LET’S REVISE 9/11 TRUTH’S DEMAND: CHALLENGE THE AFFIRMATIVE
by James Hufferd, Ph.D.
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
The perpetrators of the myth of 9/11 as a radical Muslim terrorist operation to strike at a freedom-loving Great Satan, wielding box-cutters and hijacked airplanes, implanted that scenario early and ingeniously. And, most unfortunately, “once… humans launch on a belief and internalize it, that belief dies only under extraordinary circumstances.” (Jason Socol, There Goes My Everything, 83 ff.) In addition, the now long-since popular belief, or myth, that alien Muslims attacked America on our own soil eminently answers the need of the law-and-order-minded American populace for the satisfaction of deeply-craved certainty as opposed to uncertainty, the same preferential sentiment that has led to so many dozens of DNA evidence-based exonerations of late long after hurried convictions. We tend to want to see perceived (or conjured) threats taken off the street, charged, convicted, and removed as swiftly as possible – never mind the finer points of credible evidence.
And this is especially so if we can’t pronounce the alleged perpetrators’ names or stomach their beliefs. Weird people whose beliefs and clothes tend to show to many that they don’t belong in our midst need to be brought up short and slapped beyond silly for messing with us. And once the hook has been set in the collective mind that they did it, it’s near impossible to extricate.
“And who needs evidence?” the collectivity says. “Why undergo the tedium and expense of a confusing and nit-picking trial? We saw them do it with our own eyes. They were there and we know what they did.”
The programmed myth-believers always say to us 9/11 Truthers, “What do you mean they (the 19, construed into Muslims in general) didn’t do it even though they were, obviously, there? Was it all just happenstance? And what do you mean it was done by U.S. government and/or perhaps Israeli insiders instead? What’s your evidence that the Muslims clearly and undeniably on the scene, and undeniably up to no good, didn’t do it?”
And we, in return, recite now by rote every time every single bit of evidence and anomaly we know of as sort of our mantra, including the kitchen sink. And, every time, all they have to say in reply, their arms folded in front of them, is, “I’m not convinced,” or “Why on earth would your alleged ‘insiders’ kill three thousand of their own people? Toward what end would it be?” And we can argue until we’re blue, green, and purple in the face and it’s not going to move the needle.
And that’s for one reason: because we’ve been had. The dialogue pursued by our critics is illegitimate from the beginning and deliberately calculated to lead nowhere. Eliciting an attempted defense of the negative is, in fact, an evasion tactic designed and guaranteed to block the evidentiary path to the truth and instead lead to continued stalemate between disputants.
Because, as any lawyer or logician will tell you, “the burden of proof rests always on the affirmative.” So, instead, it is we who should be asking them (meaning anyone who wants to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory) “what credible evidence can you cite that supports the OCT or, better, tends to prove it true? Just give me one credible bit of evidence.” And I bet they’ll have to think hard about that. Because, there simply is no genuine supporting evidence for untruth, and it’s time they make that discovery.
So, don’t demand “a new or real investigation.” We know the powers that be aren’t going to assent to any such thing. Instead, let’s demand, and keep demanding, and demanding, and demanding credible evidence to substantiate their insisted-upon story. If we do that enough times, their failure to comply will, sooner rather than later, make it plain to everyone that they’re talking through their hat. And isn’t that what we want to happen?