9/11 - Five Years Later: The Official Story Falls Apart
repost | 20.09.2006 13:33 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Sheffield
The following article argues that the 9/11 Truth Movement is making a mistake by concentrating on controlled demolition at the WTC and no plane at the Pentagon: "If the American people really want the truth about 9/11, we’ve got to stop diddling around with theories about maybe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, or maybe controlled demolition took down the towers. Maybe so, but let’s go there only after we’ve met the real people in flesh and blood, who have suffered to get the truth out."
9/11 - Five Years Later
By Sander Hicks
State Department, media launch assault on 9/11 dissent
The government is getting desperate. Two major polls recently showed that a growing number of Americans doubt the official story around 9/11. On Aug. 28, the State Department responded with a direct assault against “misinformation,” by publishing a statement that attacked the fringes of the 9/11 Truth Movement. A major media brouhaha immediately followed. The New York Times published a sarcastic sniff at 9/11 activism, titled “U.S. Counters 9/11 Theories Of Conspiracy” on September 2. Time magazine ran a sympathetic but dismissive review of the popular 9/11 film “Loose Change.” ABC/Disney chimed in recently with a docu-drama based on the 9/11 Commission Report.
But not everyone is going along with the program. In New York City, the Sept. 1 edition of AM New York did a positive front-page overview of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s claims. In August, Seattle’s Post-Intelligencer did the same. Even the heads of the 9/11 Commission, widely criticized as too close to the government they were tasked to investigate, recently released a new book that admits they were pre-destined to fail. Popular Mechanics has turned their anti-conspiracy theory feature “9/11: Debunking the Myths” into a book. Five-time Emmy award winning journalist Peter Lance just wrote Triple Cross about the funky CIA connections of bin Laden’s right-hand man, Ali Mohamed. Triple was turned into a documentary at the National Geographic TV channel, but before it was broadcast Aug. 28, Lance removed his name from the film. “They hijacked my work,” he told reporters, “The feds have gotten to them, there is no doubt.”
Author Mike Ruppert has sold 30,000 copies of Crossing the Rubicon, a study of 9/11, but after his offices were repeatedly burglarized, he expatriated himself to Venezuela, swearing never to return to the U.S. On Aug. 16, the anti-Zionist, right-leaning journalist and 9/11 researcher Christopher Bollyn was arrested and bloodied by Chicago police, for asking them why three men in an unmarked car were monitoring his house. Bill O’Reilly bent to a new (and criminal) low this summer by making death threats against Kevin Barrett, professor and co-founder of 9/11 Scholars for Truth.
The censorship and the violence come from the same place: an intense desperation. America is out on a limb in Iraq. We are there, in part, in the name of an attack used to motivate us for war. But five years later, that attack gives people gnawing feelings of betrayal. America is writhing in the birth pangs of a new way to see itself. The State Department and media are holding their hands up in front of a tsunami. People are beginning to reject the deathly falsity of the war in Iraq and the “war on terror.” Who knows how this will translate in the mid-term elections, but pro-impeachment progressives and third party candidates stand to gain big.
A Zogby poll from this summer shows mainstream opinion 42 percent against the official story, claiming deliberate cover-up. Ten percent are undecided. According to a widely-cited August 14 poll by Ohio University and Scripps Howard News Service, 36 percent of Americans believe U.S. government officials “either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to go to war in the Middle East.” Something is not right with 9/11. It was never right: from the president’s non-response on Sept. 11, 2001, to the GOP abuse of New York City for their convention, to the president’s recently announced plans to visit Ground Zero this Sept. 11, five years later.
When he arrives, he will meet the 9/11 Truth Movement. They are a nationwide batch of volunteers willing to risk their own skins to hunt down better explanations. The World Trade Center towers were symbolic of the grandeur, glory, and showmanship of New York and America. Their destruction, no matter who did it, was the biggest psychological blow to our collective psyche. Losing the towers shattered the anchor of the New York skyline. In the same way that no New Yorker can look at the city without seeing a gap, no American has been allowed to feel safe, secure, respected, or just, good and right, since. We have become torturers. We have become war-mongerers.
