How many intelligent people have responded to the sudden disintegration of 7 World Trade Center with something akin to: "It sure looks like demolition, but I'm no physicist". Somewhere in the fog over which side owns the most credible experts, most everyone seems to have forgotten that it doesn't require an expert to tell the difference between controlled demolition and a towering inferno. Prior to September 11, 2001, no human has ever confused one for the other, because these types of occurrences have relatively little in common.

Clearly, the keepers have been remarkably successful at the gate. Being “experts” themselves, they benefit from our over-reliance on expert opinion.

In the words of Noam Chomsky, the world’s most frequently cited living individual (he ranks 8th all-time behind Plato and Freud), "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but to allow very lively debate within that spectrum".

Conveniently, his field of expertise happens to be the "spectrum of acceptable opinion". Why do we accept this? Is it possible, that humans, by nature, love to be told what to think?

How absurd must stated claims become, before our ability to blindly accept wildly conflicting ideas gets taxed beyond the limit?

For example, consider Chomsky who also indicated, "Even if (the 9/11 conspiracy) were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any significance."

This is an odd stance to take, for one of the first thinkers to publish a book about this seminal event. Shouldn't it be of some consequence to Chomsky whether the official story, as spun by the White House, and echoed by his book, is based in fact, or merely a convenient fantasy?

This, in essence, is what the truth movement is all about. For nations that claim to be subject to the rule of law, establishing the true identities of the perpetrators of any crime should matter, by definition.

Contrast this particular presentation, with the stance taken by George Monbiot,who considers the Truth Movement to be "a crazy distraction (presenting) a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements". His below the belt charge, that truth activists are responsible for every conceivable ill, from global warming, to nuclear proliferation, represents a last ditch effort by the gatekeepers, in a battle they know they cannot possibly win.

The difficulty of these gatekeepers stems from the fact that it is not enough for them to merely oppose the truth movement. If Monbiot's stance, for example, was simply that the movement is wrong, we could still expect him to side with us on the central issue, which is the clear need for an independent, transparent investigation. Indeed, by his own admission, Monbiot considers the American administration to have been "criminally negligent", and of seeking to "disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents". Why then is Monbiot so eager to let them get away with this?

If incompetence can explain why the military failed to make a timely appearance on September 11, then let the investigation roll. Let's find out what procedures were not followed, who failed to follow them, and how the least competent individuals were disciplined - by being promoted perhaps? No one, least of all the gatekeepers, is comfortable with the idea of an investigation that may uncover more than mere incompetence.

The gatekeepers are twisting their brains out of shape, trying to imagine how such a massive deception could be possible. Their minds swoon at the staggering number of people who appear to be complicit in the lie, apparently oblivious to the central irony, that they are the very liars they describe. One reason so many people have bought into the lie, is that by accepting their own fiction as reality, the gatekeepers have become the world’s best liars.

The time has come, to re-claim from the gatekeepers our inalienable right to think for ourselves; and for that to happen, all we have to do, is to decide that thinking, no matter how tedious or tiring, lies in our best interest.

It's already happening, which is why the gatekeepers are debasing themselves with an increasingly ugly barrage of insults. A few samples: "An imagination of hate" (Rex Murphy) "poor personal hygiene... and counter-rotating eyeballs" (Gwynne Dyer) or simply "morons" (George Monbiot). These barbs emanate from highly respected voices, noted for civility and tact, as long as the discussion remains firmly rooted with the "spectrum of acceptable opinion".

In answer to Noam Chomsky's question: "Who cares?" I do. I care because truth is a form of beauty; an absolute good, worth pursuing independent of any perceived agenda.

Not only do I reject the absurd notion, that the pursuit of truth is somehow incompatible with progressive causes, but I'm willing to dream of what the gatekeepers fear most: Change. Those of us who believe in the possibility of a kinder world, know that 9/11 is the log-jam, currently blocking any possibility of meaningful progress.

It will take a massive psychological shock, to jar ourselves awake. No matter how desperately we try to resist it, that shock has arrived.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/04/10/01480.html