The Growing Absurdity and Desperation of Conspiracy Theory Debunkers
Bill Lindner

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/118037


[Original has MANY links not below]

September 07, 2009
As more of the truth about the U.S. Government's complicity, if not involvement, in the attacks of September 11, 2001 comes to light, and more "Scientists" and "Psychologists" attempt to add their "expertise" to debunking the obvious truth, the pathetic attempts at keeping the corruption and the truth hidden have become more rampant -- despite the fact that the Government's 9/11 fairy tale has almost completely unraveled -- and the majority of Americans still have questions that need to be answered.

One thing you have to give the Bush administration credit for is revealing just how much of a sham using 'experts' really is. The Bush administration ruined the realm of Science, and showed us just how revolting and misguiding using 'experts' really is. The more 'experts' tried to explain away the truth, the more revealing the stupidity becomes. Most of the politically corrupt 'experts' used to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories have proven repeatedly that they are nothing but liars who have been paid well for losing their reputations and credibility while aiding and abetting egregious crimes committed by corrupt politicians.

In their feable attempts at hiding the obvious, these 'Scientists' and 'Psychologists' never mention the obvious explanations for the truth of what happened after and because of the attacks from that fateful day. George Bush's appointed criminal cabal used those attacks to destroy Democracy and freedom. Crimes of that magnitude are impossible to carry out unless you have the involvement of a lot of people -- such as the Israeli government and the U.S. government. As I've said before, when you connect the 9/11 dots, it becomes apparent that the Israeli government, aided by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the U.S. government, was involved. As I've also noted before, many members of the Bush administration had dual Isreali-American citizenship.

An hour after the first plane hit the North Tower on 9/11, corporate media began feeding us the lie that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. They never verified it and encouraged us to accept it as the truth. As we've learned, it was all a lie. The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, the fraudulent 'War on Terror,' the fraudulently created economic depression caused by Wall Street and their cohorts in government, the illegal torture, illegal spying and wiretapping that continues to this day, the egregious, illegal legislation that has taken away rights, freedoms and liberties and more all became easy to put in place because the Bush cabal allowed those attacks to occur to further the criminal pursuit of their agenda. Another problem with the Government's 9/11 Fairy Tale is that fact that at least 5 of the alleged 19 hijackers have been found alive and well. The press never mentions that either.

The Bush administration spent eight years lying to America and the rest of the world. Those lies continue to this day under President Obama. It's critical that America and the rest of the world learn the truth of what happened that day -- as well as who the real perpetrators and enablers were.

In addition to all the ignorance being passed off as expertise, the 'debunkers' also forget the fact that even members of the "9/11 Commission" responsible for writing the Bush cabal's fairy tale have admitted that the "official" version of the events of that fateful day are almost entirely untrue. A lot of people were involved in those atrocious crimes that were committed that day. Pinning the blame on 'terrorists' that lived in caves was one of the most ignorant conspiracy theories dreamt up by the Bush cabal. When you look at the large group of financial and political elites that have run the U.S. government for the past several decades, it's easy to see why they want to keep their crimes hidden. Keeping crimes of that magnitude hidden is virtually impossible as the truth always has a way of surfacing. Many Governments have been guilty of committing atrocious crimes against their populations for years.

Bush Administration Had a History of Manipulating Science

The National Geographic decided to air a special, allegedly by Scientists, aimed at 'debunking' the latest revelations about the attacks of 9/11 -- nano-thermite, the usual horse crap trying to claim the twin towers weren't imploded and the claim that fire was responsible for destroying the twin towers -- joining such other prestigious publications such as Popular Mechanics that decided to sell out to the government and lose their reputations in the process.

As with the vast majority of other 9/11 'debunking' propaganda used by once reputable entities, the National Geographic propaganda piece is full of flawed logic and poor editing. National Geographic's feable propagandic piece focused on four 'scientific' experiments: heating a steel beam with jet fuel, a demolition, an experiment with thermite and a Pentagon impact experiment. As with the other feable attempts to deceive and discredit, the National Geographic propaganda piece is a pathetic attempt at hiding the truth that is full of holes and lies. Information on how to spot the techniques used by the media and politicians to spread their propaganda can be found here.

The National Geographic is right about one thing though: it would be impossible for the thousands of people involved to keep a conspiracy secret -- which is why the official version of the 9/11 fairy tale has been unraveling. The truth becomes painfully obvious when anyone takes a close look at the attacks of 9/11 and everything that has happened since.

The biggest problem with the National Geographic's 'Scientific' debunking is that fact that Imagenation, a subsidiary of the government-run Abu Dhabi Media Company -- run by the Dubai government which belongs to the federation of UAE -- decided to invest $100 million dollars in National Geographic, part of which went towards the attempted debunking. Dubai served as the hub for the Bush administration's alleged 9/11 terrorists' operations. The Abu Dhabi Media company appears to have learned a lot about producing propaganda from the U.S. government.

More than 6,000 scientists charged that the Bush administration manipulated scientific advisory committees, altered and suppressed reports by Government scientists and misrepresented scientific knowledge in contentious areas such as global warming, air pollution, and reproductive health. The Bush administration had a long history of manipulating and censoring science and scientists for political purposes. All of the NIST 'debunking' material was controlled by the Bush administration. Many of the other 'debunkers' like Popular Mechanics and now National Geographic were paid quite well by corrupted, controlling politicians.

Trying to Label Conspiracy Thinking an Illness

Psychology Today writer John Gartner tried to label Conspiracy thinking as a psychotic illness in an article he wrote. In describing this 'psychotic illness,' Gartner himself fulfills the psychotic criteria he's describing. A lot of Psychology Today's collection of complementary health resources in its collection of Psychological therapy comes from
Pharmaceutical companies.

Gartner is the type of 'professional' that gives their profession a bad name. Many suffer because of one's stupidity. Psychology Today -- as well as National Geographic and Popular Mechanics -- is another example of an entity that sells itself out to large corporations and ends up badly soiling itself because the greed and stupidity reign free. The truth always wins in the end. The desperation to keep the truth hidden is growing.

As noted by Paul Joseph Watson, "Quack psychologists like Gartner who define distrust of authorities and alternative explanations for the "official story" put out by governments who have repeatedly proven themselves to be liars as a form of psychosis are themselves as mentally unstable as their much vaunted peers...and represent a far greater danger to society than the "conspiracy theorists" that they so readily seek to denigrate."

Until the truth comes out, many of these once reputable News medias will continue trying to hide the truth by trying to 'debunk' it to keep it hidden. Bush and Cheney's fraudulent 'War on Terror' is nothing more than the world's largest crime carried out by the most corrupt, never-elected Presidential administration America has ever known. Democracy is dead, courtesy of said most corrupt, never-elected Bush administration and has been since they allowed the attacks of 9/11 to happen. As I said above, the official 9/11 fairy tale has already unraveled.

This alleged 'debunking' is a stall tactic designed to keep Cheney and the rest of the Bush cabal out of prison. It's time for the Bush administration, and every other administration that is or has been involved to pay the price for the crimes they committed.

Gaping Holes in the Government's Official 9/11 Fairy Tale

David Ray Griffin has done a great job of presenting dozens of facts and reports that reveal the gaping holes in the Government's official version of the story about 9/11. Questions abound about the destruction of the World Trade Center, including Building 7 that imploded on live television long after it had been reported as collapsing.

