Jump to content

Conspiracy of Conspiracy


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

'You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the new world order ... bought and paid for." "Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and special branch recruit agents?" "Shill, traitor, sleeper", "leftwing gatekeeper", "accessory after the fact", "political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all".

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the United States government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my leftwing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I've blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on the Guardian Comment is Free website, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467. On the same day the Guardian published my article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE Systems. It drew 60 responses. The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they had been, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC's film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists' case. They urge us instead to visit websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net and 911scholars.org, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E Jones.

Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact, rumour and confusion transformed into evidence, selective editing, the citation of fake experts, the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?)

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the new world order, I would say that, wouldn't I? It's all part of the plot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2017006,00.html

Well George, put me down as another reader you have failed to convince.

Your initial article - and this more recent follow-up - is a real beat up, IMO.

You paraphrase and ridicule your opponents. You grapple only with the extremities and weaknesses of your opponents' positions.

You do nothing to weaken my concerns that 9-11 was a Zionist false flag operation, in the tradition of the Lavon Affair but on an much, much grander scale as befits our modern times.

You describe, for instance, the work of physics911.net and David Ray Griffin as a "concatenation of ill-attested nonsense". That's a nice phrase, George. It's effective writing.

But is is it a serious rebuttal?

I don't think so.

Most irritating of all, to someone like me, is the way you patronize those of us who believe there are serious flaws in the fundamental workings of our society, failings of morality, justice and accountability with major socio-political implications, exemplified by pyrotechnic mass sacrifices such as 9-11, rather obviously unsolved murders such as the JFK assassination - and above all the failure of academia and the mass media as a whole to examine such issues without fear or favour and try to establish the truth.

You suggest we should spend time instead on more serious issues such as campaigning for the environment, human rights or an end to hunger - and that we have allowed ourselves to be distracted by illusions and trivia. You claim "9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity" and give a rather odd analogy involving a neurotic squirrel.

It might seem at first reading a plausible argument. But if I may indulge in analogy too, your approach is like ignoring the stench of a rotting corpse in the kitchen cupboard (don't go there!) while trying to keep the benchtop spotlessly clean. At some time, the foul smell makes the kitchen utterly unihabitable, even if all observable surfaces are clean and tidy.

Since 9-11 hijacked the global agenda in the direction of new wars and a ludicrous 'War on Terror', focus on serious global issues has been effectively impossible.

The struggle for truth and justice is ultimately the same as the struggle for peace and well being.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

The most extraordinary non-sequitur I've yet seen on this website. They are capable of anything: They didn't do it.

It's also unhistorical tripe. Were the men who staged the coup of November 22 less ruthless? Or the men who brought down Lincoln? Perhaps Monbiot could share with us the secret of his moral calculus.

One sees Monbiot's problem, though. All that hyperbolic straining is unavoidable if he is to build credibility before rounding on the real villains of 9/11 - not those who perpetrated it, you understand, but those who sought to investigate it. Weird morality, George.

I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
Coincidence theory at its most childish and ludicrous. We are invited to believe that though they eagerly desired to invade Iraq, they failed to see any potential in the large plot under their noses.
Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

And yet Monbiot is far more scathing and passionate in his assault on 9/11 sceptics than he is about the man he insists is "responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis." Again, very curious morality, this.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic.
Really? Or just preplanning?
It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception.

Again, not very complicated: psywar was built into the planning.

It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.

Ah, an old favourite, wearingly familiar since at least the days of Clay Shaw's trial; and yet more hyperbole. "Tens of thousands"!? And Monbiot has the cheek to label 9/11 sceptics "morons."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the "Pearl Harbor" has been taken out of context. It came from a section of a report calling for modernizing telecommunications systems and stated barring such an incident it would take many years for this to happen.

