Skip to main content

On Conspiracy, Independence and Dependence

A column by Steven Newcomb about conspiracy and 9/11.

In a previous column on this topic, I pointed to various historical illustrations of plans by agents of the U.S. government, by means of ‘the Indian system,’ to destroy Indian nations and peoples while profiting from the outcome, in terms of money, land, and power. I asked if those were instances of “conspiracy,” or just long-ranged plans?

Since 9/11, major civil liberties in the U.S. have been undermined to such an extent that they seem to be hanging on by the merest of threads, or else by the mere illusion that they continue to exist. We have been repeatedly told the tragic events on September 11, 2001 is the reason why what Vice President Dick Cheney termed “the new normalcy” had to be put into place. That “normalcy” is now looking more and more like what has been called “totalitarianism” historically. The question arises, “Is this ‘new normalcy’ the result of a ‘conspiracy’ of interests by people of influence, or a long range plan?”

Clearly, conspiracies and the long range plans of nefarious people do exist, and the long range U.S. military plan of Full Spectrum Dominance 2020 does exist, and the plan by the U.S. government to deploy 30,000 military drones above the claimed territory of the United States in the next ten years does exist. It’s all being done in the name of 9/11 and “fighting terrorism.” Doesn’t it make sense, therefore, to fully examine what actually took place on September 11, 2001 rather than robotically believe "the official theory" being fed to everyone since that tragic day?

A few years ago, while visiting New York City for the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, I was walking to a UPS store in the Soho district to pick up a package. When I came around a particular corner, there was a fire station to my left. The large bay door was open and a fireman was standing there. On the wall were many portraits of firemen. I stopped and struck up a conversation with the fireman.

I asked him if those were photographs of firemen who died on 9/11. He said many of them were. That particular fire station had been hard hit by deaths, he explained. I told him that I thought it very strange that the third building, World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7), came down at almost free fall speed, into its own footprint, when no airliner had hit it.

It turned out he had been there that day, and he told me: “They were telling us to get out of there and clear the area before [the building] came down.” “Really?” I replied. “How long before the building actually came down did they start telling you that?” “Oh, a couple of hours,” he said matter-of-factly.

Here’s the thing: Is it the result of a conspiracy or a long range plan that World Trade Center 7, which had not been hit by a plane, suddenly fell into its own footprint at free fall speed, in the manner of an implosion? If the fireman was correct, how was it known a couple of hours in advance that the building was going to fall? Such a clue strongly suggests the need for additional inquiries. There are other clues.

For example, on September 11, 2001, from 4:57 PM to 5:08 PM, a BBC television host interviewed a BBC reporter, Jane Standley. The focus in the live television interview was “the collapse” of the 47-story “Solomon Brothers’ Building” (WTC7). The problem? The building could still be seen in the Manhattan skyline behind her. The live feed suddenly ended. Minutes later, at 5:20 PM, the building did indeed come down in under 7 seconds, at nearly free fall speed.

How does a news program report something of this magnitude in advance of the event actually happening? Is it evidence of a conspiracy, or of a long-range plan? Either answer is not good. What is clear, though, is that September 11, 2001 has been used as the pretext for a complete political make-over of the United States by eroding civil liberties, spending trillions on war, destroying thousands of lives, and so forth.

Benjamin Franklin famously said that those who give up their liberty for more security deserve neither liberty nor security. He may have meant that those who do so will end up with neither liberty nor security. Isn’t it odd that so many people act as if it makes sense to refuse to take a deeper look at what actually transpired on 9/11, while getting emotionally agitated at the prospect, and yet fully support what has been and is being done on the basis of 9/11 to transform the U.S. into a full-fledged police state?

Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape) is co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, author of Pagans in the Promised Land: Decoding the Doctrine of Christian Discovery, and the Indigenous and Kumeyaay Research Coordinator for the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.