The undecided among us perhaps have not yet begun to recognize and heal the psychological trauma of 9/11. Instead, the media images have been burned into our brains, a reminder of the original experience. Last year, I toured the country speaking about 9/11. More often than not I met people who said things like, “you’re right, all you say, but I’m just not ready to go there yet.”
The facts are not enough. This is not just an intellectual struggle, last year, it became apparent something really deep is going on.
So, a year later, what changed? Katrina and the quagmire in Iraq have damaged the Bush team’s credibility beyond recognition. When people saw Bush letting black people die in New Orleans, on television, a lot of people did a gut check. And now that Team Bush won’t revise its Iraq strategy in light of the Pentagon’s own assessments, and instead starts implying that Iran or Syria is next, people are going, hold on a minute. Meanwhile, you’ve got technology like Google Video virally distributing films like “Loose Change II” into the hands of millions worldwide. You’ve got 9/11 truth activists, working in every major city in America. You’ve got new veterans from the financial and intelligence underworlds coming forth and saying, yeah, 9/11 was an inside job. Even former Bush official Morgan Reynolds and former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts agree: 9/11 is a big lie.
The Argument
There are many ways to make The Argument. The recent media stories have focused on the “controlled demolition” theory, which posits that the buildings must have been brought down with explosives, since fire has never before collapsed a steel frame structure. The most popular exposition of this theory is “Loose Change II.” But controlled demolition is a bit of a straw dog. “Loose Change” is a well-edited, quickly paced 9/11 theory overview with good music. But it tends to incorporate the more esoteric of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories available.
Like the once-popular “no plane hit the Pentagon” theory, controlled demolition is a tall order. As “Loose Change II” morphs into the widely anticipated “Loose Change: Final Cut” (in which this reporter appears) the Megaphone and Loose Change teams find themselves working the same angle:
There’s a certain social network in place. You catch glimpses of it, when things like the Iran/Contra scandal, or the BCCI scandal, or Enron, break above-ground, and then disappear. This social network rules by deception, taking a page straight out of Machiavelli. They use religion like a mask. They detest the people, so they keep the masses shocked into submission, through spectacles. In the first Gulf War, it was a fabricated story about Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of Kuwaiti incubators. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated attack at the Gulf of Tonkin. The history of rule-by-deception, American style, goes all the way back to the 1840s and the Mexican-American War, when President Polk fabricated a Mexican attack, started a war, and annexed the entire Southwest from Mexico. A veteran of the CIA admitted to me recently, “The U.S. decides who it wants to go to war with, and then it finds a reason.” Wait, “find” a reason? History shows us that when the rulers decide to go to war, they “create” a reason.
U.S. Foreign Policy, Democrat and Republican, is in a crisis of the soul. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there’s no big national enemy to fear. There’s no longer any reason to spend $500 billion a year on defense. The recipients of that $500 billion gravy train know that some kind of justification has to be created. In year 2000, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld’s right-wing think tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), published a document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the U.S. should jack up defense spending, take total control of the Internet, and expand the USA’s dominance in Central Asia. Almost all the top neo-conservative figures (and some Democrats) signed on as supporters. Learning a lesson from the 1960’s, and Vietnam, PNAC recognizes the public’s ability to protest and stop aggressive foreign wars. So “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” looks to a “catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor” to jumpstart the funding for new war technology.
In the late 80s, President Reagan’s biggest scandal, Iran/Contra, broke open and was soon covered up. Despite laws from Congress, the ascendant conservative right-wing funded anti-leftist Contra rebels in Nicaragua with drug and weapons profits from trade with Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq. 20 years ago, in Iran/Contra, the PNAC social network circumvented Congress and infused capital into a right-wing militia, using a complex international network that included massive narcotics trafficking, surface support for Islamic fundamentalism, domestic media manipulation, fake Christianity at home, and the power of the dollar. In other words, it was a lot like 9/11. The pattern is the same, and so are a lot of the names:
John Negroponte, National Intelligence Chief, presided over death squads in Honduras, while ambassador there during Iran/Contra.