Blaming jet fuel for the implosion of the Twin Towers is a joke. The Twin Towers were constructed to withstand Boeing 767s crashing into them. The core of both towers were constructed of 47 massive steel box columns. All of the relevant facts surrounding the implosion of the Twin Towers completely contradicts FEMA's official, ridiculous theories that the NIST tried to justify. According to the construction manager of the Twin Towers, the buildings were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes,...bombings and airplanes hitting them. The Twin Towers and building 7 fell as a result of preplanned demolition. More information about the implosions of all 3 buildings can be found here. Both FEMA and the NIST -- as well as much of the corporate media -- were complicit in aiding and abetting the lies and crimes of the Bush cabal.

How could the implosion of the two largest structures in the country be carried out? Very easily when you realize that World Trade Center Security was provided by a company that was directed by George W. Bush's brother and run by Bush's cousin. Of course, there is no mention of that in the official version of the 9/11 fairy tale or in the corporately owned media.

The rapid removal of the steel from the buildings also raises a lot of questions and suspicions. Federal officials committed even more crimes when they removed the evidence before it could be properly investigated. In essence, Federal officials committed a lot of crimes on 9/11 in their rush to keep their crimes covered up.

The destruction of the World Trade Center was carried out by domestic terrorists, not foreign terrorists as the Bush administration would have you believe. There is no way foreign terrorists could have accessed the buildings and planted the explosives that brought the buildings down. Foreign terrorists could not have orchestrated the cover-up -- the quick removal of the evidence, the fraudulent FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission reports. The cover-up could only be orchestrated by members of our own Federal government. The Bush administration conspiracy theory is the only one that's full of holes that are contradicted by numerous facts and some basic laws of physics. As shocking as it is and will be, it's time to realize that the crimes committed on 9/11 were carried out with the aid of the U.S. Government.

Debunking the Debunkers isn't Difficult

If there were such a thing as actual Justice in the United States, George W. Bush, Richard (Dick) Cheney and the rest of the Bush cabal would not be walking around as free men today. Aside from committing numerous acts of Treason against the United States, there are a slew of war crimes and sundry other crimes that were committed against the United States and many other parts of the world by the U.S. Supreme Court-appointed Bush administration. Atrocities that began under the Bush administration continue under the Obama adminisrtation. Our corporately owned Congress has played the biggest role in supporting the Bush cabal. Of course, most of our Congress is also owned by Israel.

MSNBC reported that the U.S. sought to wage a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before the attacks of 9/11 were allowed by the Bush cabal to happen. The U.S. wanted to wage a worldwide war against an enemy that the U.S. Government created to allow the Bush administration to destroy the U.S. Constitution and shred Civil Rights and Liberties while committing acts of terrorism against the U.S. and the rest of the world in order to profit a select few at the expense of everyone else.

It would be nice to believe that 19 cave-dwelling 'terrorists' were responsible for taking all those lives on that fateful day, but it's impossible to believe and highly improbable that those said terrorists were responsible. It can be disturbing and scary to think that our government would intentionally kill thousands of Americans, but as I said above, when you look at who has actually run this country for the past several decades, it becomes more blatantly evident that our government was in fact involved in killing all those innocent people on September 11, 2001. All the 'debunking' in the world by corrupted media entities, 'scientists' and 'psychologists' does nothing to change that except make themselves look like complete incompetent idiots who are just as guilty as the perpetrators of those attacks.

It's easy to see why the Obama administration and some in Congress want to be able to shut down and control the internet. In the modern computer age -- coupled with the growing desperation to keep their crimes hidden and the incompetence of those trying to keep their crimes covered -- it's impossible to keep facts from the people. Contrary to what a leading media figure would have you believe, there are many credible News services and sources on the Internet. The Internet is and has been a big threat to corrupted news media and politicians so the Government wants to be able to control it too.

Debunking the debunkers isn't difficult and the growing desperation to keep egregious crimes covered up is nothing short of pathetic. It's a shame that people sell their souls and reputations for the perpetrators of the egregious crimes. It's long past time for a real and honest investigation into the attacks of 9/11 and everything that has happened over the past eight and a half years after the Bush cabal was appointed by a corrupted U.S. Supreme Court. It's long past time for the truth and it's long past time for accountability.

Belief in conspiracy seems to afford you a measure of transcendence Peter - others try esoteric religion but for you the dark forces of conspiracy does the trick. Only the 'truthers' know how the real world works.

Those of us who do not share your deeply held belief that many thousands of ordinary Americans conspired elaborately, amorally and subsequently silently with their elected government to murder 3,000+ of their fellow citizens in the furtherance of dubious foreign policy aims must surely and logically be part of the same conspiracy - else the whole insane edifice falls down.

"As with the vast majority of other 9/11 'debunking' propaganda used by once reputable entities, the National Geographic propaganda piece is full of flawed logic and poor editing. National Geographic's feable propagandic piece focused on four 'scientific' experiments: heating a steel beam with jet fuel, a demolition, an experiment with thermite and a Pentagon impact experiment. As with the other feable attempts to deceive and discredit, the National Geographic propaganda piece is a pathetic attempt at hiding the truth that is full of holes and lies. Information on how to spot the techniques used by the media and politicians to spread their propaganda can be found here."

The pot calling the kettle black? Wouldn't good editing have spotted "feable" and the other spelling mistakes in this article? Spelling and belief in conspiracy theories seem to go hand in hand if the evidence on the EF is anything to go by.

Another defining characteristic is a shrill, intolerant, paranoid tone and an almost total lack of credible supporting evidence. Dubai is in the UAE. A company from Dubai bought part of National Geographic. Therefore the UAE government must control National Geographic's editorial content... etc, etc

Brainwashing and 911

September 7, 2009
Politics, War and Peace

Brainwashing and 9/11, a Personal View
Terry Morrone, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University
http://dailycensored.com/category/war-and-...e/ Brainwashing and 911

