inside job?

I didn't say all I wanted to say in my post yesterday about the new poll that 36% of Americans think that 911 was insider-ish.

from the comments, here's oldschool:

"Let's look at the math. First one should, I think, subtract that portion of the US population that either fully supports the admin, or at least *really* wants to do so, if only they'd quit making so many "mistakes". I'm guessing that attacking, or at least 'punishing', Iran, might push GWB-favorable numbers up to maybe 45-48%. I could very well be wrong, so let's use 42% as a maximum percentage of possible Bush-supporters.

Now, discount that 42% altogether.

That would then mean that out of the 58% of arguably sentient, intelligent US citizens left, approximately 62% of them believe, if the poll is valid, that 9-11 was, at least to some extent, an inside job.

Now let's look at what I'll call the Firedoglake phenomenon. That blog is full of intelligent posters and commenters, all of whom are polite to a fault, imo. If, however, one would want to see that polite and collegial atmosphere come to a screeching halt, just go over and whisper the words "9-11 was an inside job". All civility ends, and the jeering and insults will begin. (I wrote a long post there decrying such crap, which was typically brilliant, heh, but it was a long time ago and I can't find it now).

Why? Otherwise reasonable people clinging desparately to an idea that such a thing could not happen in this country - that, despite all of the dastardly things which have flowed from this administration, and daily public proof, that every justification for the mis-deeds tracks back to 9-11, they cannot bring themselves to admit that an administration of the United States of America would ever engage in a plot to sacrifice its own citizens for the furtherance of a power-grab. They just can't look at it - can't stand to even brook the possiblity - it's just too much - and they so desperately need *something* to hang on to.

I have no idea as to what percentage of the sentient population falls into the 'Firedoglake phenomenon'. I have no idea how to reach such people, but I think that it is essentially the last remaining obstacle - for if and when one does in fact look at the evidence or lack thereof, it's damned near inescapable that something utterly evil was and is afoot. I won't go into evidentiary matters, leaving that to Damien and simultaneoulsy avoiding embarassing myself in the process, but it's all pretty much out there now isn't it? Or at least enough of 'it' such that there remains no excuse for intelligent US citizens (and there are still millons of 'em) to take a serious look and let go of the 'Nah, they wouldn't do *that*!' mentality.

Suffice it say, I'm a bit stunned by the poll result.

It may never be heard of again."

good points all.

As I mentioned in my post, it was amazing that the poll was done at all, and yep, the result was astonishing. It'll be interesting to see if anyone follows up with a repeat poll. Given the trouble we had to go to to get anyone to poll on impeachment, I'd be surprised if there's any follow-up. Of course, the media spin is 'why do people believe in conspiracy theories?' rather than 'what if people are correct?'

Of course, that Kooky 36% is approximately the size of Blinky's current mandate. If 36% can believe that he is a good president, then anything is possible.

and mamayaga:

"I agree with old school about the psychological barriers to internalizing the idea that one's own government could do citizens harm for their own nefarious ends. This despite our all knowing, or perhaps "knowing" in an emotionally distant way, that our government carried out experiments using LSD on unwitting citizens, used U.S. servicemen in radiation and nerve gas experiments, and funded a 40-year study in which poor citizens were deliberately left untreated for their syphilis. These are all uncontested facts, acknowledged by our government. Yet it is too dangerous psychologically to believe that our current government, as opposed to one long past, could deliberately harm us.

I think there are two things that may need to happen before people can look the implications of 9/11 in the eye: 1) They must separate the evil actors from "The Government," and 2) they must find a way to absolve themselves of the responsibility for enabling these bad actors.

The first can be accomplished by emphasizing that it was not the Government, but a limited number of individual actors who happened to have government posts who were responsible. After all, the Government consists of about 8 million employees. With that number of people, inevitably at any given time a certain number of them are engaged in criminal acts that hurt the rest of us. If we can look on the bad actors of 9/11 the same way we look on Aldritch Ames (or Duke Cunningham), it may reduce the feeling of unsafe-ness that results from thinking about 9/11 as an inside job.

