Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last decade and a half, you’ll have seen them: the alt-right conspiracy-theorists who call themselves “truthers”. These lunatics spend their entire lives, and much of their mother’s electricity budget, uploading nonsense 24×7 from their parent’s basements, wearing out their keyboards trying to convince the rest of us that the 911 tragedy was not the result of 19 men from Saudi Arabia accidentally flying airliners into the Twin Towers, but a deliberate act of terror, sponsored – somehow – by our very own Federal government!
Admittedly, we can see why the official narrative might be difficult for a paranoiac to swallow. For a start, none of the 19 men were accredited pilots, but all of them were observant Muslims. Given that Sharia explicitly forbids careless driving, why would any of them be flying an airliner over New York City in the first place? That assertion alone could immediately raise suspicions. Then there is the issue of the hijacker’s passport found later at the scene: why was there only one? How can it be that only one of these sturdy little paper booklets managed to survive? Additionally, two aircraft flew into buildings that day, one each; how is that only three skyscrapers collapsed perfectly into their own footprints, rather than four or five?
But despite government involvement being disproved by a government-appointed panel, and an exhaustive report detailing how all the government-recognised evidence confirmed the official government narrative, right-wing madmen continue to insist that there were those in the government who were somehow complicit.
Until now, the accredited media have rightly refused to give the oxygen of publicity to these ravings. However, recent findings by top researchers in the social sciences have come up with startling new evidence about that fateful day; evidence that all open-minded persons (i.e progressives) have to consider. And – as you might expect – it has nothing to do with our government.
It is well known that the greatest threat confronting the modern world is catastrophic climate change. And, like every other problem we face today, at its heart lies White males exerting their privilege, in this case by burning fossil fuels.
There are instances, of course, when some fossil fuel use by White males is perfectly justified; driving to campus, heating the departmental jacuzzi, charging up an Apple product, that kind of thing. But most of the time, the energy that White men misappropriate is just wasted on the manufacture of goods and services that are either unnecessary, or too expensive for the disadvantaged to purchase. Yet it has been proven that this is the very group that will have to shoulder the costs of climate change (how many wealthy polar bears do you know?)
Poor people’s patience is legend, as anyone who has witnessed their peaceful demonstrations in places like Ferguson can attest. But it is not infinite, and it appears the long-disenfranchised have started to take direct action to save the planet themselves. Researchers have recently determined that “carjacking”, an obscure phenomenon previously dismissed as a property “crime” by White male lawmakers, is actually nothing of the sort. It is a desperate attempt, by the poor, to help the environment the only way they can: by confiscating planet-wrecking vehicles from their privileged owners so they can destroy them. And what was the missing piece of evidence that enabled researchers to hone in on the truth? One single word: “joyriding”. This term was coined by the carjackers themselves to describe the intense feelings of euphoria they experience once they’ve confiscated a CO2-spewing car and put it out of harms way, via the only method available to them: driving into a lamp-post or other utility pole, a retail shopfront, or, indeed, another car (colloquially known as a “toofer”).
But a single car, though tremendously polluting, emits far less deadly CO2 than a jet airliner. This raises the obvious question: if minorities are selflessly wrecking cars to save the planet, could it be the 911 “hijackers'” motivations were not petty political considerations, such as millions of Muslims being murdered by American foreign policy, but a much more lofty concern: Gaia’s wellbeing?
Consider: in addition to the aircraft themselves spewing vast quantities of planet-killing CO2, the Twin Towers were built to the laughable energy-efficiency “regulations” of the Republican Nixon administration. Even alt-Right bigots admit that the destruction of the aircraft and the skyscrapers reduced their ability to emit CO2, and that the Towers’ replacements will be far more energy efficient.
We know from climate scientists’ models that any reduction of CO2 will save lives. Just how many lives will have been saved by the “hijacker’s” actions? That’s impossible to determine without considerably more research funding, but my colleagues are certain the number of people who will eventually owe their lives to the events of 911 is far, far greater than those who accidentally lost their lives on that fateful day.
Furthermore, the Twin Towers were riddled with asbestos. The costs of stripping it out were estimated to be twice the buildings’ worth, meaning workers were exposed to this hazardous material, day after day. It’s well known that there are no poisons, only poisonous doses†; by swiftly collapsing the Towers and dispersing their asbestos harmlessly across Manhattan, the “hijackers” were not only destroying CO2-spewing airliners, but eliminating any risk that the Towers’ workers would eventually fall prey to mesothelioma, a horrible disease that can kill within decades.
Isn’t it time we stopped thinking of the “Saudi 19” as “hijackers”, and start calling them what they really were: martyrs, risking their lives for all of Gaia? Not “terrorists”… but “eco-warriors”: Crusaders for Climate and Social Justice?
† this is why the accredited authorities are so unconcerned about the Fukushima reactor mishaps: the trillions of Becquerels of radiation generated ceaselessly for the next few centuries will just be diluted harmlessly by the Pacific Ocean.