September 7, 2009 by admin
Filed under Politics, War and Peace

5 Comments

Brainwashing and 9/11, a Personal View

Terry Morrone, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University

Propaganda has been with us since ancient times. All empire-builders have to justify what they do – to themselves, to their own people, and to those they dominate.
The Romans developed a sophisticated world-view which they projected successfully through literature, inscriptions, architecture, art, and elaborate public ceremonial. Their message was that Rome represented peace, good government, and the rule of law. The societies with which Rome was in conflict were caricatured as barbaric, lawless and dangerous.
The Catholic Church claimed that it was the agent of God on earth, charged with crushing paganism and heresy. Through the church eternal salvation in heaven was possible, and the veneration of saints could cure all physical ailments.
Goebbels and Hitler learned much from Madison Avenue and the Catholic Church. Modern propaganda much like modern science and technology has improved over the centuries. Today propagandists make use of applied psychology, focus groups and public opinion polls.
In the US, propaganda for capitalism, not just individual companies, got its start in the great depression. Business interests felt that the New Deal was a dire threat to their existence and responded with a massive propaganda campaign for capitalism under the leadership of the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce, PR firms and PR gurus such as Edward Bernays. It was called a campaign for the “American Way.” Later on the military joined in. Their message was clear. Government regulation and programs were a menace to freedom. The government’s job was to subsidize industry and maintain a massive military to make the world open to free trade and safe for democracy. Sixty years ago this military industrial complex, (or the “establishment”) felt that they had to provide the public with a decent standard of living in order to prevent a socialist takeover. Now they feel that it’s no longer necessary.
A massive propaganda apparatus, including domination of the major TV networks, pervades this country. It was in place long before the terrorist attacks on 9/11/01. Was the official version of the events of September 11, 2001 sold to us by means of a propaganda campaign? I will explore this question in this essay.
On 9/11 we were subjected to hours of propaganda. The TV shows all said over and over again:
This was an “Attack on America.”
To emphasize what a huge event it was, the government had 2 aircraft carriers off the New York coast. The hijackers were Moslem terrorists and their leader was Osama Bin Ladin. Every few minutes videos of the planes hitting the buildings were repeated. Also witnesses, fire fighters, relatives of those killed were continuously interviewed. Intertwined were statements from government sources that they were almost certain that Moslem terrorists were responsible. The US must take action. We never shirked a fight before. It was an act of war, we must retaliate. It was evil. It was an attack on civilization. We were good and courageous and the attackers were evil, over and over again.
There was never any mention of historical context. I had been predicting a terrorist attack on the US for years. When we invaded Panama we killed about 5,000 people. The World Court found us guilty of terrorism in Nicaragua and in our campaign against Nicaraguan democracy in the 1980’s we killed about 30,000 people. In Iraq out sanctions and bombings killed an estimated 1 million people. We killed about 3 million in Vietnam, and we supported the Israeli’s brutal occupation of Palestine. Of course if a newsman mentioned American terrorism, he would have been instantly fired. One was fired, I recall, just for saying that the terrorists were not cowards.
This article is about brain washing. I was brainwashed several times during my lifetime and I don’t rule out the possibility that I am brainwashed today. It started when I was a child in World War 2. I was taught that America was the land of the free and the home of the brave, that we were exceptional, we were humane, we respected life, liberty and democracy. The rest of the world was either evil or not as good as us. Britain and France had large empires. We had practically none. I also firmly believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church. If I committed a mortal sin like missing mass and died before going to confession, I would go to hell for eternity.
Later I drifted away from the Church and the Cold War began. I began to doubt that I could go to hell so easily and that the USSR was poised to invade the world. I also learned that the United States was not so exceptional and that countries had been fighting each other since the beginning of recorded history, each country believing that it was right and its adversary wrong.
Some parts of my Catholic upbringing persisted, such as “Thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal.” By that time I had become a father and I became aware of the huge amount of work and time it took to bring up children. It seemed wrong to sniff out life so easily, e.g. from a B52 with a big bomb, even if the victims were communists. When the war in Vietnam broke out I opposed it and became a peace activist. I became a Professor of Physics and retired early to work in industry.
On 9/11/01 I was taken in along with most others. In retrospect I should have known better. Here’s why:
Shortly after the 1995 bombing of a government building in Oklahoma City, I heard retired Air Force General Benton Parten talking on the Gary Null Show on WBAI. He said that he had looked at the still partially standing building and saw lots of dust. He explained that the dust could not have been produced by an explosion unless the explosives were placed in contact with the concrete columns in the building. I also heard statements by people interviewed by local TV station reporters that they had been warned not to come to work that day. Others said that they had heard two explosions. The official version of events was that the damage to the building had been caused by a truck bomb exploding about 30 feet from the building. The TV interviews never made it to national TV because, according to local station officials, the interviewees would not give their names. Later on I learned local TV stations had reported that 2 or 3 unexploded bombs were removed from the building. General Parten appealed to many members of Congress and state officials, demanding that the building not be demolished until independent experts could examine it. But the building was torn down anyway. By 9/11 my memories of the Oklahoma City bombing inconsistencies had faded, and I began to doubt that I had really heard about them, probably because they were never repeated by anyone in the media.
On 9/11/01 lots of dust was produced, but I accepted the TV version of events without question. I heard several times that the temperature reached 1500 degrees and this melted the steel. Then the top floors crashed down on the ones below causing them to fail and so on all the way down. I looked at the pictures and actually believed that I was seeing this “pancake effect.” When I thought of the collapses months later I saw in my mind’s eye the pancake effect. Months later I started reading articles by the so called “conspiracy theorists.” I watched videos. To my surprise the vision in my memory of the towers collapsing was far from what was in the videos. Now I saw jets of dust shooting out sideways. I had not noticed them on 9/11.Now I saw the buildings exploding. I can only conclude that I saw on 9/11 and recalled what I expected to see. My mind was not working right. More about this later.
The more I read, the more untenable the official explanations seemed. I found a reference to the amount of energy needed to grind up concrete into very small particles. I sent away for a copy of the FEMA report and found out the weight and composition of the towers. I also found a paper on the dust composition and size. Putting it all together, I calculated the amount of energy it would take to produce the 100,000 or so tons of dust observed per tower. The gravitational energy available wasn’t enough. I also read reports about combustion and found that the maximum temperature attained could not have produced the molten metal observed. Now to me, as a physicist, I had proof that the official theory was wrong. I was not the first one to prove it. I will not go into a more detailed explanation here. There are plenty of available references.
I want to discuss instead the reasons I and many others were brainwashed on 9/11. First a little bit about how the brain operates. When a piece of information is noted, the brain (specifically the amygdala) puts a tag on it corresponding to its emotional significance. For example, a child touches a hot frying pan and feels a lot of pain. This gets a very high significance value. It is placed in a special place in memory and never forgotten. When something is life threatening it gets an exceptional high value. For example, a soldier in a war learns to fear explosions. If the significance value is very high it overloads the brain and the reasoning part of the brain gets turned off. A similar stimulus will often invoke a response that may be appropriate in a combat zone, but which is inappropriate anywhere else. An example of this is when a soldier, long after a war, falls to the ground when he hears a car backfire. When a dangerous situation occurs the brain’s first priority is survival, not reasoning.