It comes from a section of the report dealing with military transformation, creating a dominant global military force, including "radically new designs" of weaponry, the suggestion that aircraft carrier production be ended, etc. The section makes no mention of "telecommunications systems," except insofar as such systems might conceivably be included under "new operational concepts," whatever those might be. It is this transformation of the U.S. military, the report says, that can take a long time, absent "a new Pearl Harbor."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the "Pearl Harbor" has been taken out of context. It came from a section of a report calling for modernizing telecommunications systems and stated barring such an incident it would take many years for this to happen.

It comes from a section of the report dealing with military transformation, creating a dominant global military force, including "radically new designs" of weaponry, the suggestion that aircraft carrier production be ended, etc. The section makes no mention of "telecommunications systems," except insofar as such systems might conceivably be included under "new operational concepts," whatever those might be. It is this transformation of the U.S. military, the report says, that can take a long time, absent "a new Pearl Harbor."

You’re right Ron I did misremember and misstate that. The quote came from a chapter concerned with modernizing the military and the first paragraph emphasized “information technologies”. It’s been a while since I read it (OK skimmed just that chapter) and I transposed ‘information’ to ‘communications’.

The quote comes from section V (five) “CREATING TOMORROW’S DOMINANT FORCE”

The first paragraph reads:

“To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.”

The actual quote cames four paragraphs later

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions…”

Latter it goes on about the need for: “Global missile defense”, “Control of space and cyberspace” and “transforming conventional forces.”

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf PDF pgs 62-3

My basic point still stands nowhere did the report (not memo) indicate “the(y) needed a “a Pearl Harbor incident””

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the new world order ... bought and paid for." "Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and special branch recruit agents?" "Shill, traitor, sleeper", "leftwing gatekeeper", "accessory after the fact", "political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all".

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the United States government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my leftwing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I've blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on the Guardian Comment is Free website, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467. On the same day the Guardian published my article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE Systems. It drew 60 responses. The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they had been, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC's film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists' case. They urge us instead to visit websites like 911truth.org, physics911.net and 911scholars.org, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E Jones.

Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact, rumour and confusion transformed into evidence, selective editing, the citation of fake experts, the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?)

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the new world order, I would say that, wouldn't I? It's all part of the plot.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2017006,00.html

Truly a breath of fresh air. When having to not read (except to get the gist) post after post of illogical ignorant diversive drivel on all sorts of crackpot thought processes day after day after day one really wonders about whether this could in parts (unfortunately at times prominent) be really considered an education forum (except as far as finding out what odd individuals think). To come across such rational thinking is indeed a surprise.

However, there is the problem that it in a sense legitimises non-sense issues by engaging them.

Nevertheless, it's said (written) and those who read this forum can at least be aware that there is a significant contingent of people who work to deal with the real problems of the world.

_______________________________________________

Paul, IMO it's your response that is the 'non-sequiteur'

George Monbiot I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

Paul:The most extraordinary non-sequitur I've yet seen on this website. They are capable of anything: They didn't do it.

The whole point of the article by George is the point that they are 'not capable of anything'. They are 'some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias'.

The myth of the degree of power that some like to think these people have is the problem.

Any part of your argument that is dependent on your misunderstanding/misrepresentation/whatever is built on an irrelevant 'non sequiteur'.

Paul: "Monbiot is far more scathing and passionate in his assault on 9/11 sceptics than he is about the man he insists is "responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis." Again, very curious morality, this."

the assault is not on 'skeptics' but rather 'In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.' and 'Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements."

This is nothing in comparison of the degree of the 'scathing and passionate ... assault' on "George Bush .. surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. ... criminally negligent ... incompeten(t)..."

________________

The partial USofA and Global Community 'correction' of this scheming, devious, ruthless, criminally negligent, incompeten(ce) in the current powershifts in the USofA and elsewhere is through a cool rational skeptic morality. Certainly not because of the bleating of a (momentarily) vocal 'nut minority'. Rather, likely, in spite of it. IMO that is some of the essence of Georges writing in this instance.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

The most extraordinary non-sequitur I've yet seen on this website. They are capable of anything: They didn't do it.

