Toss the Teddy Bear

Most people have the intelligence to understand that Building 7 was blown up with explosives, but they are emotionally unable to cope with such a colossal crime. Rather than stand up to the corruption, they behave like frightened sheep who run into the flock to hide from the wolf.

Most people do not want to admit that they are hiding like a frightened sheep. Instead, some people react by becoming angry and insisting that Building 7 collapsed for sensible reasons, such as a lot of dust fell on top of it. Other people insist they are not hiding from the corruption; rather, they are just a little fish in a big sea, and therefore there is nothing they can do about the corruption.

By making the statement, "there is nothing I can do about it", they justify doing nothing.

Many adults cling to the official story about 9-11 the way a frightened child clings to his teddy bear. Why are so many adults afraid to face our problems? What is wrong with most people?

“No! Building 7 collapsed because of fire! It was not a scam! Stop saying that! It was a Fire! A Fire! I want my mommy!”

Why not stand up to your friends and relatives and tell them that we can make the nation better as soon as they stop behaving like frightened children and start behaving like responsible adults?

Do criminals have power over us?

A teenage gang consists of a small number of teenagers, but they can cause a lot of trouble for thousands of people. They can also cause thousands of dollars of damage each year by spraying graffiti on buildings and by scratching glass windows.

Gangs of adults, such as the gangsters in Al Capone's era, can cause even more damage. And the people who gave us the 9-11 attack caused suffering and damage on a scale we have never seen done before.

How can a small number of criminals create so much chaos? Are criminals "powerful"? If so, where did they get this power?

Criminals get their "power" from sheep

A teenage gang appears to be powerful, but their power is an illusion. Their power comes mainly from the citizens who do nothing to stop them, and partly from the pity and protection they receive from their parents, friends, and other citizens who like to feel sorry for the "Underdog".

The few citizens who have the desire and emotional strength to stand up to the gangs will find themselves alone, which makes it easy for the gangs to attack them. This will discourage citizens from standing up to the gangs.

The majority of people have the attitude that if they ignore teenage gangs, the gangs will leave them alone. This attitude is as foolish as a person ignoring a fire in his neighborhood on the assumption that if he ignores the fire, the fire will avoid his house.

When citizens ignore teenage gangs, they allow the gangs to grow. The people who ignore the gangs may not be directly affected by the gangs, but they will be indirectly affected because crime alters our society in numerous ways, such as by requiring money be wasted on security devices, insurance, police, and courts. Crime also harms a nation by creating fear, apathy, disgust, and suspicion. Children who grow up around gangs can also be affected.

If a person ignores the weeds in his yard, he is responsible for allowing the weeds to grow. If an airplane mechanic ignored strange noises coming from an airplane engine, he would be considered responsible if the engine failed during flight. Why not apply the same reasoning to crime? Specifically, if a citizen ignores criminals, why not consider him partly responsible for their crimes?

People who ignore criminals could be described as "accessories to the crimes". And the people who pity the criminals are providing emotional support to criminals, which is even worse.

Would you hide from six-year-old children?

How ridiculous does the gang problem have to get before we do something? Imagine a group of angry six-year-old children walking along the shops in a shopping mall, breaking windows and destroying merchandise. Imagine all of the adults pretending not to see or running away in fear.

A gang of six-year-old children could destroy an enormous amount of merchandise, and they could even set fire to the entire shopping mall. Furthermore, it would encourage other children to misbehave.

What is the difference between ignoring six-year-old children who destroy a shopping mall; ignoring teenagers who destroy a city; and ignoring adults who destroy a nation?

Will we ever stop hiding from criminals?

Most people's reaction to crime is what I would expect from a child. Specifically, they try to hide from the criminals, and they try to protect themselves from attack. For some examples: 

Car Thefts

The first automobiles did not have locks on the ignition or the doors. As the theft of cars became common, the reaction was to put locks on the car. Car thefts continued, and the reaction was to make better locks.

Burglaries

When a neighborhood suffers from burglaries, the typical reaction is to install more locks on the windows and doors. Some people put metal bars over their windows. Today some people also install security cameras, or infrared or motion sensors.

Robots are now being developed to watch a house and inspect any suspicious noise or source of heat.
 

Kidnapped and Molested Children

The typical reaction to kidnapped and molested children is to drive children to and from school rather than let them walk or ride their bike.

Some parents take their children to special classes where they learn how to fight adults. Since children are physically weak, they are taught how to attack the most sensitive locations on a human, such as eyeballs and testicles.

