In the begining there was conspiring...
Lecture at the
conference “The
New Pearl Harbour: Exploring Conflicting Interpretations of 9/11” - Cork/Ireland, Nov. 12th 2005
Thank
you for the invitation to speak here. I want to start with nine general remarks on the underlying nature of
conspiracies and conspiracy theories
1
In the beginning there was
conspiring. In order to win out over a hostile planet, various bacteria united
and formed the first creature with a definite cell nucleus. Not merely chance
mutations and the competitive struggle for existence but conspiring and
cooperation too made evolution possible. The bacteriological conspiring is
probably the only world-conspiracy at all, it has been going over 2,5 billion
years, and its only aim is Life.
2
Conspiracies are the most
ordinary thing in the world: A and B agree behind the back of C, in order to
gain some benefit. This happens in the business just as it does in nature, is
just as common in politics as in the workplace – and above all, in love life.
That the beloved secretly has another lover, is probably the most commonly held
conspiracy theory of all.
3
Conspiracy theories are
suppositions about real conspiracies, based on indications, suspicions,
evidence. If the conspiracy theory is backed up by definitive proof– the
partner is caught in flagrante delicto, the “Watergate” tapes on illegal
political dirty tricks are given to the press – then the conspiracy is
uncovered and ends. Often, however, such definite physical proof cannot be
found. That is why real conspiracies are aften as long-lived as unproven
conspiracy theories.
4
Conspiracy theories have a
special quality that makes them so attractive: they reduce complexity.
Many-layered, complex causes of events can be reduced to a single scapegoat.
The blame game – or the tendency to ascribe an incomprehensible and painful
reality to a specific guilty party – seems to be a basic characteristic of
human behavior.
5
In the course of internally
processing incomprehensible external catastrophes, the oldest and most important conspiracy
theorie may have arisen, which is generally abbreviated under the name “God,”
that is, the supposition of an invisible, secret, all-powerful creator and
string-puller, concealed behind the universe and our own existence. The
supposition of a divine conspiracy also reduces complexity: it makes our
catastrophic, chaotic, incomprehensible cosmos understandable – giving it and our existence meaning.
6
The ability of conspiracy
theories to reduce complex relationships to simple causes makes them an ideal
instrument for propaganda and agitation. Without the specter of a sinister and
bloodthirsty “Judeo-bolshevist world conspiracy,” Hitler could not have roused
his constituents to a world war, nor could Stalin have long maintained his
dictatorship without the supposed threat of a “Jewish-imperialist world
conspiracy.”
7
To conspire, to conjure, to
capture and to control are related. The conjuring of invisible powers of good
or evil has something of the conspiratorial spirit, as well as something
captivating, since it makes complicated things simple. Conspiration comes from conspirare,
breathing together, or spiritus, spirit. The spirit of conspiracies is
always a group or social phenomenon. Nothing is more convivial, nor more
dangerous, than a group conspiring together.
8
The interaction of
conspiracy, conjuration and captivation can be seen in the working of
conspiracy theories: lacking definite proofs, the “truth” of the theorie must
be conjured again and again, and it can captivate only as long as skepticism
and doubt of this “truth” are controlled and kept out.
9
To immunize themselves
against skepticism and doubt, conspiracy theories have a strange loop built in:
every criticism is automatically turned into a further proof of the supposed
Conspiracy. This immune system of modern conspiracies is the same one of their
historical antecedent, the demonology of the Middle Ages: Whoever disputes the
presence of the devil must be possessed by him.
So, on this general background,
we may understand better the words given by George W. Bush shortly after the the 9/11 attacks – “You’re either with us
– or with the terrorists” - Whoever
disputes, that towelheaded devils from
the caves of Tora Bora committed the attacks on Sep. 11th must be possesed by them - and also Bush’s speach to the United
Nations attacks in November 2001 :
"We must speak the truth
about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning
the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the
blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
With the above mentioned general structures of conspiracies
and conspiracy-theories in mind – and
knowing that virtually nothing of the truth about the terror of 9/11 is really
revealed – we may call this quote an abosultely perfect “double speak” –
shifting away the blame from the guilty to some demonic evil-doers and
hallowing the most outrageous conspiracy theory at all – the official version
of the attacks – as a holy truth.
