 911 changes the value
of the lives lost on 911. They cease being the victims of the
event, and become instead the opportunistic icons for further
mass murder, the tools for victimization and aggression.
What happened on that day
The most salient fact about what happened that day is that
we do not know what happened on that day. We do not know what
happened because we do not know what meaning to give it -- for
two reasons. We do not know who was at the controls of those
planes (even the FBI admits that it doesn't know). And no one
took credit for the event.
Only the people on those planes knew who was at the controls
when they crashed, and they are all dead. The planes cut all
radio contact with the ground shortly after being hijacked, and
offered no communication to the world concerning what they were
about, or whether demands were made. With their transponders shut
down, the situation inside the planes remains unknown. This
inability to know is a fact about what happened. And it is
important because, if no one knows who was at the controls, then
it is impossible to say who hijacked the planes. It is a known
fact that planes were hijacked that day, because their
transponders were shut off, and they were crashed into buildings.
But who did it is not known. To think that we know is to deny
this fact; to think that we know what happened that day is to be
in denial.
This is one reason the story floating around, that seven of
the Arab men named as hijackers by the FBI are still alive, is
important. It is an attempt to return to factuality, to cease
being in denial about our non-knowledge, and to judge whether the
FBI is being fraudulent or not in fingering 19 terrorists.
But second, no one took credit for the event. No
organization or group came forward and said, "We did it, and
here's why." If it is generally assumed that al-Qaeda did it, it
is because the US government has said so. But the very existence
of al-Qaeda is also given us by the US government. We have no
independent way of ascertaining its existence. It could be like
that of the "Molly Maguires" of the 1870s, a story of a
"terrorist" group that the government invented and then used to
suppress the mine unions of Pennsylvania.
Without actual perpetrators saying that they did it, we do
not know who did, nor the reason for the act, nor its political
purpose. We can know these things only if someone connected with
the event tells us. Indeed, it is a political act only if it is
done pursuant to a political purpose, and that purpose is made
public. This is the nature of politics; a person or event is
political only if the political purpose or goal of that person or
event is publically known. No one need agree with that
motivation, but it is necessary. A political explanation for
flying jet planes into buildings is necessary to make it a
political act.
For instance, if when a man shoots a political leader, it
could be a political assassination, or an act of jealousy, or a
personal vendetta, or simply the man's psychotic way of getting
in the news. For it to be a political assassination, the man must
state his political purpose for killing the leader. The death of
the leader will be a political event for those who follow him,
but the act of killing him is a political act only if done
pursuant to a political purpose. Of course, the death of a
political figure always has political consequences. There are
those who lose through his death, and others who gain. For those
who lose, the perception that his death is an assassination with
respect to those who gain is inevitable; as is the suspicion that
those who gain did the deed. Whether they did or not, they gain
nevertheless. But when civilians are killed by an unknown
assailant, for an unknown motive, such as happened on 911, the
people of that society lose, and no one seems to gain by the
killing.
The government calls 911 "terrorism." To be "terrorism," it
must be done for political purposes. For the politics of 911 to
exist, they have to be known. The motivation has to be made
public for the act, by those involved in it, to have a political
character, and thus to be "terrorism." What they are attempting
to accomplish by the act must be stated. No one did this -- not
an al-Qaeda, nor a bin Laden, nor the Pakistani government (which
is involved because it sent $100,000 to a man named Mohamad Atta
a few weeks before 911). No one. No one said what they hoped to
gain from the event. The US government gained the opportunity and
the ability to launch war, and to begin building a dys-
Constitutional police state. In responding politically to what
had no politics, in bombing the government of Afghanistan into
non-existence, killing untold thousands of people directly and
through the starvation brought about by the economic dislocation
of war, and replacing it by a different government, the US
government gained by making itself the new conquerors of
Afghanistan. But no one else gained.
But what about the tape?