AND WHERE, EXACTLY DOES THIS LEAD US. MANY PEOPLE ARE CAPABLE OF ANYTHING, THIS ALONE CANNOT BE OFFERED UP IN PLACE OF EVIDENCE OF THEIR GUILT. SO, PAUL, YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THE BUSH GANG ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 911 IS? AND OF COURSE YOU WILL WISH TO OFFER CREDIBLE EXPERT TESTIMONY TO BUTRESS YOUR CONCLUSONS.

It's also unhistorical tripe. Were the men who staged the coup of November 22 less ruthless? Or the men who brought down Lincoln? Perhaps Monbiot could share with us the secret of his moral calculus.

APPLES AND ORANGES, PROVES NOTHING. EVIDENCE WOULD BE USEFUL, OR FAILING THAT, A PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE.

One sees Monbiot's problem, though. All that hyperbolic straining is unavoidable if he is to build credibility before rounding on the real villains of 9/11 - not those who perpetrated it, you understand, but those who sought to investigate it. Weird morality, George.

MONBIOT'S " PROBLEM" IS THAT HE DETESTS BUSH AND ALL HE STANDS FOR, BUT CAN FIND NO CREDIBILITY IN THE BUSH DID IT STORY. HE IS NOT ALONE IN FINDING THE DAMAGE THIS NONSENCE DOES TO THE STANDING OF PROGRESSIVE CAUSES,ER SHALL WE SAY REGRETABLE.

I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
Coincidence theory at its most childish and ludicrous. We are invited to believe that though they eagerly desired to invade Iraq, they failed to see any potential in the large plot under their noses.
Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

And yet Monbiot is far more scathing and passionate in his assault on 9/11 sceptics than he is about the man he insists is "responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis." Again, very curious morality, this.

DID YOU ACTUALLY READ SOME OF THE ABUSIVE EMAILS MR MONBIOT RECIEVED FROM THESE SEEKERS OF TRUTH, WHY SHOULD HE SPARE THE ROD IN THEIR CASE? AGAIN, WHAT HIS MORALITY HAS TO DO WITH THE TRUTH OF 911 I CAN NOT FATHOM, SOUNDS LIKE BLUSTER TO ME.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic.
Really? Or just preplanning?
It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception.

Again, not very complicated: psywar was built into the planning.

AGAIN, ANY EVIDENCE PAUL? STRANGE THOUGH, IS IT NOT, THAT WHILE BEING CAPABLE OF THIS MAGICAL DELUSION, THE PLOTTERS WERE NOT CAPABLE OF ENSURING THAT FAKED IRAQI'S, AS OPPOSED TO FAKED SAUDI'S WERE BEHIND THE CONTROLS OF THOSE PLANES. NOW THAT SURE WOULD HAVE HELPED IN THE SADAM DID IT STAKES.

It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.
Ah, an old favourite, wearingly familiar since at least the days of Clay Shaw's trial; and yet more hyperbole. "Tens of thousands"!? And Monbiot has the cheek to label 9/11 sceptics "morons."

WELL PAUL, ITS QUITE CLEAR WHAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE ABOUT 911, CARE TO ENLIGHTEN US TO WHAT YOU DO BELIEVE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

strange how two posts since Len's has failed to register/bump the topic : so here is a manual 'bump'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next time George Monbiot shows up at this fdorum, he might like to critique the following article.

It's restrained, well written and apposite, in my opinion.

Skepticism, Ideology and the 9/11 Controversy

After years of stonewalling, the liberal media (and by this I mean avowedly left-leaning journals such as The Nation and The Progressive) have finally addressed the widespread skepticism surrounding the official version of the 9/11 attacks. To the surprise of much of their readership, however, both journals remain solidly skeptical of the skepticism, and instead have followed Popular Mechanic's lead in debunking and ridiculing the 911 Truth Movement.

In September of 2006, Matthew Rothschild, writing in the Progressive said of the 911 Truthers,

"almost all of their major assertions are baseless. And their own theories have such gigantic holes and require such monumental leaps of logic that they discredit themselves...The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a cul-de-sac. They lead nowhere."