The Bush administrations official story has three
basic premises:
The first is that Islamic terrorists, based in
Afghanistan, who hate American freedom plotted and executed the attack - an
attack which the U.S. government had no prior knowledge of nor any connection
to.
The second premise is that in order to wage and win a
war on terrorism the US must invade Afghanistan, Irak and every other nation
harboring, funding or supporting terrorists and that a simultaneous suspension
of domestic civil liberties is necessary for internal security.
The third basic premise is that the US-government is
all good - while theirs is the very personification of evil, the
"evil-doers" as President Bush likes to call them.
So far, summarized briefly, this is the official
version of events and what followed. But if we look a little more closely, we
have to notice that until today the criminal case of the 9-11 attacks has
remained entirely unsolved. Investigations by police and authorities utterly
failed, none of the real backers and perpatrators of these attacks were found,
also no hard evidence and no terrorist was captured. In fact, after 4 years we
do not know more than we knew 4 days after the attacks, when that list of the
19 Hijackers had been published. So the results of the greatest
police-operation in history amount to virtually nothing.
I think there are two reasons for this
zero-investigation:
First: the secrecy of the US-administration, which has
stonewalled all evidence of 9-11 -flight-recorders, air-traffic-communication
etc. – and buried it in the grave of "national security".
Second: the nearly total breakdown of the media's
constitutional function in democratic societies as an instrument of
power-control and critical investigation.
The coverage of 9-11 shows, that mass-media is doing a
perfect job if it comes to grave criminal activities like presidential sex with
White House trainees, but if it comes to small sins like the 9-11-events, there
had been (and still is) no investigative journalism at all. The
mainstream-media has gone to rack and ruin and became a brothel of propaganda.
To understand this you do not need any
conspiracy-theories. All you need is a closer look at the official version of
events - and the maountain of
contradicting facts, which appeared shortly in the news, and then disappeared
forever.But thanks to the memory and archives of the internet it has become
possible to reconstruct the puzzle – not sufficiently yet to get a
"true" picture, but more than enough to show, what the official
version of 9-11 really is: a conspiracy theory which lacks any evidence
whatsoever.
For the most of you here this is no news at all, but
that for a majority of the population in the US
and in Europe, this statement and the reality behind it is still really shocking. I remember visiting my mother in
November 2001 and we where watching the news on TV, it was the time when the
US-Troups had surrounded the Tora Bora caves in Afghanistan. While we watched I
made some statements in between – „Do you know, that the US armed Bin Laden
& Al Qaida?“ – „He was reported in an American Hospital last July“ – „He builded this
cave-stronghold with the CIA and his own
construction company“ – „ His family and the Bush’s investing in the same
defence-company, they dinnered together on Sep 10th“ .
My mother had
watched me increansingly skeptical, and than she asked: „Boy, is that true what
you are telling me here?“ I said that it
is at least, and most likely, more true
than what is reported in the news. “Well then, you better stop going on about this.
It’s getting too complicated for me. I’d rather stick to what they’re saying on
TV…and the young Mr. Bush doesn’t cut such a bad figure.”
This reaction, it seems to
me, is phenotypical, and not only in the case of old ladies but for the
overwhelming majority of the population. It is the typical reaction if you
confront somebody with some thruths of 9/11 – because it is expanding the simplicity of crude black &
white and enhancing complexity. Therefore these unwanted facts of 9/11 are working in the
opposite direction as conspiracy-theories do, which always tend to reduce
complexity on a simple scapegoat-scheme.
