We’re at a point where we must decide if we will live
consciously or literally give up our entire reality for a thin veneer of lies.
In the US these lies include cheap propaganda that passes for journalism,
police-state measures that promise security and mountains of debt that paint a
picture of wealth. Additionally we’ve adopted many implicit self-deceptions,
like the idea that we’ll always enjoy a limitless share of the world’s
resources, no matter where these are located or who might disagree.
All people lie to themselves. It’s one of the most
important things we have yet to accept about our own nature. We lie to ourselves
to justify our past actions, to protect our self-image and to promote ourselves
relative to others. This lying is at the root of many of our problems (e.g.
nationalism and racism). Until we see this and strive to understand if not
control it, the resulting problems will continue unchecked and the outcome will
be certain. Any organism or society that makes self-deception its modus
operandi will make many bad and ultimately fatal decisions. The day will
come when we are collectively fooling ourselves in such a way that we
essentially trade everything we have for what’s behind our fantasy curtain. It
appears that day is near.
The official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a key part of our
current self-deception. More importantly, this story may be our last chance to
see just how critical our situation is so that we can all stop and begin working
together to solve the real problems we face. These problems, for the US and the
world as a whole, amount to a growing storm of factors including environmental
changes, resource depletion and growth in resource usage. Undoubtedly, the
secret Energy Task Force report of May 2001 would verify this and help us
to understand that our government is responding to some of these threats with a
carefully laid out plan. This plan assumes that people cannot rise above their
own natural, ego-based self-deception and therefore, few of us will survive the
coming storm. In essence, they’re betting against us.
Anyone who honestly looks at the evidence has difficulty
finding anything in the official story of 9/11 that is believable. It’s not
just one or two strange twists or holes in the story, the whole thing is bogus
from start to end. In my previous job I was in a position to question one part,
the collapse of three tall buildings due to fire. But this isn’t really a
chemistry or engineering problem, and may be best approached initially through
statistics.
The three WTC buildings in question weren’t all designed
the same way and weren’t all hit by airplanes. The only thing they seemed to
have in common were relatively small and manageable fires, as indicated by the
work of firefighters right up to the moment of collapse. From the government’s
report we know that only a small percentage of the supporting columns in each of
the first two buildings were severed, and that the jet fuel burned off in just a
few minutes.
To follow the latest ‘leading hypothesis’, what are the
odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from
the point of impact? Without much test data, let’s say it’s one in a
thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply
highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the
remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that
those points would then all soften in unison and give way perfectly, so that the
highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I
wouldn’t even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in
tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and
third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let’s
say it’s one in a million. Considering just these few points we’re looking
at a one in a trillion chance.
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with
several other trains of similarly unlikely events, gives us reason to invade the
few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural
gas. As I said, this is not about chemistry or engineering. Our continued
dependence on this highly improbable story means that we have a desperate need
to believe it. It is, in fact, a psychology problem.
Solving the problem is a personal challenge and involves at
least three steps. First, we have to admit we were wrong and that we were
fooled. This is not easy for most people, but congratulations to the neo-cons
for noticing that their political opponents seem to be least able to admit they
were wrong on any significant issue. Secondly, we have to see that terrorism is
actually much worse than we feared because the terrorists are in charge. Such a
pause on a national scale would be dramatic to say the least. If we get to the
third step we begin to realize the scope of change necessary to move forward in
a conscious manner. Obviously, the US government must be substantially changed
and/or forgiven.
No matter how you voted, what credentials or positions you
hold, or what faith you have in people, you will face the consequences of our
collective self-deceptions. Now is the time for each of us to decide between a
stormy reality and what’s behind the fantasy curtain.
Kevin Ryan was site manager of the Environmental
Health Laboratories (a division of Underwriters Laboratories) which certified
the steel components used in construction of the WTC buildings. He wrote a
letter (11 Nov. 2004) to a government scientist at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, asking him to clarify a report. One week later he was
fired. Ryan is now a celebrated 9/11 whistleblower. For the background to his
story and his letter see: "NIST Scientist Says Jet Fuel Couldn’t Possibly
Melt Steel in Twin Towers", G.O. # 9, p. 5.
Copyright belongs to the author. All rights reserved.