Marc Estrin

SEPTEMBER SONGS

September 9, 2005

Four years and many Bushogenic catastrophes later (including—but certainly not limited to—Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo, Katrina, and all they encompass and stand for), we have still not begun to confront the contradictions and implications of “9/11”.

Let’s take only the single most obvious strangeness: Building Seven. At 5:30 in the afternoon of that fatal day, a 47-story, steel frame office building collapsed neatly, at almost free-fall speed, right over its footprint. Whoosh, plop. Building Seven had not been hit by any aircraft, had not been touched by flying debris, and had only two tiny office fires the NYFD did not want to bother with. Nevertheless—whoosh, plop. Curious? But somehow not so curious as to arouse general curiosity. You’d think folks might get the hint that something was up.

But talking with my intelligent, political, lefty, news-aware friends, I’d 

found that almost no one had ever heard of Building Seven. When I mentioned that it was a classical example of a well-done controlled demolition, I would almost always get the same response:

Gesture: Elbows bent, both hands up to shoulder level, palms out. Followed by

Sentence: “I’m not going there.”

And that was just Building Seven. Any further talk of the explosion patterns of the towers, of critical temperatures concerning jet fuel and weakening of steel, of architectural history, engineering analysis, NORAD standdowns, photos and videos of early Pentagon destruction—all and any of this got those hands moving, flapping outward from the shoulders, go away, “I really don’t want to go there.”

Right. But many people have gone there. Engineers, physicists, architects, photo-frame analysts, and the occasional intrepid, dot-connecting reporter. And guess what…they’re all—all— nuts, crazies, lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists! not worthy of media or political discussion.

It seems there is no way at present for the simple facts, photographs and videos which contradict the “official story” to circulate or provoke investigation, public discussion, or action concerning what went on on 9/11. We are beginning to see some of those questions asked concerning Katrina, and the Bush response has been “Let’s not get into blaming.” Such avoidance may not work here—let’s hope. But it has worked brilliantly so far concerning 9/11, and our national tendency toward amnesia, our allergy to history or analysis, and our yellow-beribboned, redwhiteandblue, it’s-time-to-move-on-ism may be able to slam the memory hole trapdoor in time to avoid “9/11”, per se, as an issue.

It was my frustration with “I’m not going there” that led me to attempt my own pathetic end-run around the censorship of “conspiracy theory” dismissal. What could I do to somehow, somehow, get legitimate questions raised? So I’ve written a comic novel, SKULK, in which the characters, while involved with a lot of other zaniness, talk about and act on this material. My hope would be that some of these questions might see the light, if only in the book review section of otherwise-avoiding papers. After all, it’s only fiction. Comic fiction. No threat. But some readers might choose to check the websites noted, listen to those physicists and engineers, and see what there actually is to see. Me, the amoeba that roars. Whether the novel will ever be published is another question. As a wry friend of mine remarked, “A comic novel on 9/11? Hmm. There must be a niche for that.”

SKULK or no SKULK, there are some serious books out there on the subject. One of my favorites, because one of the least speculative, is David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor. The book is simply a compendium of all the areas in which the official story does not fit or explain the facts. His conclusion is that we must have a serious investigation which addresses itself directly to these questions. In a subsequent book on the 9/11 Commission Report, he demonstrates how the Commission’s investigation avoided each and every problem raised by the contradictions, and instead, redirected public thinking to “failures of intelligence”. Failures of intelligence do not explain the problems. They do exculpate the Bush administration, the poor victim of such failures.

You may want to read a review I wrote of Griffin’s book posted at 

http://counterpunch.org/estrin05252004.html

The review itself is a good, short introduction to the field of “9/11 questions”. On the other hand, you may not want to go there. But do ask yourselves why.