The tape was allegedly found in a bombed out building in
Jalalabad, two months after the assault and bombing of
Afghanistan began. It purports to be a "home movie" of a social
event at which bin Laden was present, and speaking about
foreknowledge of the event. This tape does not constitute "taking
credit for 911" because it was not released to the world for that
purpose. A home movie not released to the world is not an act or
explanation of anything. At most, if the tape is valid (though
being found intact on a table in a bombed out building in the
midst of a war makes it suspect), it might become evidence in a
criminal prosecution of bin Laden. (The story floating around
that bin Laden had been in an American hospital in Dubai in May,
2001, receiving kidney dialysis treatments, and was visited by
the CIA, but not arrested for prosecution, becomes important in
this regard; it would mean the US government was not really
interested in prosecuting him.)
When the tape first appeared, "experts" claimed it had to be
authentic, because it would be very difficult to fabricate such a
tape. Yet when it was broadcast in the US, the TV station
succeeded in actually modifying the tape in the moment, while on
the air; they had one of their reporters shown on the screen
sitting down within the scene portrayed on the tape, behind the
two men talking, and listening to the two men as they talked, as
if he had been in Afghanistan at the moment the tape was made.
Anyone who taped that broadcast would have a tope of bin Laden
speaking to a friend in the presence of an American TV reporter,
and it would look like a home movie. In other words, the TV
station manufactured such a tape easily, in full view of the TV
audience. The government did not allow the tape to appear in
public for more than 4 days.
Recently, there were attacks on US Marines in Kuwait. They
are attributed to al-Qaeda; but no evidence is given. The Marines
constitute a military occupation of Kuwait; any attack on them is
an act of resistance against that occupation. The US government
calls this "terrorism." Several audio tapes ostensibly from al-
Qaeda leaders are said to "threaten" the US; but none of the
threats are quoted, though other aspects of the communications
are quoted. The media therefore is faking the threats. It is,
again, reminiscent of the "Molly Maguires," whose terrorist
threats were invented by the Pinkerton detective who gave
testimony in court against the mine unions.
The government assigned credit for 911
As a substitution for someone taking credit for 911, the US
government assigned credit -- to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. In
other words, the government assigned it a politics, a meaning.
Thus, the political process was reversed. Rather than a group
with a political purpose performing an act and making known how
that act furthers their purpose, the US government assigned a
meaning and political purpose to an event, and through that
assignment, pointed to a group that is then given authorship of
the event. But in that case, event does not express the politics
of those who are blamed for it. What the event "expresses"
becames the US government's political act.
If guilt (or credit) for the event is assigned by the US
government based on presumption, then it is the source of the
government's presumptions that provide the real politics behind
the politics that the government has assigned to the event. In
other words, the source of the assumptions that the US government
has made constitutes a meta-politics. The government has not made
known its meta-politics (a silence coinciding with that of the
911 perpetrators), but we can judge that meta-politics somewhat
by what the government did subsequently, in the name of its
presuppositions. And that is our job, since it is our government.
Two aspects of the notion of a "meta-politics" are
noteworthy. First, a recognition of the existence of a "meta-
politics" should not be confused with a "conspiracy theory." The
"conspiracy theories" that have abounded since 911 are attempts
to guess the politics of 911, given the fact of ignorance
concerning them, and to provide narrativizations. They theorize
what the motivations may have been for the event, and thus, who
might have done it. They guess without power, whereas the
government's account does not appear as a guess because it has
power. Specifically, the government assigned blame (credit) for
911 to al-Qaeda. It is that assignment that transforms 911 into a
particular political event, though it is not a political act
because no one took credit. The act of assigning credit (blame)
is a political act which substitutes itself for the event itself
not being a political act; the act of assigning credit thus
pretends it is the political motivation of the original act. But
in proclaiming the event to be an act of terrorism (which it
could not be if it is non-political), the US government becomes
responsible for it being an act of terrorism. The act of
proclaiming 911 to be an act of terrorism becomes itself the act
of terrorism. None of this attributes motives; these are simply
the meanings that derive from the fact that no one took credit
for 911.