Even though the events of 9/11 were not life threatening to the TV audience, they did produce fear, anxiety, anger and disorientation. To a certain extent our reasoning powers were diminished, and in this state it’s very easy to get fooled. If there’s a manual on how to create a crisis to fool the public, I’m sure it would say that it’s very important to plant false ideas when the public is in a vulnerable state. If time passed and we returned to a normal routine, the opportunity for brainwashing would have vanished. Once false ideas are implanted it’s very hard to get rid of them since we tend to reject evidence that contradict our firm beliefs.
There’s more to it, of course. The mind does not like uncertainty. When an authority comes forward and takes charge and explains what happened, we are too happy to accept his message. The authority in this instance was the TV. The TV became a parent figure and the public children. When the false message is repeated over and over again on all the TV channels, it becomes very hard to resist. “When a subject appears to be all around him, a person tends to accept it and take it for granted,” wrote Philip Lesly, a public relations specialist, in 1974.
Now I’d like to look at the media coverage from the point of view of a PR expert. Did the media and the government do a good job in fooling the public on 9/11? First of all, did the government have control of the media? The answer is that they did, but they let some things slip by. Agent Prouty of the FBI stated on TV, “At this point the White House is coordinating all public information on a national level.” So I expect that the information about the terrorists was controlled by the government. The experts and authorities who spoke were all of one voice. I expect that they were all controlled by the government is some way. For example, I heard Larry Goodson, a professor from Bentley College and an expert on Afghanistan, on NBC (in New York). He said that probably Osama Bin Laden was the guilty party. Shortly after 9/11 he became a professor at the National War College.
Was the media and the government successful in instilling fear on 9/11 and afterwards? I think so. We were told that cars were being stopped and searched for explosives, that jets were flying over New York and Washington to protect us from another attack, etc, etc. We were told that terrorists were coming into the country through Canada. There was no evidence of this whatsoever. Then came the Anthrax attacks, adding to the fear. Is it any wonder that a Los Angeles Times poll indicated that 31 percent of respondents felt their person sense of security was still a “great deal” shaken.
However, there were slip ups. There were reports of explosions in the buildings before they collapsed. One reporter even stated that the top of one of the towers had exploded. Mayor Guiliani told he had been warned that the towers were going to collapse before it happened. He later denied this but he is refuted by video tapes. With so many reporters doing live interviews it was impossible to totally control the flow of the information. Truths, detrimental to the official story come out just after an event. After the official line is clear to the media, these truths are never mentioned again. Here are a few examples. After the JFK assassination, major media outlets, including CBS, ABC, and AP, reported that a Secret Service agent had been killed, a threat to the single assassin theory. This was never mentioned after the day of the assassination. After the July 7, 2005 bombings in London, television stations reported that 4 terrorists had been shot by police. (Later the official story was that the terrorists were suicide bombers.) Just after the Oklahoma City bombing, as mentioned above, it was reported that unexploded bombs were removed from the building. If there’s another terrorist event, I suggest recording the TV coverage, or at least writing down relevant facts, before the official story settles in. At any rate I’d give the media and the government a high grade for their 9/11 propaganda.
No discussion of 9/11 would complete without a discussion of why many progressives accept the official conspiracy theory. They’re usually skeptical of the government line on global warming, weapons of mass destruction, the number of civilian dead in Iraq, etc., etc. When it comes to 9/11, however, they accept much of the official version.
One reason is that they trust progressive opinion leaders such as Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Matthew Rothschild (editor, the Progressive), David Corn (editor, the Nation magazine) and many others. Many of them ignore the 9/11truth movement, and if pressed to give an opinion, they will say that they haven’t seen any evidence that’s convincing. The Nation and the Progressive and other liberal magazines (and also Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now) receive grant money from foundations. The foundations in turn get money from the government. If a publication goes over the “line,” I expect that they will be cut off from grant money. Is it any wonder that the most vicious attacks on 9/11 truth seekers comes from liberal magazines. Much has been written about this and I refer the reader to “Towers of Deception” by Barrie Zwicker.
The liberal media can’t talk about 9/11 or assassinations or government involvement in drug smuggling or anything that could put officials in jail. They’re allowed to say that the Bush administration took advantage of 9/11 to further their fascist and imperialistic agendas.
After many arguments with friends and relatives I’ve concluded that many progressives can’t believe that 9/11 is an inside job because they like to believe that the truth lies between 2 extremes, regardless of the evidence. The idea goes back to Aristotle. You can even feel superior to the extremists who hold such outlandish opinions, not backed by anyone of importance. Hitler knew about this tendency and stated that you can make outrageous claims and the populace will always believe that there’s some truth to them.
Others say that while there may be some truth in what the conspiracy theorists say, it’s a waste of time to even think about it and that people will be arguing about 9/11 for centuries. Yet in spite of all the brainwashing, a sizeable fraction of the population believe that some faction in the government staged the 9/11 attack. The reason: the evidence is overwhelming.
False flag operations have been so successful that more will come unless we do something. We should begin by educating ourselves and our families. Start by reading up on 9/11. Reason can overcome brainwashing and the emotions, but it’s not easy. You might not be able to do it alone, so go to a meeting of a 9/11 truth organization, if there’s one in your area, or watch videos available on the internet. Once you’re convinced, start in on your family and then your friends. I’ve tried it. I often get a dirty look when I begin. But I explain that I’ve spent a lot of time researching 9/11 and feel very strongly about it, and unless people stop burying their heads in the sand we’re heading for dictatorship and permanent war. The 9/11 cover up teaches that we can’t trust the media or congress or anyone else in positions of authority in this country.
We have the appearance of democracy on a national level and some local democracy. The current system, which has worked for most people for half a century, is going to lead us to the end of life as we know it. Congress is bought and paid for by big business. The national security state and big business are allies. The corporations are getting greedier and more corrupt by the day. There has to be a change. Here are few suggestions for bringing it about.
Stop voting for democrats or republicans if a third party candidate is on the ballot. (There are a few exceptions such as Dennis Kucinich.) In the 2008 presidential election I voted for Cynthia McKinney. She stands for everything I do, including single payer health care, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, and an independent investigation of 9/11. If millions had voted for her, the major parties would have to shift to the left. I know there’s little evidence that Sarah Palin has any integrity at all, but Obama may be just as dangerous in that he can use his popularity to push for more war and fascism. Join and support third parties whenever you can.
Next, put pressure on left wing media to stop their dishonest coverage of 9/11. Write letters and emails.
Next, stop supporting the major media. I stopped getting home delivery of the New York Times after 35 years. I wrote the paper a letter critical of their dishonesty and shoddy news coverage. I’ll still look at the Times in a library, but I’ll never pay for a paper. Stop watching the major TV news programs. Much finer minds can be found on the internet or in books. If you want to learn about a topic, such as the financial crisis, use an internet search engine such as Google. You can get the opinions of Nobel Prize winners and prominent intellectuals instead of establishment lackeys on the TV. If you like to watch videos, just specify video after the topic in your internet search. Unfortunately, you’ll probably need a broadband connection.
Finally get involved. Make some time to join a peace group or a 9/11 group or whatever is available. For those who feel that 9/11 is a dead issue and it’s time to move on, I close with a statement by President Obama, addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix on August 18, 2009.
“Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do it again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense to our people.”