Eliot Abrams was indicted for lying to Congress about Iran/Contra, yet he laid low and came back strong as one of the National Security Council’s Senior Directors in the Bush White House.
The most relevant example of the whole guilty lot of them is Richard Armitage. In 1989, he couldn’t get a job in President Bush the First’s Department of State, because of his odious Defense Department work with Iran/Contra criminal Oliver North. Skip ahead a scant 12 years later, to the summer of 2001: Armitage sails into a position as Assistant Secretary of State, without a peep from the media or Senate Foreign Relations Committee. After a lifetime in CIA/DIA circles, Armitage happens to hold the highest civilian decoration from the Pakistani military, and has deep social ties there, from his work in the Afghan/Soviet civil war.
Remember that one? That was the 1979-1988 operation where bin Laden, the Mujahedeen, and the Pakistani intelligence group, ISI, were used as proxies for the U.S. military, a mix that later created the Taliban, which helped create Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report distored all this, because it’s at the core of understanding 9/11.
Also noticeably missing from the Report is Richard Armitage’s close relationship to the Pakistani funders of 9/11. The Reportincredibly states that discovering the funding for 9/11 is “of little practical significance.” However, the FBI, the Wall Street Journal, and the Times of India have all acknowledged that Pakistani ISI Chief Mahmood Ahmad wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta on Sept. 10, 2001. Ahmad had met extensively that May with the State Department’s Richard Armitage, and CIA Director George Tenet, in Pakistan. On the morning of 9/11, Ahmad was in D.C., meeting with Representative (and later CIA director) Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham. When news of Mahmood Ahmad’s wire transfer reached his home country, he was let go, a month after 9/11. The Pakistani ISI works very closely with the U.S. State Department, and handlers like Armitage. Ahmad was fired quietly, when he should have been arrested, extradited, and served up to the American public as a culprit for the attacks. Remember how high the passions flared in October, 2001? Instead, the whole incident was buried. Ahmad walked.
Asia Times called the Ahmad scandal 9/11’s “real smoking gun.” There’s been zero coverage in the U.S. media. The White House edited Ahmad’s name out of the official transcript, the one time Condi Rice was asked about the scandal at a press conference. Instead of prosecuting Ahmad, the U.S. gave Pakistan an aid package of $3 billion over five years, right after 9/11.
So, it’s ironic that this same State Department denounces 9/11 Truth as “conspiracy theories.” This same State Department is packed to the gills with the top criminal minds of Iran/Contra. This same State Department’s Francis X. Taylor, in July 2001, told an informant from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, Randy Glass, “we know about the threat, the terrorist threat, from Al Qaeda and bin Laden flying air planes into the World Trade Center. Musharraf [the Pakistani president] has guaranteed us—because his ISI behind it—that he can stop it if we support him publicly.”
Randy Glass is one of many 9/11 whistle-blowers who were trying to stop the attacks. If the American people really want the truth about 9/11, we’ve got to stop diddling around with theories about maybe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, or maybe controlled demolition took down the towers. Maybe so, but let’s go there only after we’ve met the real people in flesh and blood, who have suffered to get the truth out. They are the real heroes of this whole thing: Randy Glass, Robert Wright (the FBI agent who was stopped by higher-ups from tracking bin Laden’s finances), Sibel Edmonds (a translator who discovered pro-Al Qaeda elements inside FBI, but was gagged by John Ashcroft for speaking out), Colleen Rowley (the FBI lawyer who was mysteriously stopped from getting a routine warrant to search Zacharias Moussoui’s laptop), etc. Most recently, this past year, a lot of new ground has been broken with Anthony Shaffer, the Lieutenant Colonel who did intelligence work in the Pentagon. His operation, Able Danger, identified terrorist Mohamed Atta in year 2000. But unfortunately, someone higher up was protecting Atta. The real cutting edge of 9/11 Truth is an Internet search for Shaffer’s 48-page statement [
http://voxpopnet.net/2-15-06ShafferTestimony.pdf ]. Just don’t believe what you read about him in the Washington Post.