Several months later, Christopher Hayes wrote in The Nation of the 911 Truth Movement's Dangers. He finds it strange that

"tens of millions of Americans...seem remarkably sanguine about [the prospect of government complicity in the deaths of 3,000 Americans]. By and large, life continues as before, even though tens of millions of people apparently believe they are being governed by mass murderers. Unsurprising, because the government these Americans suspect of complicity in 9/11 has acquired a justified reputation for deception: weapons of mass destruction, secret prisons, illegal wiretapping. What else are they hiding? This pattern of deception has not only fed diffuse public cynicism but has provided an opening for alternate theories of 9/11 to flourish. ...the real danger posed by the Truth Movement isn't paranoia. Rather, the danger is that it will discredit and deform the salutary skepticism Americans increasingly show toward their leaders."

Echoing these sentiments, George Monbiot wrote recently in the Guardian that the 911 truth Movement was a "virus", and after two weeks of intense online debate, is now reiterating his position, claiming that it is harming other progressive causes:

"Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow."

The message in these progressive-left reactions to 911 counter-narratives is that skeptics are discrediting liberalism generally and opposition to the Bush administration in particular, and that in doing so are derailing all the good that liberals hope to accomplish in their traditional areas of concern.

Unfortunately, Rothschild, Hayes and Monbiot are through the looking glass and don't realize it. Their assumptions are leading them to engage in the very illogical thinking for which they berate their opponents.

For starters, they remain rigidly confined by conceptions of political ideology, as if engaging in debate over the destruction of two of the tallest buildings in the world had anything to do with traditional notions of Left/Right. Pointing out that skyscrapers cannot free-fall without the prior removal of structural resistance is not left-wing dogma; it is rational, empirically provable science.

What they also do not reflect upon is that the act of skepticism transcends ideology. The Enlightenment philosopher Denis Diderot wrote that “skepticism is the first step on the road to philosophy” -- and neither skepticism or philosophy are ideological. Indeed, as Jon Lebkowsky wrote several years ago on the Greater Democracy website:

"[A philosophy is a guide], a general construct meant to help you think. An ideology is something else. It's rigid, dogmatic. It doesn't respond to facts or circumstance. It brooks no dissent. Even practical liberalism, if treated in this way, can do great damage."

And it is these influential liberals in question, not 911 skepticism, that is doing great damage to progressive causes -- and not just because they appear to be turning progressives against each other. Their own rigidity, dogmatism and intolerance for dissent will only serve to undermine all they would otherwise hope to accomplish -- in terms of the environment and social equity -- and for one fundamental reason: Quite contrary to Monbiot's assertions, it is the war on terror that is the primary "displacement activity" burying progressive causes, not 911 skepticism.

The war on terror is such a potent metanarrative that it is driving a host of policy decisions -- even in an otherwise progressive nation as Canada -- that are sucking resources away from human needs, ecological conservation, climate change prevention and adaptation, poverty alleviation and peacemaking. Until this metanarrative is dismantled and revealed for the lethal and cynical fraud it is and always has been, causes supported by progressives will never be properly addressed.

9/11 may not have changed everything, but until this controversy can be openly addressed in the media and through a more objective investigation, we may be unable to change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of the article by George is the point that they are 'not capable of anything'.

Except, of course, the successful theft of successive elections. Monbiot miss this? Not bad for men and women "not capable of anything!

The myth of the degree of power that some like to think these people have is the problem.
Let me see if I have this straight: the really big problem is not the theft of elections, nor even domestic mass-murder used as a pretext for mass-murder abroad, but the sceptic's conviction that the neo-Cons have frightening power? Again, this is simply weird.
The assault is not on 'skeptics' but rather 'In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless.

Evidence for this? So when a sceptic or outright opponent of the official conspiracy theory writes to his/her political representative, joins a march, or posts an oppositional email etc., this doesn't count as political activity? Why? Who defined it as such?

The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.'
Arguing about, say, climate change is more threatening to the national security state than insisting 9/11 was an inside job? I've heard it all.
'Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements."

