Some of the most hideous atrocities committed throughout history have

managed to continue because they remained sufficiently hidden from public view
for so long. Such is the case with the Global War on Terror (GWoT) – everywhere
and yet nowhere fully discernible to the eye and ear dazzled by the sophisticated
propaganda campaigns launched in today’s highly mediated social world. The
GWoT has precipitated a necessary parallel War on Objective Reality (WoOR),
and history shows that such cause-and-effect relations are just part of the natural
route in humankind’s occasional march backward to barbarism. Senator Hiram
Johnson once remarked: “When war is declared, truth is the first casualty.” Across
the world, suspicions were confirmed that truth had been bludgeoned by the forces
of propaganda when, despite tens of millions of people protesting the fabrications
in major cities like Seoul, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Calcutta, Melbourne, Paris,
London, Rome, Madrid, Seville, Chicago, and Washington DC, the preemptive
invasion of Iraq, nevertheless, unfolded before our eyes. Global resistance against
war appeared in over 800 cities around the world and set a world record for the
greatest protest in human history.
The effects of the former war, with its untold carnage on both sides, stand in
sharp relief from the effects of the latter rhetorical war on objective reality, with
critics of the Iraq War publicly chastised at every turn for questioning the failed
logic and flimsy evidence presented for its justification. Of course, the official
falsehoods and associated absurdities held up as unassailable points of view would
clash with highly conscious citizens across the globe unmoved by the prevailing
political mythologies of the time. What the past 18 years of mainstream news have
shown, beyond what they choose to conceal from public view, is that they are
either owned or fundamentally influenced by the very forces that have been
plotting and enacting global mayhem. Such a revelation should challenge us all to
ask the question continually, what is really meant by “mainstream media”? Is
“mainstream” merely an insidious euphemism meant to conjure no more than the
illusion that the majority of the people hold to be true?
Because the GWoT was born on 9/11, the events of that day are often
mythologized and guarded as sacrosanct. One myth maintained by the owners and
managers of the mass media is that their owners – the transnational capitalist class
– know the future. The mythmakers in power have attempted since September 11,
2001 to manage public perception of the narrative presented in the U.S.
Government’s underfunded official investigation “set-up to fail” (Kean and
Hamilton 2007: 15), known as The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), but the truth
about that day and details of the crimes since then continue to flow into the
collective consciousness of people throughout the world. This growing awareness
has caused an eruption of critical inquiry and attempts to frustrate it. As a way of
responding and marking the 10th anniversary of that horrific day, for example, the
BBC chose to produce a documentary titled ironically, “Conspiracy Files,” which
featured Michael Rudin, a Corporation reporter, interviewing Dr. Niels Harrit, a
noted scholar and professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of
Copenhägen. Study of the rough cut of the interview reveals what appears to be a
conspiracy to silence the hard science itself. For anyone intrigued by the raw
power of political propaganda to (re)define “truth,” Professor Harrit endures a 2-
hour inquisition that attempts to shake the scientist loose from his conclusions:
steel frame skyscrapers do not collapse from office fires but from controlled
demolition. Rudin says that, “some people might say that’s absurd.” But Harrit
retorts: “Some people have difficulties to see what they actually see.” As Rudin
insists throughout the interview that the evidence of what happened on that day is
sufficient and available, Harrit continually calls for a grand jury to hear that
evidence in a court of law. Hardly a hint of journalistic curiosity about the
inexplicable and bizarre conclusions in the report can be found in Rudin’s queries,
nor even any agreement with his interviewee that the law should have a say.
This collection of essays aids Harrit’s call for the legal process to move
forward by presenting a critical review of propaganda that has served to advance
the GWoT, conceal flaws in its logic, and marginalize dissenting views on its
prosecution. This edition of the journal was inspired by a panel of presentations
given at the World Congress for Middle Eastern Studies hosted by the University
of Seville in July 2018. The panel was well attended and the papers precipitated
much lively discussion, some clarification and some debate. In attendance also