Sander Hicks is an author of The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistle-Blowers and the Cover-Up, available at voxpopnet.net.
The article above appeared in the print edition of the New York Megaphone, a new montly street-smart tabloid with a circulation of 66,700 throughout New York City and New York State.
---------------------
Please do your own research and reach your own conclusions, one good place to start is the 911 Timeline Project, everything here is based on reports in the mainstream media:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
More on Randy Glass: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=randyGlass
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=glass-graham_video_wmv
More on Robert Wright:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=vulgarBetrayal
More on Sibel Edmonds:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=sibelEdmonds
More on Colleen Rowley:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1800#a053002firstconference
More on Able Danger:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=ableDanger
See also Press for Truth, a 9/11 film based on the Timeline and the fight of the families of victims:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/09/350436.html
State Department, media launch assault on 9/11 dissent
The government is getting desperate. Two major polls recently showed that a growing number of Americans doubt the official story around 9/11. On Aug. 28, the State Department responded with a direct assault against “misinformation,” by publishing a statement that attacked the fringes of the 9/11 Truth Movement. A major media brouhaha immediately followed. The New York Times published a sarcastic sniff at 9/11 activism, titled “U.S. Counters 9/11 Theories Of Conspiracy” on September 2. Time magazine ran a sympathetic but dismissive review of the popular 9/11 film “Loose Change.” ABC/Disney chimed in recently with a docu-drama based on the 9/11 Commission Report.
But not everyone is going along with the program. In New York City, the Sept. 1 edition of AM New York did a positive front-page overview of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s claims. In August, Seattle’s Post-Intelligencer did the same. Even the heads of the 9/11 Commission, widely criticized as too close to the government they were tasked to investigate, recently released a new book that admits they were pre-destined to fail. Popular Mechanics has turned their anti-conspiracy theory feature “9/11: Debunking the Myths” into a book. Five-time Emmy award winning journalist Peter Lance just wrote Triple Cross about the funky CIA connections of bin Laden’s right-hand man, Ali Mohamed. Triple was turned into a documentary at the National Geographic TV channel, but before it was broadcast Aug. 28, Lance removed his name from the film. “They hijacked my work,” he told reporters, “The feds have gotten to them, there is no doubt.”
Author Mike Ruppert has sold 30,000 copies of Crossing the Rubicon, a study of 9/11, but after his offices were repeatedly burglarized, he expatriated himself to Venezuela, swearing never to return to the U.S. On Aug. 16, the anti-Zionist, right-leaning journalist and 9/11 researcher Christopher Bollyn was arrested and bloodied by Chicago police, for asking them why three men in an unmarked car were monitoring his house. Bill O’Reilly bent to a new (and criminal) low this summer by making death threats against Kevin Barrett, professor and co-founder of 9/11 Scholars for Truth.
The censorship and the violence come from the same place: an intense desperation. America is out on a limb in Iraq. We are there, in part, in the name of an attack used to motivate us for war. But five years later, that attack gives people gnawing feelings of betrayal. America is writhing in the birth pangs of a new way to see itself. The State Department and media are holding their hands up in front of a tsunami. People are beginning to reject the deathly falsity of the war in Iraq and the “war on terror.” Who knows how this will translate in the mid-term elections, but pro-impeachment progressives and third party candidates stand to gain big.
A Zogby poll from this summer shows mainstream opinion 42 percent against the official story, claiming deliberate cover-up. Ten percent are undecided. According to a widely-cited August 14 poll by Ohio University and Scripps Howard News Service, 36 percent of Americans believe U.S. government officials “either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted to go to war in the Middle East.” Something is not right with 9/11. It was never right: from the president’s non-response on Sept. 11, 2001, to the GOP abuse of New York City for their convention, to the president’s recently announced plans to visit Ground Zero this Sept. 11, five years later.