Straight rip off of the Chomsky nonsense in Rethinking Camelot: If you don't believe the Warren Report, you're a Cargo Cultist, or somesuch. Piffle. And so unoriginal, a characteristic of both Monbiot pieces on the subject.

Then there is the small matter of Monbiot's elitist contempt for those easily distracted defectors from campaigns of which he approves. One wonders a) what evidence for this Monbiot has; and B) how does this work? Anyone know someone who gave up campaigning on other subjects because of a bad attack of 9/11-itis? The idea is silly. The reverse is true: 9/11 scepticism has brought people into the realm of political activism.

I have to say, John, I'm astonished, and not a little disappointed, to see you lined up with such a transparent establishment gate-keeper.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul: "Except, of course, the successful theft of successive elections. Monbiot miss this? Not bad for men and women "not capable of anything!"

I think in the sentence 'not capable of anything' we see different emphasis. I think in the total context of the article he means "they are not omnipotent."

"Successful theft(s) of successive elections" is nothing new in the history of world politics.

"QUOTE

"The myth of the degree of power that some like to think these people have is the problem."

Paul: Let me see if I have this straight: the really big problem is not the theft of elections, nor even domestic mass-murder used as a pretext for mass-murder abroad, but the sceptic's conviction that the neo-Cons have frightening power? Again, this is simply weird."

No you don't "have it straight". In context (again) this is a bit wierd. It seems to me you are picking portions of Georges article and misrepresenting them in terms of the overall argument he makes.

QUOTE

The assault is not on 'skeptics' but rather 'In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless.

"Evidence for this?" ???

I'm talking about what George wrote, in response to what you wrote on that particular point. In this instance it concerns the so called "9/11 truth movement".

"QUOTE

The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.'

Paul: Arguing about, say, climate change is more threatening to the national security state than insisting 9/11 was an inside job? I've heard it all."

Strangely enough it could be argued so. The right wing lobby groups or un'think tanks' that affect policy in the area of environmental concerns, in some instances going so far as to produce papers arguing a little bit of nuclear radiation from reactor leaks is good for you. The necessary changes in industry for the whole world to survive the hardships brought about by toxic substances like oil byproducts and nuclear energy and al the associated effects are very important. A rampant oil industry and the proliferation of nuclear material of all sorts are really at the core of these threats to national security.

"QUOTE

'Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements."

Paul: Straight rip off of the Chomsky nonsense in Rethinking Camelot: If you don't believe the Warren Report, you're a Cargo Cultist, or somesuch. Piffle. And so unoriginal, a characteristic of both Monbiot pieces on the subject."

A non-sequiteur.

_________________

Paul: "Then there is the small matter of Monbiot's elitist contempt for those easily distracted defectors from campaigns of which he approves. One wonders a) what evidence for this Monbiot has; and B ) how does this work? Anyone know someone who gave up campaigning on other subjects because of a bad attack of 9/11-itis? The idea is silly. The reverse is true: 9/11 scepticism has brought people into the realm of political activism."

Has it? I don't know if you caught the riots/demonstrations against the war and also against Dick Cheney in Sydney last night?

if not read these: spot the "9/11 Truthmovementist(s)" if you do please let me know, I did mostly skim through it, but there's a wealth of videos and files to look through.

http://www.brushtail.com.au/july_05_on/sco...arkin_demo.html

http://www.stopwarcoalition.org/

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/AntiIr...1733658701.html

"I have to say, John, I'm astonished, and not a little disappointed, to see you lined up with such a transparent establishment gate-keeper."

Don't be, please, I'm capable of far more 'lunacy' than that.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The next time George Monbiot shows up at this fdorum, he might like to critique the following article.

It's restrained, well written and apposite, in my opinion.

Skepticism, Ideology and the 9/11 Controversy

It’s a total strawman, Monbiot’s doubts about “inside job” theories have little to do with a right / left dichotomy but rather the illogic and lack of evidence to back such claims. He mentions politics as his reason for opposing such far fetched nonsense not for doubting it.