Second, what is important is that the government policies
pursued after 911 existed before 911, and their promulgation was
enabled by 911; thus, those policies are relevant to what the
meta-politics of 911 were. The unfolding of those policies
signify, retroactively, what that meta-politics had been, the
source from which the government made the assumptions by which it
assigned a politics and a guilt (credit) for 911. Concretely,
while the event occurred in September 2001, we know that the
assault on Afghanistan was planned in July 2001, and the
overthrow of the Taliban in May 2001. The re-opening of
Afghanistan to produce opium and heroin was requested in April
2001, the passage of the Patriot Act was drafted in 1991, the
establishment of a Homeland Security Department was first thought
of during the Reagan administration, a second assault on Iraq was
planned in the summer of 2000, and the construction of massive
military bases in central Asia was planned who knows when. These
all constitute the signifiers for the government's meta-politics,
the sources from which it made its assumptions about 911, and
spoke for the al-Qaeda, which had remained silent.
The specifics of these policies are now known. In
Afghanistan, the US had three goals: to create a political
environment in which a pipeline could be built and maintained to
carry Caspian oil to east Asia; to allow opium and heroin to
again be grown and exported from Afghanistan; and to establish a
strong military base and presence in central Asia, from which to
reach out for the resources of the Asian steppes. The US
government had attempted to work with the Taliban toward these
goals, but the Taliban wouldn't cooperate. They asked for too
much control and royalties for the pipeline; they were too
protective of Afghani sovereignty to permit US military presence;
and they were too adament about banning opium and heroin to allow
recultivation. As a result, the US government decided to destroy
them. 911 constituted an opportune stepping stone toward those
goals. In making it an act of terrorism, a certain popular
support for those goals was induced. Though the US government has
committed acts of terrorism against other countries in the world
through death squads, interventions, coups, and military
assaults, this is the first time it has engaged in terrorism
against the American people.
In spite of this meta-politics, we still don't know what
happened on that day, since we don't know who was at the controls
of those planes, nor what organization or purpose was behind the
event. But this ignorance, as part of its meta-politics, places
us in an anti-democratic situation on two counts. Democracy works
only for an informed citizenry. With respect to 911, and the
meta-politics that appropriated it for its own purposes, we have
only the government's account, and the choice to believe the
government or to disbelieve it. As the government becomes more
and more a government of secrecy, believing or disbelieving the
government becomes a Manichean choice between thinking the
government legitimate or not. But a government based upon a
Manicheanism of belief is already totalitarian. Second, because
we don't know who was at the controls of those planes, any
connection made or believed between those crashes and Arab
peoples, Islamic fundamentalists, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, or
an unlocatable "international terrorist conspiracy," is an act of
racial profiling. And racial profiling is anti-democratic.
Another dimension of this meta-politics is that the US
government declared war on something that one cannot declare war
on, except metaphorically: the "war on terrorism." Terrorism is
wanton violence committed against a people or a government for
political purposes. Organizations can commit acts of terrorism,
but the terrorism resides in their acts, not in their political
goals. The acts must therefore be judged by someone; and the US
has established itself as the first and last judge of these acts,
in order to declare war on political groups and their goals. The
"war on terrorism" is metaphoric for this campaign against
certain political groups. The US government displaced the Taliban
from governance in Afghanistan by charging that the Taliban
harbored those who perpetrated 911 without knowing who committed
the act. In effect, a metaphor is the primary principle of the
meta-politics of 911, in the name of which the US government has
launched assaults on sovereign nations, cynically shredding its
pretense to an interest in democracy by unilaterally determining
who others' political leadership will be.
This has become the meaning of 911. As a metaphor for a
campaign against political groups, the "war on terrorism" is a
war on people, in general. In reserving the right to change other
people's "regimes," the US government has also declared a war on
people in their relation to their "regimes." It is a global war,
promulgated against any leadership, any region, and any group the
US government decides to target, including us. It contains, as a
corollary, police rule over us. Ultimately, the "war on
terrorism" is no such thing. It is a war of conquest against the
people of the world. This is the meaning that was already
broadcast by 911, even as it occurred.