References

1. PR! A Social History of Spin, by Stuart Ewen.
2. The PARANOIA SWITCH, How Terror Rewires our Brains and Reshapes our Behavior – and How we can Reclaim our Courage, by Martha Stout.
3. Towers of Deception, The Media Cover-Up of 9/11, by Barrie Zwicker.
4. The Propaganda of Saints in the Middle Ages, by Esther Cohen, Journal of Communication, Autumn 1981.
5. World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency 403, September 2002.
6. The Dead Secret Service Saga and the Agent(s) on the Knoll, Vince Palamara, Deep Politics Quarterly, 10/97.
7. 7/7 Ripple Effect, a video by Muad Dib

Lyndon LaRouche September 8, 2009 webcast. 911 and the Kennedy assassination.

Quote:

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Thank you. Well, I can promise you a lot
of bad news [laughter] -- which I'm sure you wish to hear. You
would also like to hear what the bad news actually is, how many
varieties there are running loose today, in the jungle out there,
and what the chances are for changing this.
We are now at the end of things. Tomorrow, the President of
the United States, so-called, is going to presumably make an
address to a Joint Session of the Congress, and a joint session
may mean a marijuana fest, as far as I understand. Because
people are going to have that kind of effect. There's no
competence in this President. There never has been and there
never intended to be. This President is a joker, who was played
upon the American people, with a lot of drug money behind it, and
it was never intended that he be competent. He's totally
incompetent. He's not a man of intellect, he's a man who's
trained to babble, and he's been taught the recipes to babble. He
has no comprehension of what he's talking about.
But, however, he is the elected President of the United
States, and you can not have coups at this time, because the
danger is already -- there are too many threats of coups d'état
already are out. And the system is set up for overthrows of
governments including the United States government. For example,
as you may recall, that when certain interests in London and the
United States set up what became known as 9/11, as a
Saudi-British operation, with cooperation of certain people
inside the United States -- and that's documented. That's a
fact. This thing was funded by a British-Saudi operation, in
which the ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the United States was a
key figure in preparing what became known as 9/11.
At the time, there were many indications of what that was,
but this was quickly hushed up. And the investigations, even as
far as they went, were blocked, certain facts were blocked out.
But the evidence was always there, and all you had to do, was to
look in the right place. And it's there. It came from an
alliance between Saudi Arabia and London, which financed and
planned the entire operation, and the Saudi ambassador to the
United States at that time, was a key figure in setting up the
operation.
Now: This information was accessible to the incumbent
government of the United States, at that time. But it was hushed
up. And something else which had been intended, was done,
instead. The intention was to destroy this government -- how?
From the inside. And you had an idiot, who was an
unreconstructed drug addict, a cocaine freak, who had avoided
military service in Vietnam by being coopted into the Texas Air
Guard. The Texas Air Guard didn't want him, but the Bush family
forced him upon the Texas Air Guard. This fellow continued his
habit, which included cocaine, a serious cocaine habit, and the
head of the Texas Air Guard and company shipped this guy out to
another state, where he was supervised by a couple of military
officials to go through drug treatment, for cocaine addiction.
And he went through a year of training and cure for cocaine
condition, which didn't work.
So, we had a coke addict who entered the White House as
President of the United States, an unreconstructed coke addict,
who could just not drink alcohol except near-beer. And he was
nothing. A mean character -- a mean, little jerk, but no brains
to speak of. The father was not too bright, either. The brains
in the family had been used up by the grandfather, [laughter]
who had been a key man in putting Hitler into power in Germany.
And you're dealing with this kind of process, Anglo-American
process, all the way through, still to the present day.
So now, we have, after two terms of this idiot, under
Cheney, we have an Obama Administration. And despite the fact
that Obama, when he was running as a candidate for President,
campaigned against the unitary executive, that, nonetheless, he,
when he became President, became very quickly an advocate of the
unitary executive. Which is fascism, minus a burning of the
Reichstag. In other words, this schnook is put in as President,
he fumbled around for a period of time. Then a crisis came, he
kissed the British butt -- the people who really owned him, and
that's how we got to this unitary executive. We now have
{signing statements}, from the President of the United States! We
have a unitary executive, which was set up as a reaction to the
bombing in New York, especially, 9/11. We're set up into a
dictatorship, in which the Congress no longer has the legislative
power to control the Presidency! Our system of government has
gone to a {unitary} government, under which the Congress is
allowed to vote -- as long as they don't contradict the
President. If they do contradict the President, he'll make a
signing statement, and say, "Yes, you in the Congress, you voted
this way. But I, as President of the United States, think
differently, and {I'm going to act differently!}"
And we have a dictatorship in the United States, which is in
the direction of a Nazi dictatorship, under a President, who
doesn't have much conscience, because he doesn't have any brains.
He's trained to talk like a trained monkey, or something out of a
mechanical zoo. And is stumbling along. But he's still the
President.
Now, we, in the United States are smart enough to know we
don't make coups d'état. We don't assassinate our Presidents as
a way of changing government, though we have some imported people
who do that for us, from time to time: As in the case of
McKinley, which was a very crucial assassination, or the
assassination of Abraham Lincoln -- hmm? -- or the assassination
of John F. Kennedy. John F. Kennedy, of course, is a watershed
for this matter. They killed him, why?
Kennedy had two points on which he was hated, by the Wall
Street crowd and the London crowd. Number one, on the question
of the conflict over the steel industry, to defend American
industrial power. And he made it stick. And he was going to
continue to make it stick. Secondly, he opposed the insistence
of the Wall Street crowd, on going into a war in Indo-China.
while he was President. And for that, he died. Imported
assassins, directed from Europe, by way of Spain, and by way of
Mexico, did the job. And scooted, while somebody came up with a
funny story, to distract attention from everything.
But why was he killed? The obvious reason, which became
obvious in the next period, after his death, when President
Johnson, as Johnson later admitted, had been so terrified by the
fact that these three riflemen who had killed the President
Kennedy, were going to aim at his neck, too, as he said at the
end of his term in office. And therefore, when the issue came up
of what Kennedy had done, under the advice and counsel of former
General MacArthur and the support of General Eisenhower, had
objected to, and opposed, any launching of a U.S. troops into
Indo-China. And the policy of MacArthur and Eisenhower, and the
policy adopted by Kennedy, was "no U.S. land war involvement in
Asia!" That U.S. troops can not handle warfare in Asia! Because
Asian culture is not like European culture, and you're going to
run into a different kind of problem, and it's not the way to
deal with it in the first place. Because, what you were doing,
you were going on the side of British-controlled colonialism,
imperialism, against the people of Asia. And if you have a
country which is associated with the European standpoint, like
the United States, culturally, goes into a war against Asians,
what're you going to get in Asia? You're going to get a reflex.
And that's what we got.
And the British have always handled us nicely by getting us
into wars in places like Asia! This is the way the British run
the world, the British Empire runs the world, through warfare!
The same way they got imperial power, by inducing the silly
nation-states of Europe to go war against each other in the
so-called Seven Years' War. And the leading nations of Europe,
went to war against other for seven years! While the British
stood on the sidelines and encouraged the process, and laughed.
And then in February in 1763, in a Peace of Paris, the British
Empire was declared, as the empire of a private company, called
the British East India Company. And the British East India
Company took over and had become the United Kingdom, and has run
it from that time, to its equivalent the present day. The
British East India Company of course, went into bankruptcy at a
later period, changed its name, as under Victoria, and so forth.
But the principle remains the same: The British East India
Company represented a special kind of empire, which is the only
kind of empire we've known in the whole history of European
civilization.

Agreed Mike. I also believe that one of the chief features of most of the conspiracy theorists we see post here is an inability to cope with the world as it is. People who cannot stomach a world where young princesses die at the careless hands of drunk drivers, where handsome young presidents get shot in a country where guns and alienation are rife, the true terrorist horror of 9/11 or perhaps even the random and chaotic events of their own personal lives seek solace in conspiracy. If an evil cabal controls the world and all world events well at least that is better than no one controlling it and there maybe even the prospect of it being righted. The truth I fear is far darker..... Well there's my bit of open unsubstantiated speculation and I am on the EF after all

Understanding the context of the 9/11 Truth Movement [see original, below, for many embedded videos]
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21148


Understanding the context

The goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement (hererafter “TM”) is for there to be a criminal investigation into possible complicity by the US government in the attacks of that day. Consequently, the baseline proposition of the TM is, logically, that there is sufficient evidence of government complicity in 9/11 to warrant such an investigation.

This distinction, one that is rarely made, is crucial, since it changes drastically the dynamic of most, if not all, of the debates that have been happening in the public domain about the subject. Given that the goal of the TM is one of illustrating evidence of a sufficiently significant gravity to warrant a criminal investigation, there are many “debunking” tactics that have absolutely no relevance any more. The idea that it is the role of the TM to prove the government’s guilt, for instance, is a common assertion that, with a moment’s reflection, is illustrated to be neither here nor there. It is not the duty of the TM to prove something so that it can then be proved. To state that there is an onus on the TM to prove the guilt of an accused party, regardless of whether it can or cannot, is as ridiculous as if one were to ask someone who is accusing someone else of murder to prove it, and only then can any criminal investigation into the murder take place. Since it is not the TM’s job to be judge jury and executioner, such arguments have no place.