It’s been a while since I read Rothschild’s piece and I haven’t read Hays’ yet but I think the same applies to theirs as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Fetzer has alleged that researcher John Judge is an agent of the government due to the fact that he does believe a plane hit the pentagon and that it was the two planes that hit the twin towers. This is similar to the attacks levelled against George Monbiot and other critics of the methods of elements of the 9/11 truth movement. Jack White feels that John was duped by an elaborate planted story.

I wonder if Mr.Fetzer would like to comment on why he feels that John Judge is an agent of the government and if has any proof to back up his assertions.

All my best and happy debating,

John Geraghty

John

"A word to the wise" from someone with a great deal of experience trying to get Mr. Fetzer to back his claims, "don't hold your breath" or as we say here in Brazil "espera sentada" i.e. “await seated”.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A word to the wise" from someone with a great deal of experience trying to get Mr. Fetzer to back his claims, "don't hold your breath" or as we say here in Brazil "espera sentada" i.e. “await seated”.

The BBC broadcast what I considered to be a balanced account of the death of David Kelly last night.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/cons...les/6213898.stm

Unlike last week’s programme on 9/11, those who argued for a political conspiracy came across as intelligent and rational. Norman Baker, the MP who is leading the investigation, was especially impressive. Maybe Jim Fetzer should take a look at the programme.

Some of those interviewed included:

Rowena Thursby

http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/

Michael Shrimpton

http://www.intelligencesummit.org/speakers...elShrimpton.php

http://www.prisonplanet.com/022504shrimptontranscript.html

Warren Reed

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/politi...le_1830.asp?s=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Last week BBC Radio held a debate on the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. The reason for this was to publicize a series of BBC television documentaries (the first one on 9/11 is on tonight).

The opening debate was between former MI5 agent, David Shayler, and left-wing journalist, Brendon O’Neill. Shayler, a believer in a 9/11 conspiracy was brilliant and exposed O’Neill as someone who knew very little about the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shayler

This debate was followed by a phone-in. Unfortunately, most of those who supported Shayler, sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment. They went on about how 9/11 was part of a 1,000 year conspiracy, etc.

Clearly the BBC selected these people very carefully. They wanted to redress the balance after Shayler’s clear victory. Then I got to thinking “maybe these callers were MI5 plants”. Maybe the ruling class use conspiracists against conspiracy theory. Then I started thinking about some of the strange posts we get on this forum. Is it possible that…

John

How ‘tongue in cheek’ was (if at all) your post? Wouldn’t it have been easier and more effective to have called an abler opponent to debate Shayler?* Do you think the Beeb in conjunction with MI5 keeps faux wackos on call waiting to call in on such occasions? Unfortunately it seems that a good number of the people who back the inside job theory do sound like they are off their psych meds. Yes some suggest the Illuminati were responsible others that explosive charges were built into the towers or that the hole in Shanksville was dug the day before. This even applies to some the movement’s leaders who propose theories such as:

- The towers were destroyed by satellite based energy beams

- No planes were involved in any of the “crashes” etc etc.

Shayler by the way is a “no planer” according to an article by a certain Brendan O’Neill*. Perhaps O’Neill thinking Shayler stark raving mad under estimated him. It's also possible Shayler appeared better informed because he made up or distorted facts as "truthers" often do and he did in the video linked below**. Since he backs one of the more “fringe” theories it isn’t surprising to me the show would have gotten a lot of fringe callers. How many people who supported O’Neill got through?

Do you really think as you seem to suggest that some of the “inside jobbers” here really are agents sent to make other conspiracists look bad? Peter and Jack since you seemed to agree with John’s suggestion I was wondering who amongst your fellow 9/11 CTists you think are the disinfo agents? (Rhetorical question since answering would probably violate forum rules).

Len

Such as the guy who runs 911myths.com . He is English and IIRC a Londoner.