The question of politics in the Arab world
The fact that a connection has been made between 911 and the
Arab world, its thoughts, beliefs, or politics, and that this
constitutes an act of racial profiling, does not mean that we
must not speak about the Arab world, and what is going on there.
We must. But not in an anti-democratic way.
The people of the Arab world in general face three
structural enemies, because they sit on top of the one resource
(oil) that is indispensible to the industrial (colonialist)
powers. These structural enemies are 1) the traditional
aristocracies that autocratically rule many of the Arab and
middle east nations; 2) the oil corporations to which their
economies are linked, and 3) the US as the military force which
maintains the other two (aristocratic autocracy and corporate
colonialist control) in existence. Both western control of the
oil, and local autocratic control of the Arab peoples by Arab
aristocracies, are the descendants of 19th century colonialism
and industrialization in the west, and both are now dependent on
military suppression of Arab nationalism and national liberation
movements to maintain themselves.
The Arab peoples face the necessity of figuring out ways to
struggle against this juggurnaut that besets them. Struggles
against their own ruling classes will be attacked repressively by
the industrialized and militarized western nations. Struggles for
control of their own resources against the oil corporations will
be attacked repressively by their own hegemonic aristocracies.
Struggles against western corporate or militarist presence will
be accounted "terrorism" and assaulted. It is a difficult
situation whose complexity is unparalleled anywhere else in the
world.
The Arab peoples also reside at the center of a field of
competition and conflict between the western industrialized
nations themselves. The western industrial nations confront a
simple proposition, wrought by their own imperialist nature: He
who controls the oil, controls the industrialized world. This
does not mean that control of the oil is sought for the purpose
of self-supply or cheaper prices; it means that the nation that
gains control over the world's oil can tell other industrial
nations what to do, and they will have to do it. And this life-
and-death struggle between industrial nations is being waged on
the backs of the peoples of the Middle East, who are trying to
survive and liberate themselves from the three enemies that beset
them directly.
The Arab peoples will find their own paths to struggle; and
they will carry out that struggle in their own ways, since those
struggles are for their own control of their own destiny, and
their own lands, and their own resources. Ultimately, they will
establish their own modes of democratization against their three
enemies. We need have no fear that, in the face of these three
enemies, the Arab people will ever be finally suppressed, that
there will be a "final solution" to the "people problem" of the
middle east. And if we are for democracy, we must stand in
solidarity with them against western imperialism and US hegemony.
What we must understand is that the people of the middle east
will do whatever they think valid, by whatever means necessary,
to accomplish what they set as their goals, and not what we may
think valid or necessary for them. Their struggles may involve
political resistance, guerrilla struggle, or flying planes into
buildings, to name a few possibilities. We must understand that
if we think that it is a mistake to attack buildings in the US,
that is nevertheless an evaluation that they must make of their
actions, within their struggles, and not us. And we must also
understand that any attacks they level against the US will be
such only if pursuant to a politics that they make public, and
thus known.
But this poses a problem for many of us who live inside this
particular enemy of the Arab peoples. We must learn to respect
their sovereignty, and their ability to make their own decisions
in carrying on their struggles precisely because the power in
which we reside does not. If we wish to make solidarity with
them, it cannot be in terms of telling them what we think is the
proper thing for them to do. Our opposition to empire must at all
times insure the principle of sovereignty and self-determination
for those beset by it. That is, our focus must be on the power
that abrogates that sovereignty. We must contest every abrogation
of the principle of sovereignty, those of the US government, and
those committed by some of us who claim to stand in solidarity
with people elsewhere struggling against imperialism, but who
still judge what is democratic for them and what is not. The
guarantee of sovereignty in our own thoughts and our own actions
is the most fundamental operation of our resistance to
imperialism from within it.
