Home / BLOGS / Trembling! / Top Five 9/11 Freudian Slips
Top Five 9/11 Freudian Slips
Image banner



Image twin towers
A Freudian slip, also called parapraxis, is an error in speech, memory, or physical action that is interpreted as occurring due to the interference of some unconscious ("dynamically repressed") wish, conflict, or train of thought. The concept is thus part of classical psychoanalysis. [Wikipedia]

In case you didn't notice, it was very recently the tenth anniversary of 9/11, meaning that wives across the world have had to endure the resuscitated rants of their conspiratorially inclined husbands. Mine, readers, is one of these wives. As is the case with many females (and I mean this as a compliment), I've noticed that my missus is able to maintain the dual positions of both being nigh-convinced 9/11 is an inside job, while being completely uninterested in anything else about it. I sympathise! Conspiracy theories are as addictive as smoking, and tend to make you look even more of a degenerate: I've long ago had to cut back to the point of complete abstention.

The difference remains that my predominantly un-stated conviction that 9/11 was EXTREMELY FISHY has permanently affected my attitude to the media in general. If the mainstream media (from the broadsheets to the Beeb) were unwilling to seriously cover any of the, so to speak, explosive material available on the Twin Towers et al, other than to make some extremely heavy handed attempts at disinformation and ridicule (such as the BBC's Conspiracy Files), then there was something exceedingly wrong with it and one had probably best abstain: I would flick through the broadsheets now and again, I decided, but would henceforth avoid looking too closely into them, or taking a proscribed position on the sanctioned current events contained within. At the same time, I thought it equally advisable to restrain myself from being too much the fanatical fruitloop - if I was going to get news, I decided, I would stick to the "news that stayed news" (Ezra Pound's definition for literature).

But while I did occasionally bring myself up to date with world events as viewed through the eyes of the alternative media, my abstention from the mainstream was so replete that I was surprised when, flicking through the wife's Observer a week or so ago, I came across a feature on the aforementioned 9/11 anniversary that re-peddled - with an inimitably straight face - the 'official' story. I had genuinely forgotten that people still took it seriously, or even pretended to do so! My renewed indignation and confusion came rushing back, and I did a little more flicking than usual over the next week, espying article after article of the same material.

There was one significant change to the coverage, however, compared to that which I was used to when I began my modest boycott years ago. Back then no one ever mentioned the 'conspiracy theories' - now they rarely neglected to, albeit in a, 'can you believe some people?' kind of a way. What you'll still not hear in the mainstream media is the least concession that the biggest reason for the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories is the sheer wealth of supporting evidence, or the masses of conspicuous flaws and oddities in the official version of events. I don't say that my own position on 9/11 is the only acceptable one (on the contrary, I acknowledge its profound outlandishness), but I become more hardened in my 9/11 'scepticism' every time I see an attempt to make the point of view itself look like a combination of Holocaust denial and a belief in Father Christmas. That simply ain't the case. Anyone can see that things don't appear to add up: What you take from that is up to you, but it's not wildly unreasonable to consequently conclude that someone's cooking the books.

So I thought it'd be an appropriate time to stick my head over the parapet once more, and publicly reassert my own trenchant 9/11 scepticism. Before slinking back into my hole, however, and sparing my wife any further diatribes, I thought it might be fun to stitch together the following little video compilation, in honour of the anniversary itself, but also the pending Headpress release of David Ray Carter's Conspiracy Cinema, a book too exciting to go into right now, but one you'll certainly be hearing more about in the very near future…

The domain of the conspiracy theory is always an endless whirlwind of claim and counter claim. In the following top five, however - which I call the Top Five 9/11 Freudian Slips - we are in another, much more satisfying domain, the one Freud referred to, in his introductory notes on the phenomenon of the Freudian slip (or parapraxis), as that of the 'psychic fact'. People might be unwilling to officially admit these types of facts, Freud argued, but they exist, and we rely on them every day.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think these clips represent a comprehensive case for conspiracy in and of themselves. Rather they are epiphenomena, and the immediately visible tip of an ominous and enormous iceberg. But they are also one of the simplest methods of demonstrating that there are reasons to be a 9/11 sceptic. As well as being a lot of crazy fun…

Image twin towers

Number 1

"The TV was obviously on…"
Dubya describes seeing the… first plane hit.