The psychological shock; the
number of casualties, initially estimated to be around 50,000; the
incomprehensible, Babylonic-apocalyptic event constantly repeated in slow
motion; the unhinged world of “nothing is as it was;” the deep and widespread
confusion triggered by this chaos; all this cried out for an explanation, for a
quick appraisal of the situation, for a plan. And this is what George W. Bush
delivered in a way that was perfect because it was simple. He presented a
culprit and declared war on him and on his supporters. It was no coincidence
that the president’s congressional speech was met with rapturous cheers
reminiscent of Nazi party conferences. Indeed, the moment endowed him with the
halo of a leader and savior as he lifted the spirits of the frightened and
paralyzed masses. This cathartic effect
was in no way undermined by the fact that he was selling a simplistic
conspiracy theory as the basis for a declaration of war – as you know, Hitler
never had anything else to offer either.
Maybe as domesticated
primates we have something of a scapegoat reflex genetically implanted into us,
which in times of catastrophe and chaos provides us with an emotional outlet
for fear, while guaranteeing the cohesion of the pack by focusing on a common
“enemy.” It seems to me the success of Bush’s war policy can only be explained
on the basis of such an instinctive reflex, of a reaction that is based more on
an archaic herd instinct than on individual reason. The more dramatic the event
and the more confusing the situation, the greater the pressure to resolve the
situation. So, had Osama and his 40 robbers not existed, an enemy like him
would have had to be invented then and there for reasons of group dynamics
alone.
What would a more
intelligent, less primate-like response have looked like? The decisive factor
driving the whole event is horror and the fear it triggers. Whoever
masterminded the attacks, their calculations were based entirely on the fear
that is spread by the horror they unleashed. Yet the very thought that the
perpetrators are counting on a reaction of fear and panic is a sign of more
sophisticated reasoning, of a wider realization. Not only the horror is
perceived as real, but those causing it and their intentions are also taken
into account. This awareness, the conspiratorial, skeptical, paranoid
perception, opens up the possibility of a whole range of responses to the
horror, above and beyond panic. Herd panic reacts to disaster with cries for
action for action’s sake, be it even blind action – so George W. Bush was
generally described as “prudent” in the days following the attack, merely
because he didn’t drop a few nuclear bombs here and there.
“Well, but what do you really
believe now?” Those who asked this question in the seminars of “Cybernethics”
professor Heinz von Foerster had to pay a dollar into the seminar kitty; for
the word “truth,” the fine was doubled to two dollars. “The term truth means
war,” says von Foerster. “It creates the lie, it divides people into those who
are right and those who are wrong. I once said truth is the invention of a
liar.”
In regard to 9/11, I advocate
that all observations should be inextricably linked to the observer. As I deal
with these matters, I sometimes find myself in the same situation as the
quantum physicist who is plagued by the particle/wave paradox. The more
thoroughly you focus on one aspect of the system, the more you lose sight of another.
But aren’t Schrödinger’s cat and Einstein’s mouse irrelevant in a state of
emergency? Wasn’t it a matter of having to open the box and establish certainty
in order to take action? If that is so, if the frightened herd cries out for
action, the primate mob clamors for revenge and a clear-cut friend-foe image
must be created, and the time has come for those gruesome “truths” that mean
war: then there is only one counter-strategy. The “outrageous conspiracy
theories,” the “malicious lies” and the diversion from the “real culprits” must
be further exposed and publicized.
Therefore in the first
chapters of my second book on the attacks
– “Facts, Forgerys & the supressed evidence of 9/11” – we focused
the attention on these “real culprits”, the identities of the alleged
perpetrators. About 48
hours after the attacks the FBI published a list of the 19 suspected hijackers.
In the following week it turned out, that at least six of these 19
suicide-bombers were still alive. Four of them were interviewed by reporters –
and they wondered and complained, how their names, pictures and birth dates
happened to get onto this „most wanted" list. They had nothing to do with
the attacks, were not in the US around 9-11 and had done their regular jobs at
home instead: at a telecommunications company, an oil factory or the Saudi
Airlines office. Two other suspected „hijackers" turned out to be pilots
on a training-course, one in Morocco and the other in Tunisia, and these men
also complained about being presented as massmurders. BBC, The Guardian and
other „premium" papers reported in the weeks following Sep. 11th 2001,
that the names of these „suicide-hijackers" were a case of mistaken
identities– and the real hijackers must have stolen them. So far no
problem: the use of fake identities is quite regular for criminals or
terrorists. But what do you find when you take a look at the FBI-website today?