The principle of sovereignty must be understood. At the end
of the 20th century, it is different from that understood by the
19th century. The earlier notion derived from a concept of the
"sovereign," signifying aristocratic governance, and its heir,
the social contract, through which democratic governance was
posited for a "sovereign" people; in "social contract" theory,
the "sovereign people" were simply substituted for the king or
"sovereign" of the old regime. But after the Second World War, an
assault on the empires built during the preceding century to take
back the lands, societies, and national formations that had been
stolen and appropriated by Euro-American expansion called upon
the concept of national sovereignty to unify the efforts of
national liberation and independence. Sovereignty became a
primary anti-colonialist principle. It did not mean the same
thing as in Europe; it meant a transformation of land from
foreign ownership to control by those who lived on and "in" the
land. It ceased to indicate centers of power, and took on the
connotation of an overthrow of imposed or injurious or oppressive
power. In opposing sovereignty, as their empires crumbled, the
European powers transmuted the notion of sovereignty into that of
independence, the transformation of a nation state from Euro-
American ownership to control by indigenous people, but not that
of the land. Thus, the concept of sovereignty subsumes
independence, but is a more profound transformation of former
colonial areas.
Sovereignty has since been broadened in general to include
group autonomy and cultural self-determination well beyond the
narrative of the social contract. That is, the concept of
sovereignty has been transformed from a political idea in content
to a political condition in form. The notion of sovereignty is
now understood as extending to local organizations, political
groupings, and even labor unions. Indeed, the central issue of
labor union legality has revolved around this extended sense of
sovereignty. Unions, in their struggle to form a countervailing
force to capital and industrial corporatism, have traditionally
attempted to act as the sovereign expression of their membership.
In the US, when the government legalized unions and collective
bargaining through the Labor Relations Act, it set limits on
unions; the act of legalization reflected government hegemony,
and put constraints on union sovereignty. Witness the recent
governmental intervention in the Teamsters Union, where the
leader of a democratic movement was removed by the government
from IBT presidency and replaced by the old guard in the person
of Hoffa's son.
Sovereignty, understood broadly in this way, is a crucial
concept because it is the necessary condition for democracy.
Democracy refers to a group or people autonomously determining
their own destiny, their own organization and future policies.
For democracy to flourish, it must be undominated from outside
the polity in question. If democracy is the ability of a group to
be self-determining, then its sovereignty must be guaranteed.
Should its sovereignty be only partial, than an external power or
influence is already determining internal matters from outside,
preempting the democratic will. That external influence both
corrupts and obstructs the democratic substance of the political
process. In other words, when a nation such as the US intervenes
in another to "establish" or "insure" democracy in the other, it
is at the same time obviating the possibility of democracy for
that other nation. Any external force applied to make democracy
possible makes democracy impossible.
It is in our own struggle for democracy here in the US that
we must question everything the government says, what it dishes
out as its truth, as the first step toward our own sovereignty of
thought. We cannot think of democracy for ourselves without our
own sovereignty of thought. To the extent the government imposes
an account of an event, without a full accounting of its
evidence, as soon as we accept or accede to that account or its
language, we abandon democracy because we abandon sovereignty of
thought. It actually doesn't matter whether the government is
lying or not, though we know that the government lies continually
by both omission or commission; if we are not given the
possibility of independent judgment, we are given the Manichean
choice of belief, with its inherent totalitarianism.
In our own struggle for democracy, in other words,
everything that is not grounded on public evidence must be called
in question. And that means that we cannot accept the
government's language and names for things; we must develop our
own language to describe a world in which the government's
stories cannot be grounded, in order to think in a sovereign
manner. The government's very power comes in the form of its
account of the world; they give ethical sanction to what it does,
and they disguise its criminality, the seizing of lands and
people's labor, the violations of others's sovereignty and the
killing through its war machine, the controlling of who starves
and who eats through its control of the world's finances, as
having ethical sanction. With those stories, it exiles us from
our political space, because it can even tell us who our enemies
are. In effect, our ability to live ethically depends on having
our own language, and our own names for things.