Is this the greatest parapraxis of all time? A predictable number one, certainly, but deservedly so. Where were you when you first saw the planes hit the towers? Remember? Well, apparently being President during such an event plays havoc with your memory.
Image twin towers

Number 2

"We watched it go down…"
Larry Silverstein tastes some very fancy leather.

WTC Complex owner Larry Silverstein caused an immense internet furor when he cavalierly employed the vernacular of controlled demolition when referring to what he later claimed was the evacuation of that untouched (but about to be reduced to utter dust) Building 7.

In the first of a couple of little Top Five asides, here's Larry very competently expanding on why he didn't come to work that morning as per usual.

Image twin towers

Number 3

"They did it in a controlled fashion, uhhh…"
John Kerry - not the sharpest pencil in the case.

That Silverstein snippet, of course, is pretty old hat, but I think this one is a bit fresher and funnier. The 'news' (courtesy of a timely provocateur) that Larry Silverstein 'admitted' to demolishing Building 7 seems to take John Kerry by surprise ("Did I not get that email?") - but not to worry, watch how he smoothly extricates himself…

Many of us were understandably rooting for Kerry when he ran against Bush, but you've got to wonder if he was actually any more intelligent than the incumbent president, let alone dodgy. The above admission certainly seemed to worry the powers that be, who apparently decided to ensure that, in order to protect Kerry from having to think on his feet, it might be wise to see that a small and rabidly violent police force accompany him on future expeditions….

Image twin towers

Number 4

"To ensure that the explosives were high enough…"
You just can't get the help nowadays.

Dubya again. This time, however, I'm inclined to think that the fault of the following Freudian slip (if that's what it is), is someone else's. Watch Dubya double-check his written statement in mild momentary alarm after he enunciates the word 'explosives'. Once he sees that that is indeed what it says, however, he visibly relaxes, demonstrating again his well-established incapacity for the least independent thought.

No wonder he responds, in the following additional example of a psychic fact, so badly to the only direct question on this topic he's ever had to field. You've got to feel sorry for the questioner, who was evidently only trying to find an original way to blow smoke up Dubya's backside… rather than confront Raskolnikov with his own dripping axe.

Image twin towers

Number 5

Missileplanes a go-go!

My last entry is a double bill, with Donald Rumsfeld and 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer giving the common man an insight into just how mind-bendingly complicated it must be to execute dozens of televised interviews on 9/11 when you know that it was all a crock of shit.

  Image email icon  Send Thomas McGrath an email

Image conspiracy cinema hbk

Conspiracy Cinema: Propaganda, Politics and Paranoia by David Ray Carter. Conspiracy theories are shocking by their very nature, and Conspiracy Cinema delves into the history of cinema’s most controversial genre. More info»

Image conspiracy cinema pbk

thomas mcgrath  , trembling!  , conspiracy cinema  ,
Bookmark and Share
Rating star | Write A Review
Great review
. --Excellent
Very funny piece which I liked a lot. Having being into the same stuff as Thomas here for a long time I thought of putting a piece together for David K and Headpress a long while back, but this one is a lot funnier and therefore better than anything I would have written. I'd be happy if Headpress delved deep into conspiracy waters for at least one issue, though maybe with a funnier/sleazier vibe than Robin Ramsay's esteemed Lobster magazine, which is like Headpress for the rationally paranoid.

Not to get into a back and forth about it, but for the record -

"I've even seen people saying that the people who leapt from the Towers rather than be burned to death were fakes."

I've read every conspiracy book on this subject, watched probably 60 hours of documentaries, and have haunted numerous blogs and forums on the topic, and that's a new one to me. I smell bullshit.

"People talk of explosives found in the towers even though there was no trace of it."

Heaps of traces found, both visible, audible, through witnesses, and via peer reviewed scientific analysis. The 'people that talk of explosives', btw, are largely witnesses from the day, like these three firefighters.


"They talk of thermite being used to cut the steel even though you need 2 pounds of thermite to melt one pound of steel."