* http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028

** he also supposedly expresses similar views in this video but I didn’t have the patience to listen all the way through. http://www.nopers.com/video/398/david_shay...eblower_on__911

Like Jack you seem to think I was referring to the anti-conspiracists on the forum. I was not. My comments were aimed at those conspiracy theorists who contaminate the good name of good researchers by developing what I consider to be daft theories.

I was not suggesting that the BBC lined-up nut-cases to support Shayler. All they did is to let the crackpots speak. The BBC always appears to be very fair by matching one supporter with one opponent phone-caller. The cheating comes with who they select to speak.

The same was true of the BBC documentary on the so-called 9/11 conspiracy last night. The three supporters of the conspiracy who appeared were wide-eyed extremists. This included our old friend Jim Fetzer. The opponents were three very rational men who took a very scientific approach to the case. It was a "no contest". The conspiracy theorists would get very few converts from this programme.

Actually while Jones and Fetzer (especially the former) came off like raving lunatics, Avery came across as a complete moron, the BBC guy had to explain to him what a simile was, It’s not just that he didn’t know what the word meant he seemed to have trouble grasping the concept. He also seems to have trouble grasping the difference between a quote being "taken out of context" and being misquoted, during an interview about the BBC program he scoffed at the idea that he had quoted the coroner on Shanksville out of context because (approximate quote) 'he said all those things'.

Speaking of Mr. Avery, on the Loose Change Forum “Jackchit” a mentally unbalanced English “truther” threatened the life (or at least the vision) of, Mark Roberts (aka ‘Gravy’), a NYC tour guide and a leading “debunker” .

I am visiting NYC in the next few months and will be actively seeking out gravy who seems to be the spiritual leader of these loons.

Mark…. I know you read this forum so bear this in mind, one day whilst you are showing people around the city you will see lots of pairs of eyes but one day you will look into a pair of eyes that will be mine and you know instantly that you will never forget my eyes because they will be the last thing you see.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=6799

Did the administrator (Dylan Avery) ban Jack? No

Did he suspend him? No

Did he admonish the guy? No

What did he do? He told him where to find Roberts!

“He's at Ground Zero, every Saturday” (same link as above)

And the other “truthers” seem to approve as well!

Apparently Jack was irate because he been paid a visit Social Services because someone had made an “anonymous tip that (his) children were in danger”

Jack previously said the following:

I had the exact same problem with my wife, she was always going on about my 911 obsession, I tried to reason with her and to a certain degree she agreed there was something wrong with the official version of events,

She however was not able to comprehend the importance of being active in exposing the truth, it was a bone of contention as she claimed i gave her and the kids no attention which was not true then she left me when i told her that this issue was more important than her insecurities and I was fighting with others to ensure a better life and world for our children.

She took my kids away which broke my heart but luckily (i'm not being callous and would never repeat this to my children) she was killed in a road accident in August last year so i have my kids back and carry on unhindered.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=61689

I wouldn't be surprised if Jack was one of the callers who "sounded like they needed urgent medical treatment" John referred to. That post caused a couple members of a forum Mark is a member of to become concerned about his kids. One said they would send copies of this and other internet postings of his to social services and a few weeks later he got the visit. Mark in no way encouraged the person to do this.

If one looks at the link above it seems that “truthers’ ” obsessions with 9/11 have caused more than one marriage, ‘relationship’ or friendship to break up. I’ve heard about this elsewhere a bit sad if you ask me.

LCF is not an ‘anything goes’ forum though, Avery recently suspended Killtown because he questioned Avery’s ban on “no planes theories” something now verboten there.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/

Ironically Avery whose film is filled with so many factual errors that some “truthers” think he is a “disinfo” agent admonished Killtown to “be a careful ...researcher”!

OK so on Avery’s forum he encourages threatening to kill or attack someone but you can be suspended for questioning his banning of discussion of certain subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm continually amazed by that Loose Change crowd; they turn on one another at the drop of a hat. Apparently they now think that Jim Fetzer is a disinfo agent!

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=6978

Now, I don't see eye-to-eye with Mr Fetzer on most matters, but a disinfo agent?! Oh, puh-leeze!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...