In sum, our democracy depends on our sovereignty, and our
sovereignty depends on our freeing ourselves from the
government's language and account of the world. To accept the
idea that 911 was "terrorism," that a "war on terrorism" is
possible, that an organization named al-Qaeda exists and did the
deed, that 19 Arab men were the one's who killed by suicide, that
this represented an attack on the US as a nation, that there is
an "international terrorist conspiracy" against the US, that
there is an "axis of evil," etc., none of which has reality
beyond US government proclamation, means to abandon our political
existence, our political space, and slam the cell door on
ourselves.
Three questions of fact
To exempify the importance of the idea of sovereignty of
thought, in recognizing what we don't know, and thus what we do
know about the government's meta-politics, let us look at a
couple of questions of fact about 911 that have serious political
consequences. These are the fact that fighters were only
belatedly sent to intercept the hijacked planes, and the evidence
at the crash at the Pentagon. This will not be an attempt to
resolve these aspects, but to examine what it means that they
exist as questionable at the center of the government's account
of 911.
For 25 years, as a matter of routine policy, whenever a
commercial plane is discovered to have deviated from its
projected flight plan, Air Force fighters have been dispatched to
investigate, and if necessary, intercept the wayward plane. This
occurs if a plane goes off course, if its transponder fails or is
shut down, if it radios a distress signal, or if it is hijacked.
It must be emphasized that this is routine, standard operating
procedure, and has been for 25 years.
As soon as the transponders in the hijacked planes were shut
off, standard operating procedure should have dispatched fighters
to investigate, well before any of the planes could hit
buildings. On 911, four planes were hijacked, an unprecedented
event, and their transponders were all shut off, providing
definitive notification to authorities, from the FAA to the
National Security Agency, that something untoward was occurring.
These planes, still tracked by radar, all soon went off course,
confirming the emergency. Yet no fighters were dispatched, and no
attempt was made to investigate, until after the crash at the
Pentagon, which happened after two planes crashed into the WTC.
Never before had four planes been allegedly hijacked at
once; yet on this day, no fighters. And something wholly routine,
for which no special order was necessary, did not happen. In
order for something routine in the military to not happen, an
order countermanding it is necessary. That is, in order for no
investigation of transponder-negative planes to occur, an order
had to be given not to investigate. Such an order would have to
have come from very high up, at the level of the Air Force
Command or the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Someone at the highest
levels of government gave an order not to respond to a totally
unprecedented criminal event occurring in US national airspace.
The crashes were allowed to happen.
The questions about the plane that crashed into the Pentagon
are important in this light. The issue is not whether something
hit the Pentagon, but what. A plane approached the building, a
huge explosion occurs at the instant of impact, and the building
burns and collapses in its outer shell. The issue emerges from
the hiddenness of the wreckage, that no evidence has been
revealed by the government. A Boeing 757 contains an enormous
amount of metal; it is covered with sheet aluminum, and
constructed with a mile of struts. Two small pieces of metal, one
with its painted lettering intact in spite of the fire, were on
the grounds outside the building, though everything else was
deemed vaporized in the fire. Throughout the crash site, there
were no bodies, no bones, no papers, no clothes or luggage. The
only attempt to identify victims was of the people in the
building itself. And no black boxes were found, whether wrecked
or operative; and no engines were shown. Both the black boxes and
the engine are designed to withstand catastrophic conditions: the
former to withstand crashes, and the latter to withstand the
explosions of jet fuel that power the plane itself. Nothing was
revealed by the investigators of the crash to indicate that a 757
had actually hit the Pentagon.
The only facts that have become public knowledge concerning
this crash are the huge explosion that occurred as the plane was
making contact with the building, and the single round tunnel-
like hole made in the building, ostensibly by an engine. If the
explosion was of jet fuel, it would melt the aluminum skin of the
plane, but not vaporize it. Yet the government's investigators
claim that everything in the plane was vaporized, including the
black boxes. That is nonsense. Also, the force of a fuel
explosion can be seen to go upward, and pieces of the lower part
of the plane (without lettering) would survive, as would the
black boxes and the engines.
