9-11: Five Years Later—Where Are We?

[Michael Hogan]

9-11: Five Years Later—Where Are We?

Those who are questioning the “official” explanation of 9-11 are not being unpatriotic

by Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D.

Many readers have praised me for my courage in broaching taboo subjects and stating obvious truths. Others denounce me for “being unpatriotic and distrusting our government.”

One reader, Susan Hartman, wrote to me that I was obviously in the pay of Islamic jihadists and that she had reported me to the FBI.

Despite the lack of evidence to support their belief, a number of readers remain confident that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that America narrowly missed being annihilated. These readers know for a fact that Hussein had WMD because “the president would know, and he wouldn’t lie.”

In other words, whatever Bush says is true, and all who doubt him are unpatriotic. “You are with us or against us.”

The facts be damned. There are a large number of Susan Hartmans in the body politic. A group of scientists, engineers and university professors are trying to start a debate about the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings. I reported one of their findings:

There is an inconsistency between the speed with which the buildings collapsed and the “pancaking theory” used to explain the collapse. Another way of putting the problem is that there seems to be a massive energy deficit in the explanation that the buildings fell as a result of gravitational energy. There simply was not sufficient gravitational energy to produce the results.

For reporting a scientific finding, I was called a “conspiracy theorist.” Only in America is scientific analysis seen as conspiracy theory and government lies as truth.

Applications of the laws of physics and scientific calculations can be reviewed and checked by other scientists. Scientists, like the rest of us, can make mistakes. Questions raised about the collapse of the WTC buildings are not engaged, however, but ignored.

The 9-11 scholars’ findings seem to be in sync with public opinion. Polls show that more than one-third and as much as one-half of the American public does not believe the government’s 9-11 story.

The public doesn’t believe the John F. Kennedy assassination story, either.

Nevertheless, experts who point out problems in the official story are still called “conspiracy theorists,” even though a large percentage of the people share their doubts.

I think the reason so many Americans do not believe the Kennedy story told by the Warren Commission and the 9-11 story told by the 9-11 Commission is not because Americans are knowledgeable about ballistics or physics, or know how to do energy calculations, but because the stories contain too many unusual happenings, too many oddities.

In the Kennedy case, doubts are raised by such things as an improbable bullet trajectory, the against-all-procedures absence of Secret Service agents from the rear and sides of Kennedy’s limo, the inexplicable access of an unauthorized armed civilian, Jack Ruby, who was able to assassinate Oswald inside the jail before Oswald could be questioned.

Online at

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_4213246

there is a report that two scientists, Pat Grant and Erik Randich, at the Forensic Science Center of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, have discredited the reliability of the “neutron activation” analysis, which was used to “prove” that all the recovered bullet fragments came from Oswald’s shots. Courts no longer accept this as evidence, and the FBI no longer uses the analysis that was employed to close the Oswald case.

Any one of these things would be an oddity. The combination of oddities becomes inexplicable, a statistical impossibility.

The same with the explanation of 9-11. Powerfully constructed buildings do not collapse when there is no source of the required energy to do the job. A large 757 hits the Pentagon but leaves a small hole, and there is no sign of wings, engines, tail or fuselage. Every air control and military procedure fails, and hijacked airliners are not intercepted by jet fighters. The alleged hijackers’ names apparently are not on the passenger lists, and some of the alleged hijackers have been found alive and well in Saudi Arabia.

Dr. Thomas R. Olmstead used the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of the autopsy list of American Airlines flight 77, and he reports that there are no Arabic names on the list.

My point is a simple one. Attentive people, even if they are not scientifically literate, can sense when there are too many oddities for an explanation to be believable. If deception is sensed, there is a receptive audience when experts or filmmakers speak. Denouncing inconvenient facts as “conspiracy theories” is a way of suppressing debate and investigation.

This itself is telling. If the official explanations are safe, their proponents should welcome the opportunity to show again and again that the explanations can stand all challenges. Instead, the second a challenge shows its head, it is branded a “conspiracy theory.” That tells me that the official explanations can stand no challenge.

Don’t ask me who killed Kennedy and why, and don’t ask me who was behind the 9-11 attack or what brought the three WTC buildings down.