A similar dynamic is true for another accusation, which is that the TM needs to construct an alternative scenario under which the attacks could have proceeded, one that is watertight, and covers all eventualities. This again, just shows a drastic misunderstanding the TM, and the entire dynamic of the debate. It is not the TM that is constructing an scenario to be defended- this is the job of the other side. They have drawn up a very intricate and improbable scenario that needs to be defended at every corner; a scenario that if there is one flaw, the whole tapestry comes crashing down. Though it is tempting to make hypotheses about who did what and when, this is something that I feel the TM should not get into too publicly, since it is not something that has any relevance. I don’t care who did what and when to WTC7, and the details are utterly irrelevant- all that matters is that I can show that there is sufficient evidence to illustrate that the government could have been criminally involved in its demise to warrant an investigation into such. That’s all I need to show, given the goal and baseline proposition of the TM as outlined at the top.

Furthermore, one of the most common retorts, “Yes, but maybe it was just a coincidence/built that way/an off day for NORAD…” again, no longer has any validity whatsoever. While it may well be that, for instance, military grade incendiaries got into the WTC dust by accident, the point is that this is a significant piece of evidence pointing to government complicity that needs to be part of a criminal investigation. Even the man with a smoking gun may have a genuine alibi, but does this mean that you do not perform a criminal investigation against him? Of course not. So the standards that are being demanded of the TM do not really represent a serious analysis of the situation on the part of any of its detractors.

A priori reasoning is also something that doesn’t hold. It is useless, logically speaking, to state, “It’s impossible, since there would have had to have been x thousand people involved”. Or, “Its impossible, since there’s no way a US government would do that to its own people”. Or, "Bush isn't smart enough to have pulled off such a complex plot- he couldn't even plant WMDs in Iraq". It is not a problem to employ such axioms if you can prove them to be axiomatic. But how can you do such a thing with the above 3 comments- 3 of the most common a priori rejoinders to any TM argument? Since none of them hold axiomatically, they cannot be employed as axioms. Thus any serious analysis of the situation would have to avoid such prima facie arguments.

Deductive vs. Cumulative reasoning

Structurally therefore, the position of the TM is one that is essentially impossible to refute. Given that there are probably around 100 different pieces of serious evidence that point to government complicity, the job of an opponent is not just to prove that they each might be wrong, as has been the stance until now, but that each of them stand so little chance of being right, that the sum total of all of the 100 or so accusations' probabilities of having actually occurred is lower than the probability necessary for the overall accusation to warrant criminal investigation. This becomes mathematically impossible. To take an example, if the chances that NORAD's inactivity was not indicative of criminal complicity on the behalf of the government were, for the sake of argument, ¾ and then you apply the same reasoning to just 20 arguments that the TM has proffered- very easy to list- then your combined probability of the weight of the evidence not being indicative of criminal complicity on the part of the government is 1/300. So in essence, the debunkers, once they have understood what the debate actually is, cannot but lose. This is because the arguments are structurally different. The TM argument relies on cumulative reasoning, which is to say that only one argument has to be true for the argument to carry. At the same time, the weight of the case is reflected by the combined probabilities of the total accusations. On the other hand, the government case is based on deductive reasoning, which means that only one element in the chain has to be wrong for the entire story to fold. If, for example, it was indeed the case that Dick Cheney told the young man in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center not to shoot the plane down, as Transport Secretary Norm Mineta intimated, then the entire rest of the government story (that is not contingent on that piece of the jigsaw of course) may well be true, but it would not make a bit of difference- the government story would be wrong, and criminal complicity would be proven. If one can illustrate that that piece of testimony is sufficiently serious that it deserves a criminal investigation, then the reasoning of the TM carries. And if you are not sure about that one piece, for whatever reason, then it is simply a matter of numbers, since there are so many serious accusations of holes in the government story, that the combined probability of these accusations makes any acceptance of the need for criminal enquiry essentially impossible to hold off.

The need to rebuild America's defences

To look at how this works in detail, let us what I feel to be one of the strongest examples, and that is the policy statements of the neo-conservatice think tank, the Project for a New American Century. Now one thing that startles me about 9/11, is that if it is so simple for an amateur pilot to hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon, one of the most secure buildings in the world, well then why don’t terrorists fly planes into less secure buildings- surely this should be easier? Why don’t Algerian terrorists fly into the Algerian Parliament building, or some other such building? Why don’t Sri Lankan terrorists fly into an important building in Sri Lanka? These buildings do not have a fraction of the protection of the Pentagon- why has it so far proved impossible to pull off? Why has this never happened in the history of mankind, given that on one day it occurred with relative ease, on not one, but 3 such buildings? The simple answer is that even in a tinpot security infrastructure, pulling off such an attack is very hard to do. So how did it happen in the US? In our quest for an answer to that question, it is useful to start with the neo-conservative policy white paper that was published in September 2000, exactly 1 year prior to the attacks. The document is called “Rebuilding America’s Defences".

Basically speaking, this document, signed by a significant number of the men and women who would be charged with defending the US from a catastrophic terror attack on and up to 9/11, detailed that such an attack would in fact be propitious to US policy. This is because the document cites the need to create a new paradigm that will allow for a decades long shift in military and strategic radicalisation. With the threat of the Cold War gone, the US can no longer rest on its laurels as it did under Clinton- it needed to invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, develop the capacity to fight 2 major wars at the same time, utilise space as a defence mechanism, utilise cyberspace as a defence mechanism, secure radical upheavals in defence spending etc. This, it stated, would be very hard to achieve “absent a catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor”. Now given that such an event is close to impossible to occurring in a country with a tinpot security infrastructure like Sri Lanka or Algeria, the chances that it should happen within a trillion dollar security infrastructure, like the US, without government involvement, moreover when the same government- in fact the people charged with preventing such an attack within said government- had effectively advocated such an occurrence only 12 months prior, are very slim indeed. So the case against the TM, bearing in mind our precisions about burdens of proof necessary as stated at the top, is already looking pretty tough. What the administration did when it came to power- the lengths the administration went to to secure its election victory of Gore in 2000 now making more sense- was, within 6 days, to demote the main guy who was charged with preventing a terror attack who was not one of them- head of counter terrorism, Richard Clarke. He was demoted, incidentally, one day after handing Condaleeza Rice a document entitled “Strategies for eliminating the threat of Al Qaeda”. And this 3 months after the bombing of the USS Cole, by Al Qaeda. As has been outlined in overwhelming detail by Paul Thompson, this pattern of warnings being ignored, and safeguards against threats being defused, was very much par for the course on a regular basis leading up to the attacks. Even the 9/11 Commission Report states that Bush was given 40 Presidential Daily Briefs that warned him that Al Qaeda was plotting to attack the US. 40 times he did nothing. We are told that George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, stated that the threat level was “unprecedented”, and that he was running around “with his hair on fire”. And yet nothing was done in response. There is only so far that apathy can go before it ceases to become something passive and transforms into something active, and there is one evident way to explain the active apathy of the Bush administration prior to 9/11 faced with daily warnings of a catastrophic terror attack against them- and that is, as we know, that the occurrence of such an attack was effectively openly stated policy. Once viewed in this light, the insouciance becomes perfectly normal, and things make sense again. Otherwise there is no explanation why an administration made up of some of the most hawkish figures in recent American political history, would not violently react to the idea that there was anything threatening national security- a rare legitimate use of the term.

