In The End, We Are All Conspiracy Theorists

Everything you know, or think you know, is a lie. There are far too many untold facts that even when told they slip from the mind in a matter of minutes, causing no real effect on people. They are pushed aside or buried in a flow of information and images and car ads—a needle in a haystack. No other even in recent history that has had such a large impact on global affairs been reported on so blindly as the day when three of four planes, manned by terrorists, crashed into strategic buildings in the States. For the first time since the false reports of the USS Maddox being attacked by the North Vietnamese which escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, have we seen how fear and intense patriotism can cause a people to so blindly accept the official explanation of things and unquestioningly follow their leaders—no matter how incomplete that explanation may be.

So if everything is a lie, then is the previous paragraph also a lie? Have I blown your mind? Good.

It seems that there are two sides to this story. On the one hand there is the official explanation that 14 terrorists, members of the terror organization called Al-Qaeda, under the command of Osama bin Laden, hijacked 4 planes, three of which flew into both twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The fourth plane, United 93, was retaken by the brave passengers and crashed in a field somewhere in Pennsylvania.

Although that is the official version it is lacking certain facts—facts that are denied by most mainstream media, but that have been uncovered by alternative media outlets and concerned individuals. Of course it is easy to cast these aside with jargon. Just by saying the words conspiracy or unpatriotic we remove the weight from their findings and push them aside. Conspiracy or not, what is certain is that we do not have the full picture of the events of that day.

The film "Loose Change” is a documentary available online. Since it uses unauthorized scenes and images from various news sources and documentaries it can never have a wide release, but it doesn’t make their case any less disturbing. The film asks more questions than it answers, but these are question that have never really been asked in the mainstream media. For example:

Why was security slackened and all bomb sniffing dogs removed from the World Trade Center (WTC) in the weeks before September 11th?

Why when you look at the buildings before they collapse can you see blasts on each floor going of one right after the other as though explosives had been set? Why do they collapse in a fashion similar to a controlled demolition?

How is it possible that a man who was, by all accounts, a substandard pilot was able to fly a plane with such precision that the air-traffic controllers monitoring the plane first believed it to be a military plane before it crashed into the Pentagon?

And most importantly, why is it that none of the crash scenes, including that of United 93 showed visible signs of debris?

The questions go on, often facts that conflict completely with the official explanation are exposed, and some possible ‘other’ explanations offered. A CNN correspondent saw an unmarked white plane hovering over the White House (which is forbidden) around the same time as the terrorist plane hit the Pentagon, yet besides the thirty seconds on TV where the journalist explained what he saw, it was ignored and forgotten.

So why did the media fuck the dog on these questions following the attacks? According to Hunter S. Thompson the media was callid and intimidated by the massive flag-sucking following 9/11, nobody was willing to dissent.

Films like “Loose Change” are passed off as conspiracy theories, and in some instances it may be the case. The film offers an explanation as to what “actually” happened to United 93 that is a little too far-fetched to be believable. But if we judge the entire film for this one part, than the entire media should be eternally condemned for reporting its own far-fetched, albeit patriotic, lie that was reported in almost all papers and other media outlets that showcased the never-say-quit spirit of the American fighting-man or, in this case, -woman. I am referring, of course, to the story of Jessica Lynch.

Jessica Lynch was a soldier taken prisoner when her entire platoon was wiped out by an Iraqi force. On April 1st, 2003, reports came along that she had been rescued. On April 3 the Washington Post reported that Lynch had fought to the death before being captured. April 2 the Associated Press reported that she had been shot at least one time, while on the same day the New York Times reported that she had been shot several times. The nature of her wounds varied from report to report some saying she had been stabbed, others reporting that she had been injured by shrapnel, still others claimed her wounds were caused by torture. The heroic rescue of Lynch from an Iraqi hospital was retold too, some original reports stated that marines stormed the heavily fortified hospital and rescued Lynch in a hail of gunfire. Later it was actually reported that the Iraqi’s guarding the hospital had in fact left there posts. A doctor at the hospital was quoted in the Washington Post on April 15 saying that the rescue was “a big show… There were no bullets or shrapnel.” It was all a farce. Lynch had not fought to the death, it is believed that her gun jammed and that she had not killed a single Iraqi. Also, it was later discovered that she had not even been stabbed nor shot. And although Army officials still claim that she was mistreated by her captors, they do not elaborate.

So why was it so easy for this to go on for so long? The media had been under attack by the Bush administration over the negative stories being ran at the start of the Iraq, following the blind support it had given him previously. Rumsfeld criticized the media for its “mood-swings”. Suddenly a positive story came along, and the media, in a rush to appear patriotic, gobbled it up accepting the official versions of the stories no matter how conflictual those reports were.

Accepting the official line has become more common since 9/11. In the media it has always been frowned upon to print news releases verbatim. Recently, however, there has been a trend of the government distributing video press releases to broadcast stations, and they are being ran more and more. The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) polled news directors and found that 25%-30% ran video press releases without disclosing the source. Another 10% claimed that although they ran them, they always listed the source. The problem, according to PEJ, is that the audience for local news at… 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. has been declining. Yet…the companies that own these stations have generally continued to expect higher earnings.

To adjust it became necessary to add programming without adding resources. Video news releases come as ready-made programming to fill the void left by a lack of staff and other resources. According to Marion Just and Tom Rosenstiel who co-wrote the article “All the news that’s fed” (New York Times, March, 2005), public companies that own TV stations are so intent on increasing their stock price and pleasing their shareholders that they are squeezing the news out of the news business.

Don’t believe everything that you see or hear.

Sources:

• Loose Change by Dylan Avery et. al. Available at Google Video:
• Just, Marion and Rosenstiel, Tom "All the news that's fed". The New York Times, March 25, 2005.
• Chinni, Dante "Jessica Lynch: Media Myth in the Iraq War". For the Project for Excellence in Journalism, June 23, 2003.

Like this article? Subscribe and get Too Real articles sent directly to your feed reader or, if that isn't your thing, rock your inbox with an email subscription.