A 757 has two engines. Yet only one hole was made in the
building by an engine. The engine is the heaviest and most solid
part of an airplane, and would have penetrated deepest into the
building on its momentum. The engine-hole in the building goes
through three rings of the Pentagon; but there is only one, and
it is perfectly round. This means that the engine that made the
hole was acting like a projectile, and not twisting sideways as
it crashed through the building. This implies that it must have
been in the center of the plane, and not fixed to a wing, as on a
757. Had it been fixed to a wing, the crash that sheared the
wings off backwards would have imparted a sideways twisting to
the engine, which would then have left a jagged hole. These two
facts together imply that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a
single engine plane, with its engine centered in the fuselage.
The government investigators did not show the public the
wreckage of the one engine that crashed through three rings of
the Pentagon. The normal suspicion, in such a case, is that the
engine was recognizable as not a Boeing engine. And the other
alleged engine left not a trace.
All this suggests that the government faked the Boeing 757
crash at the Pentagon. Something non-Boeing hit the Pentagon, and
the government decided to disguise it as a hijacked airliner. The
real airliner, Flight 77, disappeared; it is not known what
happened to it. But it did not leave any traces of having hit the
Pentagon. The government is pretending that what did hit the
Pentagon was Flight 77, but has produced no evidence that this
might be the case.
If the government faked the crash at the Pentagon, this
would not be a marginal or ancillary detail to be debated after
the "important questions" about 911 have been addressed. It would
change all the meanings of 911 as an event -- all of them. The
important part of this is not the fact that no 757 hit the
building. Nor is it the fact that the government has pretended
that a 757 did hit the building. The central and earthshaking
fact about this is that the government coordinated its faked
crash with the crashes into the WTC. That fact of coordination
would set the government at the heart of what happened at the
WTC.
To place the government at the scene is not to explain the
government's motivation, why it is there, nor how it got there;
subsequent events do that. It is simply to place it at the scene,
and to ask, what does it mean that it is there.
Neither does this suggest any scenario for what happened on
911, nor suggest a political motive for the government being
involved in 911 as an event. All we have on both counts is the
meta-politics discussed above. But the fact that someone
countermanded the routine dispatch of fighters to investigate the
hijacked planes gets transformed. 911 was not simply allowed to
happen. The coordination of the faked crash at the Pentagon with
the WTC crashes transforms permissibility into authorship. It
implies that the use of planes to attack buildings was not only
known, but organized and controlled by some people in the US
government.
And this would change the meaning of everything that the
administration has done since, the onus, the animus, the
motivations for its responses, everything. It would change the
fact that it was a response. None of it would be a "response." It
would transform all that appears as meta-political into what is
effectively the "cause" for the event, the strategies for which
911 was a tactic. It would mean that each day, as we look at
changes in government strategy and structure, war and internal
repression, we are seeing the unfolding of a plan that preceded
911 and whose implementation depended on that event. That the US
government is capable of doing this is a matter of record. It is
willing to commit mass murder to send a message (Hiroshima), and
it is willing to kill Americans to transform or preserve a
certain political climate for its own purposes (the Kennedy
assassination, the King assassination, KAL 7 plane, the Waco
debacle, the assassination and framing of Black Panther Party
leaders, the Operation Tailwind that murdered hundreds of Vietnam
War resisters, etc.).
One thing it would not change is the question of al-Qaeda's
involvement in 911. Al-Qaeda has been given authorship of 911 by
the US government. But al-Qaeda never took credit for the act.
Therefore, we still do not know who actually hijacked those
planes, and why. But if the Pentagon crash was faked, then we do
know who was ultimately responsible for the events of that day.