Let's just pull back for a second and analyse this data in the light of our earlier expounded framework of reasoning. It could well be the case that the pieces of evidence I have cited do indeed lead nowhere. It could well be that it was just a coincidence that a once in a lifetime event should occur 12 months after it was more or less wished for by the people- undeniably ruthless and unscrupulous people at that- who were in a position to make it happen. This I don’t deny. But it's irrelevant. The point is that one cannot look at that evidence and state that this is not sufficiently indicative of criminal complicity to warrant an investigation into such. That cannot be said, in any serious way. And this is merely one of dozens of such pieces of evidence.

World Trade Center 7

It is a remarkable truth, that still so few people are aware of how many buildings fell on 9/11. It is the most rudimentary fact concerning the most reported on event of all time, and so few people know this. The fact is that not 2, but 3 skyscrapers collapsed on that day, the Twin Towers (World Trade Centers 1 and 2) and World Trade Center 7, a 47 story building 100 metres away from the twin towers that collapsed at around 17:20 on the same day. It contained the offices of Salomon Brothers Bank, as well as those of the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, the SEC, as well as the Mayor’s Emergency Command Center.

Shortly after the planes hit the towers, the entire WTC 7 was evacuated. Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, 2 high level city bureaucrats, happened to enter the Mayor’s Emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor, found it deserted, and were told by emergency staff to leave the building. On their way down, there was an explosion within the building that blew up part of the 6th floor. This was, according to Jennings, a significant time before either Twin Tower had collapsed. They made their way down to the ground floor, where Jennings describes how it was “in total ruins”, as if from explosions, and saying that in the lobby, he was told “not to look down” by a firefighter, and that, walking through the lobby, he was “stepping over people”- the suggestion being, of course, dead people.




Jennings was interviewed for the excellent Loose Change Final Cut, but then asked for his testimony to be removed, due to threats he was receiving, and the shortly after, being interviewed for the BBC Conspiracy files debunking attempt, he reneged on his testimony. Shortly after that he was dead, in his early-mid 50’s.

The events he relayed all happened in the morning of 9/11. The building collapsed later in the day. There is, in fact, little need to go into the specifics of something so simple- watch the collapse for yourself, and you can witness that it is as much of a controlled demolition as you are likely to see.




The official explanation of the building’s demise, initially evaluated by FEMA as having “a low probability of occurrence” is that due to the fires that were set off by falling debris from the twin towers, and the water supply being cut off for the firefighters, the metal beams in the building underwent “thermal expansion”, making the building unsteady, and causing its collapse. Were this explanation one taken seriously by even its formulators, there is something very evident that we would see, namely a revision of fire and building codes for skyscrapers all over the world, since if a fire can cause a building to collapse at the speed of gravity, we had better all go and work in bungalows. Since this is not a serious explanation, there have been no such revisions that I am aware of anywhere in the world- the notion that a fire can cause a building to collapse on itself in the manner of WTC7 is clearly not one that makes any sense.

More sense is provided by first responder witnesses to the collapse. Along with Craig Bartmer, Kevin Mcpadden who was one of the first responders that day, gives testimony that is devastating to the official story, stating that there was a countdown leading up to the collapse of the building.




First responder Indira Singh also states that they were told to evacuate the area, since with regards to WTC7, “(they) were going to have to bring it down".

In an interview with an emergency worker broadcast on local radio on 9/11 just after 7 collapsed, we hear that “We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder, we turn around and were shocked to see that the building was... ah well....it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through he building and the windows were all busted out... About a second later the bottom floor collapsed and the building followed after that." Doesn’t sound too much like “thermal expansion”, but such testimonies were never made the subject of any serious media coverage, to say nothing of any official enquiry. Nonetheless, they are devastating to any support for the official version of events.

To add further fuel to the fire, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex, Larry Silverstein, who had purchased the lease weeks prior to the attacks, interviewed for a PBS special on the attacks, stated the following:

“I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, I said, you know, we’ve had such a terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is, pull it. They made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse”

Now, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding by both sides of the debate surrounding this comment. Some members of the TM initially stated that “to pull” is industry jargon for “to implode”, which is not correct. Opponents of the TM sided with Silverstein’s later clarification attempt, when he put out a statement saying that by “pull”, he meant in fact “pull the firemen out of the building”. The debate has centred around the first interpretation, which is, in my eyes, totally misguided- given that Silverstein is not a demolition professional, the idea that he would be using demolition jargon, especially in a reported conversation with a fireman, for a public television show, is not very well thought through. The position from which one should be interpreting this comment, is that of a layperson- i.e. a non demolition industry insider, since this is the standpoint from which Silverstein is coming. If such a person were to hear, or indeed make that comment, it is fairly clear what their interpretation of it would be- that the building was brought down intentionally, by one means or another. Hence the consecutive nature of “making the decision to pull- watching the building collapse”. There is only one thing that pull could be referring to, realistically, and it certainly is not firemen. So Silverstein’s comment, when analysed intelligently, is another piece of evidence indicating insider complicity in the attacks.

This is not to state, as I have emphasised above, that the evidence given rules out all possibility of an alternative explanation. It may well have been the first time in history that a building collapsed by fire, while coincidentally exploding on the inside and its owner subsequently making suspect comments as to its demise; but it is this very fact that renders the probability of its veracity so unlikely, and screams for the need for an investigation into the attacks.

Very often, people point to official reports as support for their argument that the government was not involved. This is clearly erroneous, as since the government is the entity that is suspected of misdemeanour, pointing to a report issued by one of its agencies that defends its point of view is not an impartial way of viewing things. A useful thought experiment to do if one wants to analyse the situation impartially, is to consider if this event had happened in the country of a “designated enemy”, say Iran, and a building containing its secret service and other secretive agencies had collapsed in the same manner as WTC7, with the same background and motives for the attacks as the US had for 9/11, and what our reaction would be when Iranian government scientists came out and said that no, there is no conspiracy, nothing to see here. People just wouldn’t take it seriously. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, and it is us who are the potential suspects, a government agency's defence of the government is seen as being something representing serious academic rigour. This is a level of double standards that needs to be bypassed if any progress is to be made in our analysis of such situations. One prima facie refutation that is often given cited above is that the US Government would never kill its own people. But it is not a stretch to believe that the US government would kill 3,000 of its own for imperial grand strategy. After Hurricane Katrina, it is widely accepted that government apathy in the face of spending money to save poor black people led to the death of close to 2,000 there. So if that is accepted to be the case, is it really inconceivable that they would engineer the deaths of a similar number to ensure lasting power and hegemony for the foreseeable future? Not at all. We are aware that the US will willingly sacrifice lives of millions of foreign civilians, and thousands of its own military, to ensure its own global power, so when viewed in this light, and in the stark light of events in New Orleans, it becomes hard to accept the idea that 9/11 is indeed a step that the US Government would not go beyond.

The financing of the attacks

The attacks, according to the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission Report, Tom Kean, cost $4-500,000 to carry out. A critical question therefore, though Kean inexplicably deemed it to be "of little practical significance", is where did this money come from. As has been reported in The Guardian, The Times of India, Asia Times, as well as the Wall Stree Journal, the Australian, and other media outlets from France to India, Indian Intelligence were informed by the FBI that $100,000 of this came from Mahmoud Ahmed, who was the head of the ISI- the Pakistani Intelligence Service- via renowned terrorist Saeed Sheikh. In any normal circumstances, Ahmed would surely be living in hiding having been labelled as a sponsor of state terrorism. But this is not the case. Ahmed, the man who is widely reported to have financed 20-25% of the worst ever terrorist attack on the US, spent the week of those attacks in Washington, meeting with senior government and intelligence officials of the country whose people he was helping to attack. This included breakfasting on the morning of 9/11 with Porter Goss and Bob Graham, the heads of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, as well as meetings with George Tenet, the Director of the CIA on the 9th September.