My position is a simple one: The official accounts are too improbable to be believable. I won’t believe them until the government can explain where the energy came from to bring down the three WTC buildings. With the demise of the “single bullet” theory, there seems to be no verification of Oswald’s magical shooting.

It seems to me that the real conspiracy theories are the explanations that are overweighted with improbabilities. Readers ask me what can we do—we can do very little, as we have lost control over our government. Elections, even if not stolen, change very little. Government got free of our control when we forgot the teaching of our Founding Fathers that government is always the greatest threat to our liberty.

© 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11...ears_later.html

Edited September 3, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Brendan Slattery]

Ha! Paul Craig Roberts is slightly to the right of Pat Buchanon, yet suddenly he's a hero on this board for advancing obscene, preposterous theories.

The public doesn’t believe the JFK assassination story, either.

So what? A majority of Americans believe that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. Are they right?

[John Dolva]

'and yet it moves' Galileo whispered

Interesting observation. I think the answer is complex. It's clear that there are those who promote ingorance. Then there are those who are timid and submit to peer pressure, perceived or real. Others have solved the cases and all this is irrelevant to them. Some promote books, and others simply xxxxx for ideas and give nothing in return. Others are quite respectful of the serious research and avoid controversy.

Generally I think the obsession with credibility (or the idea that 1+1 =2 when voiced by Alfred is somehow more true than when voiced by joe blog, disreputable loony with halitosis) gives those who promote particular views a hold on less 'brave' individulas. Perhaps there's an element of virtual S&M there. (It's always puzzled me how someone as distasteful as Dave Ferrie, for example, can exert influence).. Perhaps it's that those who promote ignorance are involved in 'psyops' that takes advantage of the 'herd mentality'. Like I said, a complex answer to a simple question.

On the whole, in the grand scheme of things, it's really irrelevant (except as guide to perps). There is a small number of people posting on this forum compared to the larger non-posting researchers. Speak to them and they can reach each others in other ways. (It's really irrerlevant in the long run what the reesearchers on this forum don't choose to say). Remember that in the real world, truth defines itself separate from the messengers. It's the research that exists in this spirit that in the end matters. Truth is not defined by, nor belong to, cheering groupies or the loudest voice.

Basically I wouldn't worry too much about it. By sitting back and getting an overall view of the research community over time, it helps to identify those who take finding the truth seriously. Being right means sometimes being wrong. Drop the idea that it's wrong to be wrong, and make stupid suggestions.

[Sid Walker]

9-11: Five Years Later—Where Are We?

Those who are questioning the “official” explanation of 9-11 are not being unpatriotic

by Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D....

My position is a simple one: The official accounts are too improbable to be believable. I won’t believe them until the government can explain where the energy came from to bring down the three WTC buildings. With the demise of the “single bullet” theory, there seems to be no verification of Oswald’s magical shooting.

It seems to me that the real conspiracy theories are the explanations that are overweighted with improbabilities. Readers ask me what can we do—we can do very little, as we have lost control over our government. Elections, even if not stolen, change very little. Government got free of our control when we forgot the teaching of our Founding Fathers that government is always the greatest threat to our liberty.

© 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.[/indent]

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11...ears_later.html

A very good article, Michael

[Mark Stapleton]

Ha! Paul Craig Roberts is slightly to the right of Pat Buchanon, yet suddenly he's a hero on this board for advancing obscene, preposterous theories.

The public doesn’t believe the JFK assassination story, either.

So what? A majority of Americans believe that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. Are they right?

You've got to understand why a cult of cynicism has developed. When Governments and the media lie constantly about major issues, people become understandably suspicious about what they're being told.

JFK, MLK, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Iran Contra, WMD's in Iraq, the War on Drugs etc, etc. The public are now becoming aware that they have been the victims of 'spin' for decades. The righteous indignation you express with any opinion which deviates from the Government/Media gruel being fed to the masses just makes you look like the looney. How many intelligent people still think LHO was a lone assassin? Apart from a few who are being paid to say it, only you apparently. The Government and media have a very poor track record when it comes to honesty with the public. Don't insult my intelligence by telling me black is white. The endless murders, lies, wars and coverups have been designed to line the pockets of powerful elites at the expense of everyone else. That's a fact you will have to learn to accept--when you finally grow up.