Even four years later you still find those names and pictures of the same „19
suspected Hijackers" – and no mention of the fact, that at least six of
these poeple cannot be the real terrorists. If you keep in mind, that the original passenger lists of the four
flights were never published, that no video-footage exists of their boarding at
Boston airport, no fingerprints found on the boarding cards, no proof that
these 19 people even were on these planes. The Spiegel, Germanys leading
News magazin, took this part of my book to brand me as nut researcher and
crook, saying that the doubtfull names and pictures on the suspects-list
were all cleared up when the FBI published a corrected version on Sept. 27th.
But this is not the case at all – there are still hard and reasonable doubts on
the real identities of the hijackers – and there are still nine skeletons in
the closet. Nine dead bodies from the Pentagon- and the Pennsylvania -flights
are still „on the rocks“ at a military base in Maryland, all with the same
name: John Doe… they are not identified. Why? If the hotels, bars and rental
cars these guys used in the days before are known – and they are according to
the FBI – why then is there not a single piece of evidence, not a hair, no
piece of fingernail, no little booger to identify these alleged terrorists?
Since this is the very basic
question of every crime investigation – Who dunnit ?? - and it is
still unanswered, we have to start here – the „Hows ?“ and „Whys ?“ and
„for what purposes ?“ and „Cui Bonos“, all these questions are important, but
they are secondary, in the intrinsic sense of the word. The answers to them stay
worthless as long the very first step – the identification of the actual
perpetrators - is not done. We have a least two dozens of anomalies of
9/11 and every one of them with quite good evidence, any of them worth a
whole book… I don’t dispute these anomalies … But where does it lead, to
discuss – lets say the inner explosion of the twin towers, the rockets slung
underneath the Boeings or the size of the Pentagon-hole… ? Who can be brought
to an indictment with this photoshop-evidences? Nobody I think and therefore I
plea for the simple method to make the first step first and identify the 19
alleged perpatrators, the main suspects. In my documentation of the dubious identities
of the hijackers I quoted from the press
release of a Meeting of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince Saud Al-Faisal and
Pres. Bush on Sept. 20th 2001:
„Regarding the inclusion of Saudi names in the published list of the
suspects, Prince Saud commented that haste in publishing the names of suspects
has been acknowledged, and that it has been proven that five of the people
listed had nothing to do with what happened, adding: "We very much
hope that before being published, information, names and pictures will be
verified." (End of Quotation)
This press release was published on the website of the Saudi Embassy – but
you will not find it there anymore, When our book came out in August 2003 – and
the „Spiegel“-Magazin tried to ridicule my claim of the highly dubious
hijackers identities, they asked the Saudi Embassy in Berlin about this quote
of the Foreign Minister. Since the „Spiegel“ -guys aren’t cooperating with me,
they didn’t provide me with the answers; but supported instead the befriended
TV-Magazine „Panorama“ for an smear on the books of Andreas von Bülow and mine,
so incredible, that I sued them for wrong allegations. To convince the judge
what a bad journalist I am they gave a huge pile of paper to the court, and in
this I found the document with the official answer of the Saudi Embassy to the
„Spiegel“:
„Regarding your request from Aug. 27th 2003 on the alleged press-release of
HRH Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal after his meeting with US-President
George W.Bush on Sept 20th 2001, in which he is supposed to have said that five
names on the FBI’s suspects-list had nothing to do with what happend, the
Embassy of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom intimates, that HRH the Foreign
Minister never gave such a statement and this means, that what is written
in the book „Facts, Forgeries and the supressed evidence of 9-11“ lacks
any foundation.“
Thanks to the memory of the internet we can proof the opposite, the Saudi
Foreign Minister indeed gave the statement „that five of the people
listed had nothing to do with what happened“ on Sept. 20th –
and thanks to the involuntary
help of „Spiegel“ we can proof now, that they officaly deny it entirely.