'They' talk of nanothermite, not thermite, and your figures don't match the former.

"They say that flight 93 was a fake."

Name a book or forum poster or 'conspiracy' documentary anywhere that suggest this and I'll be impressed. No-one has ever suggested flight 93 was a 'fake', although there's lots of differing opinions as to what happened to it. None of which makes the plane itself a 'fake', mind you, unless you mean 'the official story of how the plane met its fate' has been called a fake, which is true. Again, there's ample research available to question the official story, including the mayor of Shanksville (the crash site) shaking his head on camera as to how his testimony surrounding the event was distorted.

"That a missile hit the Pentagon."

This does get mentioned a lot. Maybe Tim Roemer above can explain why he decided to discuss missiles and 9/11 as pointed out by Thomas.

"like WTC was undamaged - it clearly had 25% of the building ripped away during the collapse of the Tower"

I'm assuming you mean WTC7 - can you point us to any photos anywhere that show a quarter of the 47 story building ripped away? I missed that one. There's an infamous MP3 interview online where a flunkey for Popular Mechanics states the same but tells his interviewer (Charles Goyette, I think) that the pictures can't be shown to anyone for spooky national security reasons. He pretty much gets laughed off the show.

I'm finding growing amusement value in seeing conspiracy 'debunkers' accuse 9/11 conspiracists of attaching themselves to conspiracies as the notion of a government slaughtering its own citizens and getting away with it to do it again willy nilly (circa Bali, 7/7, etc etc) is somehow more 'reassuring' than 19 CIA-assisted-and-trained patsy fucknuts pulling off a once in a lifetime stunt and successfully outwitting the world's greatest military and defence force. More please Thomas!
Anthony Thorne
Long Kiss My Ass!
. --Excellent
Hi Chris. No I don't think that is my problem. Actually I'd rather live in a universe where the bad guys were cutlery wielding Islamists rather than a cabal of evil sorcerers, but each to their own !

Anyway, my point was that there is a debate to be had, without resorting to moral or philosophical stigma. You've done both, right here, you can't help yourself, and your smattering of 'facts' (all of which could be rigorously and credibly contested, as well you know) aren't enough to dispel your real emphasis.

DId you even read my piece, or watch the clips? Apparently not, or you might have realised it would be more relevent to address things other than thermite.

And when you say that, 'they say missiles hit the Pentagon', did you mean 'people like me' or 'people like Donald Rumsfeld'?

But I ain't madatcha X
Thomas McGrath
So sad
. --Poor
Personally, I can't find the merit behind any of the conspiracy theory madness that Thomas seems to enjoy so much. I've even seen people saying that the people who leapt from the Towers rather than be burned to death were fakes. People talk of explosives found in the towers even though there was no trace of it. They talk of thermite being used to cut the steel even though you need 2 pounds of thermite to melt one pound of steel. The amount of thermite required, and the amount of explosives required, would have been astounding. They say that flight 93 was a fake. That a missile hit the Pentagon. They even say that the planes weren't actually capable of doing what they did. So why do people like Thomas do this?

Because they have a deep seated inability to actually deal with true randomness and chaos. They *need* for there to be a conspiracy for their world to make sense. They have to have some large force controlling things because the idea that 19 terrorists could randomly inflict so much damage on us is too much for them to accept. It's too big to wrap their heads around so they make up deeply layered conspiracies so as to impose some level of order on it. They can cope with the idea of some faction of the government blowing up the Twin Towers in some sort of "Long Kiss Goodnight" scenario - but true random violence on such a grand scale is painful to them.

There was no conspiracy on the part of the government. It did not extend to the highest levels. It was not a plot by the CIA and financeers. The evidence they present of conspiracy is weak and unfounded (like WTC was undamaged - it clearly had 25% of the building ripped away during the collapse of the Tower). It's sad that they feel better thinking what they do rather than facing the awfulness of reality.
Chris R

Read all Headpress news»

View a sample newsletter»

Download our E-Books at XinXii


Image eccentropedia
Go to The Eccentopedia»

Click to view

Image banner tarantella

Image headshop


Image spinegrinder

Image all about being loud

Go to comics by Antonio Ghura»