When he arrives, he will meet the 9/11 Truth Movement. They are a nationwide batch of volunteers willing to risk their own skins to hunt down better explanations. The World Trade Center towers were symbolic of the grandeur, glory, and showmanship of New York and America. Their destruction, no matter who did it, was the biggest psychological blow to our collective psyche. Losing the towers shattered the anchor of the New York skyline. In the same way that no New Yorker can look at the city without seeing a gap, no American has been allowed to feel safe, secure, respected, or just, good and right, since. We have become torturers. We have become war-mongerers.
The undecided among us perhaps have not yet begun to recognize and heal the psychological trauma of 9/11. Instead, the media images have been burned into our brains, a reminder of the original experience. Last year, I toured the country speaking about 9/11. More often than not I met people who said things like, “you’re right, all you say, but I’m just not ready to go there yet.”
The facts are not enough. This is not just an intellectual struggle, last year, it became apparent something really deep is going on.
So, a year later, what changed? Katrina and the quagmire in Iraq have damaged the Bush team’s credibility beyond recognition. When people saw Bush letting black people die in New Orleans, on television, a lot of people did a gut check. And now that Team Bush won’t revise its Iraq strategy in light of the Pentagon’s own assessments, and instead starts implying that Iran or Syria is next, people are going, hold on a minute. Meanwhile, you’ve got technology like Google Video virally distributing films like “Loose Change II” into the hands of millions worldwide. You’ve got 9/11 truth activists, working in every major city in America. You’ve got new veterans from the financial and intelligence underworlds coming forth and saying, yeah, 9/11 was an inside job. Even former Bush official Morgan Reynolds and former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts agree: 9/11 is a big lie.
The Argument
There are many ways to make The Argument. The recent media stories have focused on the “controlled demolition” theory, which posits that the buildings must have been brought down with explosives, since fire has never before collapsed a steel frame structure. The most popular exposition of this theory is “Loose Change II.” But controlled demolition is a bit of a straw dog. “Loose Change” is a well-edited, quickly paced 9/11 theory overview with good music. But it tends to incorporate the more esoteric of the many 9/11 conspiracy theories available.
Like the once-popular “no plane hit the Pentagon” theory, controlled demolition is a tall order. As “Loose Change II” morphs into the widely anticipated “Loose Change: Final Cut” (in which this reporter appears) the Megaphone and Loose Change teams find themselves working the same angle:
There’s a certain social network in place. You catch glimpses of it, when things like the Iran/Contra scandal, or the BCCI scandal, or Enron, break above-ground, and then disappear. This social network rules by deception, taking a page straight out of Machiavelli. They use religion like a mask. They detest the people, so they keep the masses shocked into submission, through spectacles. In the first Gulf War, it was a fabricated story about Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of Kuwaiti incubators. In Vietnam, it was the fabricated attack at the Gulf of Tonkin. The history of rule-by-deception, American style, goes all the way back to the 1840s and the Mexican-American War, when President Polk fabricated a Mexican attack, started a war, and annexed the entire Southwest from Mexico. A veteran of the CIA admitted to me recently, “The U.S. decides who it wants to go to war with, and then it finds a reason.” Wait, “find” a reason? History shows us that when the rulers decide to go to war, they “create” a reason.
U.S. Foreign Policy, Democrat and Republican, is in a crisis of the soul. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there’s no big national enemy to fear. There’s no longer any reason to spend $500 billion a year on defense. The recipients of that $500 billion gravy train know that some kind of justification has to be created. In year 2000, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld’s right-wing think tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), published a document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” that said the U.S. should jack up defense spending, take total control of the Internet, and expand the USA’s dominance in Central Asia. Almost all the top neo-conservative figures (and some Democrats) signed on as supporters. Learning a lesson from the 1960’s, and Vietnam, PNAC recognizes the public’s ability to protest and stop aggressive foreign wars. So “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” looks to a “catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor” to jumpstart the funding for new war technology.