Needless to say that this was no reason for the former leading news-magazin
„Spiegel“ to look a bit closer at this mysterious denial. Why does the
Saudi Secretary two years later deny that there had been errors in naming the
suspects and he had dicussed this with Pres. Bush who had acknoleweged a
certain „haste of publishing“? If errors happened in „haste“ and would have
been corrected properly with the second FBI-list published a week later – why
not simply state so? Why eliminate press-releases and deny given
statements ? - Because until today the question of the true
identity of the 19 hijackers is still totally unsolved – and the Bush-
administration is doing everything they can to keep it that way. If they
succeed these 19 will stay there for ever and become history. In spite
of all the contradicting facts and witnesses that were revealed by one
of the last specimen of investigative journalists in the US, Daniel Hopsicker, on the alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta in
Florida - what we will hear from him later today. He won’t get a Pulitzer Price
for his formidable research very soon – because these prices are still reserved
for Pre$$stitutes of the likes of the NYTs Judy Miller– but the facts on Atta in Florida alone unmask
the official version of the event as a web of fiction & lies – and the
final report of the 9/11 commission as a phantasy book which proper title sould have been “Ali Plotter & the
box-cutters of horror” or something like that...
My pleading to look closer on the identities and
background of the alleged hijackers, doesn’t mean to deny all the other screaming contradictions
of the official story – but following the golden rule „First things first“ it
makes no sense to debate or divide on the width of the Pentagon-hole or the physics of the Trade
Center crash in the beginning, only to come to the short-circuit conclusion:
„Bush did it“ – or „the military“ – or „the Secret Service, the CIA “ – . Ok –
but: so what ? Does this lead to anything, execept to the same simplicity like
„Osama did it“. I don’t think so. Any
proper criminal investigation will lead to these disturbing evidences on the
crash site, but rising from the very
basic question of real human beeings who committed this crime. If
this investigation brings to
light, that the alleged hijackers were only patsies – and I am convinced it
would – than the second step would be to go after their helpers and handlers
and masters and so on the ladder up. It
might end right in the office of Dick Cheney – like it did with the
manufacturing of the Iraq-lies – and having in mind that he was coordinating
the wargames on the morning of 9/11 it seems
safe to bet on the vice-president – but as long as we do not know, where
Mohamed Atta learned to fly and how Hani Hanjour, who was not able to fly a
Cessna, steered the Pentagon-Jetliner in
this highly complicated operation, we are still on the very beginning of any
chain of evidence.
We all have
become witnesses and victims of the biggest brainwashing operation in history -
Welcome to
Brainwashington D.C. .
The complexity
of 9-11 is huge and it’s important to keep track and not to get lost in
the hall of mirrors. So „Keep it simple“ seems a good advice to me and I
tried to follow it with my remarks here.
There can be no
doubt at all that the Bush-regime exploited 9-11 for their long planed wars and
their chronies profits - and at the same time did everything to prevent
any reasonable investigation.
There are only
very few doubts that the administration had foreknowledge of the attacks and
moreover there are a lot of indications, that the attacks were engineered from
high up in the military and intelligence. Since we are still in the phase of
adjusting we should behave more like detectives than as self-assured
politicians –at least for me, observing and researching since the attacks
happened, the puzzle of 9/11 is fare from to be solved. If we are not
driven by pre-fabricated theory, but by all the available data – than we
have to put everything on the table, even if becomes complex and seemingly
contradicting parts appear. But these parts mark the points were deeper
investigation is needed – and as long no prosecutor, no court, no
state-commission is willing to do it, as long it depends on us as citicizens to
conduct it - and on the alternative media to communicate it. A huge majority of
the people in the US and Europe allready know now the obvious lies of the Iraq
war – it has become a topic of the mainstreammedia and lead to indictments of some top-officials. Even if I do not expect
to see the whole gang of “Neocon”-
warmongers in the White House and their collaborators in Dowing Street in
prison soon, it’s important to note, that
what three years before was blamed as “conspiracy theory”, is now an undisputed
fact. And in a smiliar way, the contradictions and
inconsitencies of the official version of 9/11 are allready obvious to almost
everybody – so it will be only a question of time, when the truth of the New Pearl Harbour will be revealed.
Mathias Broeckers