Given the historical links between the CIA and the ISI, going back to US rapprochement with China under Nixon-Kissinger, and then the adding to the equation of the Taliban during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, it is unsurprising that revelations should surface linking the CIA and the ISI to attacks that are purported to have come out of Afghanistan. What is manna from heaven from anyone suspecting government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, is that such a link should have been made so explicit, with such wide reports regarding the financing, and then such an obvious connection manifested between the financer and US intelligence. Once more, if we apply these inputs to the framework of reasoning that is outlined above, the case for 9/11 Truth becomes increasingly hard to reject.

Some of the other issues

As stated at the top, the strucural strength of the movement comes from the fact that there are so many areas of improbability in the government report, and only one of them has to turn out to be false and indicative of government complicity for the TM argument to carry. Due to this nature of the argument, I will not be able to list all of the issues in this piece, but an excellent list of 50 key points is provided here by Jon Gold.

Conclusion

If we return to our original proposition, which is that there is sufficient evidence of government complicity in the attack, I think it is hard to conceive that even given the limited number of instances I have been able to look at into depth here (given time and space considerations), that this is not the case. This is not at all to say that there is not a conceivable scenario under which the government’s story could hold. As I have been at pains to underscore, the validity of the TM’s case is not contingent on it offering judge, jury and executioner proof of the guilt of the US Government in the attacks. This is the job of an official investigative body, whose pursuits will be catalysed by the evidence that the TM is, and has been able to bring to light. The job of the TM, and one that has been rendered very easy, given the evident facts of the day, is simply to illustrate the instances that point to likely criminal conduct on the part of the US Government. This serves as the basis for an investigation to be conducted.

Engaging in belief and understanding

The reaction of many people I meet to whom I explain some of these basic facts, is one of what I would call disengaged belief. That’s to say that they understand the facts, they are convinced by them, but the engagement in the belief is not there. This fact also explains the discrepancy between poll numbers- which show that around 40% of Americans are convinced by the TM’s overall case- and the fact that such numbers are not out on the street in open revolt against what they have understood to be their criminal government. To actually engage in the belief means to fully comprehend its implications. It means to fully comprehend the nature of government, industry and other power centres, and the lengths to which these entities will go to to preserve their own power. It would mean the drastic reevaluation of the images that we see on television and the internet of the leaders that we elect, and an utterly unpalatable realisation of our own implication and responsibility in the crimes our government commits. Such a radical reevaluation of world affairs is difficult for almost all people to swallow. As J Edgar Hoover said, “The individual is handicapped confronted with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists”. This was precisely the phenomenon he was referring to. What handicaps the individual is the dichotomy between his current world view where leaders and power centres are essentially benign, if occasionally misbehaving individuals, and a reality where such “monstrous” conspiracies, implemented to further the true interests of power centres, are possible, logical, and do happen. They are indeed all the more likely to happen given the handicap of general members of the public, and their inability to engage in their belief in a monstrous conspiracy. It is just simple fact that if 40% of the US, 120 million people, engaged in their belief that the government needs to be investigated for possible criminal connections to 9/11, life in that country would become unrecognisable- precisely what it must become if justice is to be served. It is essential that when reading this article, the belief that gets engendered must be engaged upon- it is no use just believing it and setting it aside, and becoming another one of the 120 million who believes, but does not act. If you do this, you become part of Hoover’s handicapped public, that allows for future conspiracies to unfurl. This in turn allows for future murders, wars, and repressions. The issue of government connivance in the murder of 3,000 of its own citizens to launch a fraudulent war, the War on Terror, is not one that needs to be explained. Engage in the belief, actively demand a new investigation, and that way, not only will you be on the side of justice for the over 1 million who have died as a result of that day, but you will be involved in the effort to make such an catastrophic event less likely in the future.

Well you managed to return the favor old girl. In another thread you claimed I had brought you to "tears" from laughter. After reading this "soap opera" gem of yours regarding history (which includes conspiracy) I find myself crying from laughter at such a simplistic view of history.

For your education "conspiracies" are a normal and everday practice with human beings. In fact there could be no progress without it. Take for example the "conspiracy" to create the republic of the United States of America. That was a "conspiracy" against the British Empire. And imagine where the world would be today had the United States not defeated the British in their conspiracy to constitute a republic on this planet. Yikes, I shudder to think where the world would be today had we lost that war against the Brits.

Your conception of history is no different than the mundane scripts written and produced for television soap operas.

Thanks you have confirmed my view of your cult's position posted elsewhere as pretty much spot on. This time not laughing - weeping for you - you poor woman.
Have you ever heard of the historian's fallacy?

Let me guess old girl, a British soap opera exported across the pond for consumption by Americans?

That is precisely where you are going wrong.

I doubt whether Ms Mauro would grasp the relevance of the historian's fallacy to her leader's rants, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy

Charles Drago who once used to pollute this forum until he ran away writes eleswhere:


Flowery verbose empty fool. I will now tell one and all exactly what Drago the craven coward and intellectual flyweight does when faced with views he doesn't like - he fabricates a cock and bull story about being banned and runs away to a non discussion forum where no one will ever challenge him ......the pompous vacuous baboon.

Subtext: Only dark people - the lesser breeds - conspire, only the suffering of Americans counts.

Racist drivel, but not without utility in the career stakes.

Leave it to you. The example cited in your nice, neat little package, that of the attack on Pearl Harbor is a perfect example of what is wrong with your thinking.

If you actually knew your history then you would know that the attack on Pearl Harbor had been something originally planned by the British way back in the 1920's.

History is intelligible despite quacks like you who profess to believe the contrary. You can know the mind of people no longer living. You can know their intent. Next I suppose you'll inflict us with another round of your "mercantilism" baloney.

Your problem is you don't believe the human mind is capable of knowing truth. Instead you allow yourself to be confined to formal rules. In short, you cannot think.

Extraordinary. Dark as is bleak not as in skin colour. I am staggered by the fact you could be so foolish.

I have not heard this theory before. Do you have the evidence for this?

Drago also claims to have "exposed" me. He still cannot accept I am just someone vigorously attending my own opinions, and not acting at the behest of some shadowy organisation. If he did admit he was wrong there, he'd have to acknowledge the possibility that other accusations he has made might be wrong.

Charles can't have that; his ego will not allow such an outrage. Better to prolong the fantasy rather than face reality.

**************

John,

I think Terry might be right. I know the Japanese extensively studied the British success at Taranto. IIRC, Billy Mitchell may have come up with the original concept in order to shake the US Navy admirals out of their belief in the invulnerability of the battleship. I'm not 100% certain, but I think there may have been a British study done in the 1920s, using Pearl Harbour as the model for a harbour attack. Please note the word model, and not intended target.

From his recent foamings this 'man' Drago is clearly as mad as a march hare and quite vile to boot ..... to boot really quite hard
He continues to spread foul lies and revolting insults in the basest language about me from the safety of his non forum. .. want to look upon hell Charles - look in the mirror.