Re 9/11, I saw the buildings collapse and I don't know if what these scientists are saying is accurate. What I do know is that Rumsfeld, Chaney and others were using charter planes and avoiding commercial airlines in the leadup to 9/11. I know 9/11 allowed the Bush Administration to exchange civil liberties for added security. And I know that Bush and the media have long history of lying to the public. The only thing obscene and preposterous is your constant defence of the indefensible.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Len Colby]

What I do know is that Rumsfeld, Chaney and others were using charter planes and avoiding commercial airlines in the leadup to 9/11.

I've only heard this about Ashcroft and that started a few months before the attacks. You think if he was "in the know" he'd know the day or at least the week of the attacks. Read here for more http://www.911myths.com/html/ashcroft_comm...al_flights.html. Also you'd think he would have told his #2 who would have told his wife.

Robert's is right question the government is not unpatriotic, but he gets just about all the rest wrong.

Mike - why did you start this thread here? It is only marganally assassination related.

Edited September 3, 2006 by Len Colby

[Jack White]

'and yet it moves' Galileo whispered

Interesting observation. I think the answer is complex. It's clear that there are those who promote ingorance. Then there are those who are timid and submit to peer pressure, perceived or real. Others have solved the cases and all this is irrelevant to them. Some promote books, and others simply xxxxx for ideas and give nothing in return. Others are quite respectful of the serious research and avoid controversy.

Generally I think the obsession with credibility (or the idea that 1+1 =2 when voiced by Alfred is somehow more true than when voiced by joe blog, disreputable loony with halitosis) gives those who promote particular views a hold on less 'brave' individulas. Perhaps there's an element of virtual S&M there. (It's always puzzled me how someone as distasteful as Dave Ferrie, for example, can exert influence).. Perhaps it's that those who promote ignorance are involved in 'psyops' that takes advantage of the 'herd mentality'. Like I said, a complex answer to a simple question.

On the whole, in the grand scheme of things, it's really irrelevant (except as guide to perps). There is a small number of people posting on this forum compared to the larger non-posting researchers. Speak to them and they can reach each others in other ways. (It's really irrerlevant in the long run what the reesearchers on this forum don't choose to say). Remember that in the real world, truth defines itself separate from the messengers. It's the research that exists in this spirit that in the end matters. Truth is not defined by, nor belong to, cheering groupies or the loudest voice.

Basically I wouldn't worry too much about it. By sitting back and getting an overall view of the research community over time, it helps to identify those who take finding the truth seriously. Being right means sometimes being wrong. Drop the idea that it's wrong to be wrong, and make stupid suggestions.

John...I applaud your statement:

" Remember that in the real world, truth defines itself separate from the messengers. It's the research that exists in this spirit that in the end matters. Truth is not defined by, nor belong to, cheering groupies or the loudest voice. "

TRUTH EXISTS. Regardless of its proponents or opponents, there is only ONE TRUTH.

Some of us seek it, some do not. When scraps of truth are found, the discoverer may

be ridiculed for opposing the "official story". But the messenger/discoverer is a separate

entity from the discovery. Some think that by discrediting the discoverer that they

can discredit the truth. TRUTH CANNOT BE DISCREDITED by attacking the messenger.

Truth will win.

Your statement is a doctrine which I have preached for decades...that ideas or

truths EXIST separately from those who may study them, embrace them or

denounce them. TRUTH EXISTS.

Jack

Edited September 3, 2006 by Jack White

[Michael Hogan]

Mike - why did you start this thread here? It is only marganally assassination related.

Len, rather than respond extensively to that, I'll leave it to readers to read the article. There are numerous references to the Kennedy assassination contained therein. I felt it was the appropriate place.

If anyone else besides Len thinks that it was posted in an inappropriate place, I would certainly like to hear from them.

I looked up marganally in the dictionary, but could not find it. Did you mean to use the term "somewhat assassination related?" (For those who do not know, that is an inside joke)

Edited September 3, 2006 by Michael Hogan