« Moore's Recovery from Fall on Face | Main | Teutonic Moonbattery Takes a Swing Toward the Sleazy Side »

January 30, 2005

Moonbats Rewrite the History of September 11

Two basic tenets of moonbattery are 1) a victim is always right; and 2) America is always wrong.

Fortunately the superiority of the American way of doing things usually prevents these tenets from contradicting each other. A victim is someone who comes out on the bottom, and America tends to come out on top. But an exception occurred on 9/11, when, to the delight of some, America was the victim.

Cornered by this incongruity, some moonbats responded by shrinking like turtles into their shells. Others could be heard stridently opinionating on topics such as the weather, or asking again and again like schizophrenic owls, "Retaliate against who?" — apparently in hopes that we could all agree to pretend that 9/11 was not an act of war but some freak accident, or at worse, overblown vandalism.

If moonbats were going to defend their ideology against reality in the long term after 9/11, they needed a more effective strategy. Enterprising ideologues have risen to the call. The solution was as simple as it was outrageous and absurd: blame America for 9/11!

This had to go beyond the "America asked for it" meme promoted by leftist luminaries like Susan Sontag and Noam Chomsky. To avoid the foundations of moonbattery becoming eroded, it needed to be shown that America wasn't the victim, but the aggressor on September 11, 2001.

Key to accomplishing this were undermining the public's understanding of what happened on that terrible day, and generating an aura of suspicion — as on this website devoted to casting doubt on the official version of what brought down United Flight 93 (the one on which Todd Beamer shouted "Let's roll!" and led a charge to overpower the hijackers), which leads off with the question, "How much did Bush really know in advance?"

The site of conspiracy hounds Center for Cooperative Research is host to an article that displays the tendency of paranoid schizophrenics to zero in on picayune and irrelevant details so relentlessly that a casual listener will be tempted to agree with them just to get them to shut up. Going on at sadistically tedious length, it describes the shock and confusion that inevitably followed within the first few minutes of the attacks on the World Trade Center, inviting credulous readers to swallow the insinuation that Bush's failure to indulge in hysteria when he first received news of the attacks is evidence of some vague but highly sinister plot. The evasive action taken by Air Force One on the morning of September 11 is also portrayed as suspicious — especially in light of specific threats made against the President's plane that morning turning out to be false alarms. The failure of security procedures on the morning of 9/11 to conform to the author's Monday morning quarterback expectations "clearly goes beyond mere incompetence." Apparently the media were in on it, whatever "it" is. The whole piece begs the question, What possible action could Bush or anyone else in the government have taken on 9/11 that would not be considered suspicious by moonbats, other than defecting to the Democratic Party?

9-11 Research describes itself as "an ongoing effort to discover the truth about the attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11th, 2001." Their site includes a link to a highly creative retelling of the story of American Airlines Flight 77. As it turns out, this plane did not crash into the Pentagon as widely believed, but actually never existed. Former United States Solicitor General Ted Olson will have his heart broken all over again to learn that his beloved wife Barbara (who called him from Flight 77 as it was careening toward the Pentagon) was a figment of his imagination. The book on my shelf with her name on the spine (Hell to Pay) apparently made its way into bookstores by some quirk of quantum physics that allowed it to cross over from an alternate reality.

But wait, you might say. If Flight 77 never existed, what about that big hole in the Pentagon?

9-11 Research has this questioned covered. Sophisticated readers will have seen Warner Brothers cartoons where Daffy Duck crashes through a wall and leaves a hole in the exact outline of his body as he broke through, limbs hilariously contorted. Why did this not happen with the jetliner that exploded against the Pentagon? There are no pictures of a Boeing 757-shaped hole in the front of the building. Consequently, there was no Flight 77.

For hard-core skeptics unconvinced by that argument, there is also a photograph of debris found at the Pentagon that had an "angular nature" — thus proving that no airliner crashed into the building. I would explain this line of reasoning further, but I think I would need a few tabs of LSD to be able to follow it.

Helping to clarify what sort of people would want you to believe this stuff, the 9-11 Research site includes links to a variety of other specimens of moonbattery, not all of which have anything to do with 9/11, including a World Socialist Web Site piece on Enron, and a variety of anti-Semitic sites that blame the Jews for 9/11, question whether Israel is a democracy, accuse the Mossad of trying to blow up Mexico's Congress, ad nauseam.

Unsurprisingly, a site from France, the cradle of moonbattery, is given credit for having "started it all" regarding demented Flight 77 conspiracies. France, of course, is the enlightened land where L'Effroyable Imposture by Thierry Meyssan — a book claiming that 9/11 was a hoax, the World Trade Center and Pentagon were blown up by the U.S. Government, and Osama bin Laden is an American agent — was a #1 "nonfiction" bestseller.

Public Action, Inc. connects all the dots and tells the full story of 9/11 here. As you might have guessed, 9/11 was caused not by Islamic terrorists, but was actually an elaborate conspiracy orchestrated by the US Government.

The first airliner to hit the World Trade Center was actually a small remote-controlled commuter jet filled with explosives. The second one was a remote-controlled passenger jet with no passengers, disguised to look like a United Airlines airliner. Another remote-controlled commuter jet filled with explosives hit the Pentagon. Flight 93 was either shot down or bombed over Pennsylvania — Todd Beamer and his fellow passengers being murdered by the US Military for undisclosed reasons. Proving that moonbats simply have no concept of respect, the author ridicules the heroes on this flight, sneering of their decision to confront the hijackers:

Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ...

A better man than me would say that we should hate the moonbattery but love the moonbat. Some of them make the second part really, really hard.

What possible motive could the United States have for attacking itself on 9/11? If the sheer evil inherent in being American wasn't reason enough, there were concrete objectives, namely to "blot out one of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth."

If only James Bond had been there to throw a wrench in this sinister machination. But of course, being a white guy and working for our ally, 007 was probably in on it.

Special thanks to The MaryHunter for providing leads.

Posted by Van Helsing at January 30, 2005 05:40 PM


Van Helsing, thank you for doing your readers this service! Know thine moonbat.

Posted by: The MaryHunter at January 30, 2005 07:14 PM