"Good morning children! Today we learn how to poke eyeballs! Hold your fingers like this, and then poke the mannequin in its eyes without hitting its nose."

How extreme does this situation have to get before you wonder if something is wrong with our nation's attitude? What if political candidates promise to provide this combat training for all children in our public schools? What if they promise to provide every school with anatomically correct mannequins? What if they promise that no child will be left behind in the training to poke eyeballs, bite penises, and squeeze testicles?
 

School shootings

The reaction to shootings at school has been to install metal detectors at schools and inspect the students for guns and knives. Perhaps in the future children will be provided with bulletproof vests and military helmets as they pass through the metal detectors.

Will future students need bulletproof vests?

 

Computer Viruses

The typical reaction to computer viruses is to buy virus protection software and firewalls. This protection software slows our computers down, occasionally interferes with other software, and is a financial drain on the nation.

There is now concern that cell phones are also susceptible to software viruses, so I suppose the reaction will be to install virus protection software into cell phones.

We should be thankful that we do not have Internet appliances, or we would be installing virus software in our ovens and refrigerators.
 

Poison in Food

When poison was put into packages of pharmaceuticals and food, the reaction was to create tamperproof packages. When poison and sharp objects were put into Halloween candy, some parents reacted by throwing the candy away, and then replacing it with candy they purchased themselves.

If the poisoning of food becomes more common, will you react by buying a Poison Test Kit so that you can test your food before you eat it?
 

How absurd does the fear of crime have to be before you agree with me that our nation is becoming a gigantic jail of frightened people? What if every American citizen carried a machine gun and wore a helmet when he walked outside his home? What if children were testing their school lunches for poisons?

Don't be a policeman; help them

I am not advocating that citizens take the role of a policeman and try to stop crimes while they are taking place. Actually, there are many reasons for citizens to allow crimes to occur. However, the citizens should help the policemen by providing information about the crime.

For example, employees of banks are told to allow robberies to take place, and then provide descriptions of the crime. One reason for this policy is that bank robbers may carry guns. Encouraging citizens to get into gun fights in public places can cause more suffering than letting the crime take place. It is better to let trained policeman deal with crimes. It is better to tell the citizens to allow the crimes to take place, and then give descriptions to the police.

However, what would you think if a dozen people witnessed a bank robbery, and when a policeman asked for descriptions of the bank robber, they all stared at the policeman with a blank expression for a couple seconds, and then somebody changed the subject?

What would you think if a witness to a bank robbery behaved like that civil engineer I mentioned in Denial of the Obvious? Specifically, what if had he insisted that no robbery had taken place, but that it appeared to be a robbery because a lot of dust may have fallen onto the security cameras? And what if he concluded with an angry remark, "I don't want to talk about it anymore! I don't believe it was a robbery!"

What if some people refused to give descriptions of the bank robber because they didn't want to be a "tattletale" or a "government informer"? What if some citizens advocated pity for the bank robber on the grounds that he is an "Underdog" who came from a disadvantaged background, and America has always defended the Underdog?

Finally, what would you think of a witness who insisted that the accusation of a bank robbery is an idiotic conspiracy theory, and he does not believe in conspiracy theories?

If none of the witnesses to a bank robbery provide descriptions to the police, the bank robber might get away with it, and he might rob another bank. If the people who witnessed his second robbery also refused to give descriptions to the police, he might get away again. He might decide to rob a third bank.

How many banks would have to be robbed before you complained that your fellow citizens were accessories to the crime? And how many witnesses would have to refuse to give evidence before you began to wonder if some of the witnesses were actually friends of the criminal?

Who is in denial, and who is assisting?

This brings up an interesting issue. Some of us are trying to expose the September 11 attack, but millions of people are resisting us. How can we figure out who is refusing to acknowledge that the attack was a scam because they truly cannot face reality, and who is working with the criminals to cover up the crime?

If I did not know my own relatives, I would be certain that all of them are on the payroll of the people who planned the 9-11 attack. My relatives are intelligent, educated people, but they behave like idiots. If I did not know them I would be certain that they are being paid to act stupid in order to suppress information about the September 11 attack. But I doubt if any of them are being paid to act like idiots.

My guess is that some aspects of reality are simply too difficult for my relatives to deal with, and so they ignore those aspects. I would describe this hiding from reality as a "mental disorder", but since the majority of people have this disorder, most people would consider it "normal" and they would consider me to be cruel, insulting, or arrogant.