In the late 80s, President Reagan’s biggest scandal, Iran/Contra, broke open and was soon covered up. Despite laws from Congress, the ascendant conservative right-wing funded anti-leftist Contra rebels in Nicaragua with drug and weapons profits from trade with Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq. 20 years ago, in Iran/Contra, the PNAC social network circumvented Congress and infused capital into a right-wing militia, using a complex international network that included massive narcotics trafficking, surface support for Islamic fundamentalism, domestic media manipulation, fake Christianity at home, and the power of the dollar. In other words, it was a lot like 9/11. The pattern is the same, and so are a lot of the names:
John Negroponte, National Intelligence Chief, presided over death squads in Honduras, while ambassador there during Iran/Contra.
Eliot Abrams was indicted for lying to Congress about Iran/Contra, yet he laid low and came back strong as one of the National Security Council’s Senior Directors in the Bush White House.
The most relevant example of the whole guilty lot of them is Richard Armitage. In 1989, he couldn’t get a job in President Bush the First’s Department of State, because of his odious Defense Department work with Iran/Contra criminal Oliver North. Skip ahead a scant 12 years later, to the summer of 2001: Armitage sails into a position as Assistant Secretary of State, without a peep from the media or Senate Foreign Relations Committee. After a lifetime in CIA/DIA circles, Armitage happens to hold the highest civilian decoration from the Pakistani military, and has deep social ties there, from his work in the Afghan/Soviet civil war.
Remember that one? That was the 1979-1988 operation where bin Laden, the Mujahedeen, and the Pakistani intelligence group, ISI, were used as proxies for the U.S. military, a mix that later created the Taliban, which helped create Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report distored all this, because it’s at the core of understanding 9/11.
Also noticeably missing from the Report is Richard Armitage’s close relationship to the Pakistani funders of 9/11. The Reportincredibly states that discovering the funding for 9/11 is “of little practical significance.” However, the FBI, the Wall Street Journal, and the Times of India have all acknowledged that Pakistani ISI Chief Mahmood Ahmad wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta on Sept. 10, 2001. Ahmad had met extensively that May with the State Department’s Richard Armitage, and CIA Director George Tenet, in Pakistan. On the morning of 9/11, Ahmad was in D.C., meeting with Representative (and later CIA director) Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham. When news of Mahmood Ahmad’s wire transfer reached his home country, he was let go, a month after 9/11. The Pakistani ISI works very closely with the U.S. State Department, and handlers like Armitage. Ahmad was fired quietly, when he should have been arrested, extradited, and served up to the American public as a culprit for the attacks. Remember how high the passions flared in October, 2001? Instead, the whole incident was buried. Ahmad walked.
Asia Times called the Ahmad scandal 9/11’s “real smoking gun.” There’s been zero coverage in the U.S. media. The White House edited Ahmad’s name out of the official transcript, the one time Condi Rice was asked about the scandal at a press conference. Instead of prosecuting Ahmad, the U.S. gave Pakistan an aid package of $3 billion over five years, right after 9/11.
So, it’s ironic that this same State Department denounces 9/11 Truth as “conspiracy theories.” This same State Department is packed to the gills with the top criminal minds of Iran/Contra. This same State Department’s Francis X. Taylor, in July 2001, told an informant from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, Randy Glass, “we know about the threat, the terrorist threat, from Al Qaeda and bin Laden flying air planes into the World Trade Center. Musharraf [the Pakistani president] has guaranteed us—because his ISI behind it—that he can stop it if we support him publicly.”