And if the US government is involved in 911 in an authorial
capacity, and the Bush administration is now involved in the
creation of a Homeland Security Department which would give it
the ability to rule by decree, and has received from Congress the
power to assault other nations at will, then we must take
seriously, under the Nuremberg doctrine, the meaning that then
accrues to this event. That meaning comes to it from its most
immediate historical analogue, the Reichstag fire of 1933. The
Nazis burned the Reichstag building, and Hitler, calling it a
"communist attack on Germany," used it to obtain the power to
rule by decree, and to assault other nations at will -- a
condition that led to the Second World War, and 42 million dead.
Some final thoughts on "conspiracy theory"
What has been somewhat surprising, in the wake of 911, is
the tendency of so many people, including those who spend much
time in opposition to the imperialist and exploitative policies
of the US government, to characterize questioning the government
account as "conspiracy theory." This includes general scoffing at
the questions being raised, that they concern mere details, and
do not get to the heart of the "important" questions. To argue
that some things are more important than others is important; the
political questions it raises open dialogue on "importance"
itself and the meanings of events. But to scoff is another
matter; it derogates attempts by citizens to enter into the
process of understanding this event, and it shuts down dialogue -
- which means it shuts down investigation through an exchange of
ideas. It shuts down understanding. It shuts down the sovereignty
of thought, and the attempt to arrive, in dialogue, at a language
that escapes government control.
The question, what is important? is an important question.
But it can't be decided by fiat, only by agreement. Any attempt
to proclaim what is important in the face of a different view is
to make agreement impossible; it is to enforce importance, and
thus to obviate discussion of what is important. To charge
"conspiracy theory," or the non-importance of a process of
questioning, is thus self-defeating. Ultimately, it means that
one does not want to discuss the matter at all. There is no more
apolitical attitude than that.
To raise questions about the government's account, and look
for suppressed evidence to the contrary, is not to flesh out a
conspiracy concerning who did what, and why certain events
occurred. Subsequent events are sure to tell us those things (if
we manage to survive them). And surely, we don't want to enter
into idle speculation. Some people find it interesting to play
with speculative accounts, based on insufficient evidence (there
are such things as conspiracy theories). For some, it is a way of
making their personal reasoning more concrete, nothing more; for
others, it is self-advertising, nothing more. There may be wisdom
in some of it, and there may be insight, or there may by nothing.
It doesn't matter. What does matter is looking at the meaning of
the evidence available, and opening the government's account to
questioning. What is always important is generating dialogue
among people around political events, not only to move toward
truth, but primarily so that people come together through that
dialogue.
While some conspiracy theorists disrupt dialogue, the more
serious disruption lies with those who disrupt questioning in the
name of anti-conspiracy guardianship. Since the mid-1970s, the
term "conspiracy theory" has become a form of derogatory term, a
means of assaulting a person or position without having to engage
them or it. But to shut down questioning of the government's
account of events means to accede to the government's account, to
acquiesce to it. It may not mean to agree with the government's
account, but accession renders agreement irrelevant. In essence,
to charge "conspiracy theory" is not only to accede to the
government's account, but to indicate that one's deep heart-felt
desire is that the government account actually be the true
account.
The government's account of events is no longer part of an
open politics, because the government is no longer an open
government; that is, it is not democratic (the 2002 election is
only one moment where this broke the surface veneer). The
government lies, and it hides information within a secrecy-style
called "national security." Because the government lies fairly
consistently, everything it says must be questioned, and its
rhetoric (its use of "democracy," "freedom," and "economic
stability") understood as veneer. This is an important part of
the struggle for democracy in the US, which has a long way to go
before it will be won.
What is important is that the central aspect of all this is
the question of power. If the government promotes an account of a
particular event to rationalize an invasion of other sovereign
nations, whipping up a global hysteria, and taking significant
(pre-planned) steps toward a dys-Constitutional (or de-
Constitutionalized) police state, then whatever one can do to
reveal the government's account to be false and fraudulent, and
undermine the government's rationale, will undermine its plans,
and its power, and thus weaken it politically, while
strengthening the justice of resistence to its policies.
Top
Back to NVUSA Index @ gregmoses.net