The second part of the process might be greatly aided by continuing to focus on and talk about the abundant evidence that key parts of the votes in 2000 and 2004 were fruadulent. Not only does it help focus attention on exactly how bad these people are (and what they truly are capable of) but it also gives the public a way out of being responsible for them. After all, if the election results were fraudulent, then the government actors who may have been to blame are also illegitimate.

Finally, I think you will find that the strong visceral reactions to this kind of discussion will be found most prominently on Daily Kos rather than Firedoglake -- interesting also that at Dkos talk of rigged elections is greeted with the same vigorous defense against acknowledgement as is talk of 9/11 as an inside job."

all good points.

another way to help people make the psychological leap from 'these people aren't so evil that they'd kill their own people' is to point to the iraq war lies - which has killed as many of 'their own people' and about 50 times more 'other people' - therefore, independent of whether the cabal actually was involved in 911 or not, we can dispel the notion that it's inconceivable that they really are that evil.

Mamayaga makes a good point about the fact that it's easier to conceive of historically evil government than current evil governments (for some reason), and I'll add to Mamayaga's list of crimes to include Operation Whatever (name escapes me at the mo) Northwoods (thnx starroute) where they were going to blow up a plane and blame Cuba.

re Mamayaga's point that it is useful to separate the cabal from 'the government' - one of the things that comes across in Press For Truth is that it wasn't 'the government' - but some diffuse cabal of Osama and the ISI that perpetrated the attacks. The film demonstrates (without making any explicit suggest re 911) how the CIA and the ISI outsourced the Soviet/Afghan war to the mujahadeen - at that point in the movie, one of my guests said something along the lines of 'ahhh - it looks like they did the same thing here'

The movie doesn't sugggest anything specific about USG complicity - but it's devastating in conveying:
1) there were plenty of warnings in advance.
2) the USG lied again and again when they said that 'no-one could have imagined'
3) they went to extraordinary lengths to avoid an investigation
4) the eventual 911 Commission was a whitewash
a) they tried to put kissinger in charge (despite the fact that the Bin Ladens were his client)
b) they all tried to avoid testifying, and when they did, it wasn't under oath
c) etc.

Relatedly, Ron has an article at Raw:

"Federal agency releases 'rebuttal' to 9/11 theories on the destruction of WTC towers
[]
A few days ago, as the five-year anniversary of the attacks approaches, the National Institute of Standards and Technology posted a FAQ sheet on it's website entitled "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions", based upon its three-year building and fire safety investigation.
[]
Much of the fact sheet deals with the "controlled demolition" theory, which the agency never actively investigated or pursued because they couldn't find any "corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses."
[]
A point-by-point reply to the NIST FAQ sheet was written by Jim Hoffman, a software engineer with many published articles in scientific magazines and journals, who has been investigating the events of 9/11 since early 2003, questioning the "official story," as well as debunking some of the more "wild" theories about what may have happened."

I don't really have a position on the Controlled Demolition theory - I guess I tend to lean that way a little bit - but others make a strong case that it'd be impossible to wire the buildings appropriately. I still don't have a good explanation for why the blueprints were sent "to a remote, remote border location in the Middle-East (not Turkey)" in July of 2001 - see here, here and here. I'm also 'surprised' that the 911Comm didn't include this in their report.

The movie doesn't say anything about that (or any other theory, really) - but my guests said something in amazement along the lines of 'ya know, i've never really seen the WTC buildings collapse - they just seem to fall from the sky, like they're melting. it kinda looks like when they intentionally blow up a building' - the guests didnt really suggest that maybe someone had planted explosives in the building - but they were amazed (unprompted) at the visual impact of watching the buildings fall down.

I also showed my folks the movie the other day - and they had the same response to the collapse of the buildings.