Randy Glass is one of many 9/11 whistle-blowers who were trying to stop the attacks. If the American people really want the truth about 9/11, we’ve got to stop diddling around with theories about maybe a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, or maybe controlled demolition took down the towers. Maybe so, but let’s go there only after we’ve met the real people in flesh and blood, who have suffered to get the truth out. They are the real heroes of this whole thing: Randy Glass, Robert Wright (the FBI agent who was stopped by higher-ups from tracking bin Laden’s finances), Sibel Edmonds (a translator who discovered pro-Al Qaeda elements inside FBI, but was gagged by John Ashcroft for speaking out), Colleen Rowley (the FBI lawyer who was mysteriously stopped from getting a routine warrant to search Zacharias Moussoui’s laptop), etc. Most recently, this past year, a lot of new ground has been broken with Anthony Shaffer, the Lieutenant Colonel who did intelligence work in the Pentagon. His operation, Able Danger, identified terrorist Mohamed Atta in year 2000. But unfortunately, someone higher up was protecting Atta. The real cutting edge of 9/11 Truth is an Internet search for Shaffer’s 48-page statement [
http://voxpopnet.net/2-15-06ShafferTestimony.pdf ]. Just don’t believe what you read about him in the Washington Post. Sander Hicks is an author of The Big Wedding: 9/11, the Whistle-Blowers and the Cover-Up, available at voxpopnet.net.
The article above appeared in the print edition of the New York Megaphone, a new montly street-smart tabloid with a circulation of 66,700 throughout New York City and New York State.
---------------------
Please do your own research and reach your own conclusions, one good place to start is the 911 Timeline Project, everything here is based on reports in the mainstream media:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project More on Randy Glass:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=randyGlass http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=glass-graham_video_wmv More on Robert Wright:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=vulgarBetrayal More on Sibel Edmonds:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=sibelEdmonds More on Colleen Rowley:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1800#a053002firstconference More on Able Danger:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&projects_and_programs=ableDanger See also Press for Truth, a 9/11 film based on the Timeline and the fight of the families of victims:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/09/350436.html
repost
Homepage:
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2558/Five_Years_Later_The_Official_Story_Falls_Apart
Comments
Hide the following 25 comments
Why "NOT" to Fight for 9/11 Truth
20.09.2006 13:37
. . . but to provide them an excuse."
-- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propagandist
Early on when it became apparent to me that the official 9/11 story was a massive deception, it became urgent to tell others and spread this information wide and far. Having been a peace & justice activist my whole life, naturally I ran to the peace movement.
I discovered two things quickly. 1) Many people in the peace movement shared my concerns about "problems" with the official 9/11 story, however, 2) Much of the top leadership in the peace movement accepted the official story of 9/11, and refused to consider troubling evidence to the contrary.
One woman who was a major peace group leader, who's name I won't mention, said that she wouldn't search for 9/11 truth because "she didn't like the people in the 9/11 truth movement."
So, I decided to make a list of all the reasons I've heard for the "left" or "peace & justice" communities to avoid looking at the hard facts regarding 9/11.
1) Conspiracy theories are crazy talk
2) 9/11 Truth movement is an anti-Semitic movement
3) 9/11 Truth people are pushy and rude
4) 9/11 Truth people need therapy
5) If 9/11 facts were a problem, there'd be tons of "experts" complaining
6) If 9/11 facts had problems the free American media would be all over it
7) US govt. officials wouldn't attack their own people
Joseph Goebbels saw clearly that people would grasp at excuses when the truth was too ugly to face. Fact is that no one has to join a "movement" to fight for the truth about 9/11, one only needs to stop pretending that the official story makes sense. Then your natural human curiosity will begin to do what it does best, ask questions, and search for answers based on common sense and science, rather than propaganda.
Let's examine these "reasons" not to fight for 9/11 truth one at a time.
- Conspiracy theories are crazy talk:
The official 9/11 story put out by the Bush Administration that 19 ragtag Moslem's fooled the largest intelligence and military force in history, and brought down the first three steel reinforced skyscrapers in engineering history defying the laws of science, and doing so with four commercial jet liners flying over the most protected airspace in the world for one and a half hours with not one USAF fighter interceptor arriving until too late . . . IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY. It is the Bush Administration's "official conspiracy theory," but a "conspiracy theory" nonetheless. One only needs to examine facts to see if it stands up to the light of day.