were a scholar or two who, like Rudin, abided in the official story and who
attempted to paint the entire proceeding as an illustration of conspiracy theorizing.
What we have since learned from the conference as historians and media scholars
is that other so-called theorists have come forward publicly insisting on a full,
impartial, and fully funded investigation that calls witnesses into court to be heard.
On September 11, 2019, David R. Meiswinkle, president of the Lawyers’
Committee for 9/11 Inquiry, appeared at the National Press Club in Washington
DC for a First Responders Press Conference with Richard Gage from AE911 Truth
to introduce New York Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia. Representing the
entire district of fire commissioners, Gioia put the present day in perspective:
“Eighteen years [since 9/11], the country is still at war with that faceless, nameless
enemy that knows no territorial boundaries yet manages to provoke this country
into attacking sovereign nations without a formal declaration of war from Congress
or without any independently corroborated intelligence or information as to why a
military intervention is justified or needed.” The belligerence unleashed after 9/11
has also unleashed an ever-growing wave of global interest and support in
scholarly activities across disciplines in the hard and soft sciences seeking a
thorough examination of the vast body of unanswered questions.
 Among the most recent was a four-year study of the behavior of structural
steel exposed to office fires. At the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, Drs. Leroy
Hulsey, Feng Xiao, and Zhili Quan, experts in civil and structural engineering,
reported the three primary objectives of their work: “(1) Examine the structural
response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001;
(2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3)
Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse
to occur as observed.” Their principal conclusion was that “fire did not cause the
collapse of WTC 7 ..., contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering
firms that studied the collapse.” These conclusions further confirm earlier studies
of the explosive behavior exhibited by all three buildings on September 11, 2001.
What we present here is a short series of articles that focus on the GWoT and
analysis that disassembles its associated propaganda.
Piers Robinson and Ben Lindsley critically evaluate official knowledge
regarding 9/11 and isolate important unanswered questions. They argue that much
contemporary scholarship in the wake of 9/11 has failed to engage properly with
the events surrounding that day and that uncritical belief in state narratives has
fossilized thinking and public discourse, trapping it in the very cesspool that
concludes the official 9/11 Report – “failures in imagination...” (2004: 339).
Richard Ellefritz and Edward Rankin explicate the contested meanings of
‘conspiracy theory’ and how those meanings are often the product of unequal
power relations. They focus on the discourse surrounding Iraq and the claims made
about its supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and examine the
historical roots of the expression and its utility to effectively marginalize dissenting
views on received truths. Ellefritz and Rankin propose a novel plan for further
studies in effectively theorizing about conspiracies.
Lucy Morgan Edwards closely examines the discourse during the planning
stages of war on Afghanistan and the instrumentalisation of Afghan women by the
Bush Administration as part of its justification. She explores how gender forms
part of the propaganda needed to sustain the war and offers an argument for xx.
Jeremy Keenan analyzes the relationship between the GWOT and its
propaganda, especially regarding the Sahara-Sahel. Keenan confronts the questions
of why propaganda has been so much more successful in the Sahara-Sahel sphere
than in Iraq or Afghanistan, to the extent that the US’ fabricated narrative of the
GWOT in the Sahara-Sahel.
Daniel Broudy and Marina Higa present an intercultural cross-linguistic
study of propaganda that serves to frame the claimed necessity for war as it is
planned and prosecuted from Okinawa, a major base of operations for the GWoT.
They introduce interpretations of how the Japanese ideology of sacrifice has helped
maintain the status quo for Okinawa as an island garrison and argue for new ways
of speaking in English about peace and security beyond war.
References

Thomas Kean, et al. (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report. Washington DC

Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton (2007), Without Precedent: The Inside Story of
the 911 Commission, New York: Vintage.

Niels Harrit interviewed by Michael Rudin, BBC ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Whli3O9M7Jw&fbclid=IwAR2iVPWGeB3LTtZZ68S3h9IG-
Q3qQPeQh6bNgFf_Bo6B_a7v55_Mn7qFVhQ