- 9/11 Truth movement is an anti-Semitic movement:
False. The overwhelming majority of 9/11 truth seekers are normal Americans, some from peace & justice backgrounds, many professionals, etc. There are however a broad cross-section of people fighting for 9/11 truth. Anti-Semites have been given particular attention by the media, and the charge has been used again and again by de-bunkers of 9/11 skeptics, as a smear tactic to get people to turn off their logic and react based on the false suggestion that anti-Semitism equals 9/11 truth. They have nothing to do with one another. The truth about 9/11 is a physics question. There is nothing political or philosophical about it.
However, the facts do point to the reality that there is something "criminal" about what happened on 9/11, and the facts point to people at the highest levels of the US govt.
- 9/11 Truth people are pushy and rude:
Those of us who began examining the facts of 9/11 early on, were under tremendous pressure from our friends, family, and others to stop being so "odd."
Some of us experienced outright threats in many forms. We were attacked by media, govt., and even friends for our positions. I personally was threatened, and also sent to jail and questioned by the Secret Service, and then attacked by local media.
This made my fear meter go high, and my temper go short, when I would try to explain facts to friends in the peace movement, and beg for their support, as I fought for 9/11 truth . . . only to see them turn their backs and walk away. However, my temperament, or the temperament of others seeking 9/11 truth has nothing to do with . . . "is the official story a lie?" This question is one of physics and forensics.
- 9/11 Truth people need therapy:
Lately I've noticed that everyone from Popular Mechanics to Time Magazine is suddenly a psycho-therapist now, explaining the mental condition of those who question the official 9/11 stories obvious and massive deficiencies. This harkens back to the old Soviet Union media, who explained away inconvenient truths by sadly suggesting those making the claims had "conditions."
Time or PM will go for the weakest chink in the armor of the problems facing the official 9/11 story, and then pick at it, distort the questions, and smear the questioners as akin to "holocaust deniers," etc. This is no joke. I actually saw an editor from Popular Mechanics Magazine slickly try to put two young documentary producers of "Loose Change" in the same camp as "holocaust deniers."
And like magicians wielding slight of hand, the Popular Mechanics editors, avoided discussing how WTC janitor and national hero, Willie Rodriguez, testified of hearing a massive explosion in the "basement" of the WTC Tower, "BEFORE" hearing the plane strike above. Popular Mechanics using their precious air time on Democracy Now, not to deal with facts and physics, but rather smearing the "mental state" of the documentary producers, and others who would question the untenable "facts" of the official 9/11 conspiracy the Bush Admin has fed us.
- If 9/11 facts were a problem, there'd be tons of "experts" complaining:
In the past Kevin Ryan of Underwriter Laboratories stepped forward to point out that UL testimony to NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) regarding the ability of jet fuel fire to melt steel was inaccurate. Kevin Ryan was fired from UL shortly thereafter.
Recently Brigham Young University put Professor Stephen Jones, co-founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth on paid leave while they decide whether to release him from his 20 years of teaching service to the University. Not long ago two other university teachers' jobs were threatened by Republican (and Democratic) politicians who tried to bully universities into firing teachers questioning the official 9/11 story.
A US Army officer who recently publicly stated his belief that 9/11 was an inside job was charged with "Un-American" activities. The list of persecution for professionals coming forward and stating the obvious, that the events of 9/11 look increasingly like an inside job meant to fool us into illegal wars and grabs for global energy and dominance . . . is long. So, to state that the official 9/11 story must be true, because no experts are stepping forward to challenge it . . . is beyond naiveté.
- If 9/11 facts had problems the free American media would be all over it:
Within months of 9/11/2001, I was becoming aware of disturbing issues around 9/11 and problems with the official story. A major American newspaper was one of the first media to engage the story, and it did so by taking a swipe at 9/11 truth seekers, but inside the article placed important 9/11 related facts and challenges to the official 9/11 story.
I called the reporter, who'd placed my email address in the article for those who wanted more information. Immediately he apologized for the format of the article, and said that that was the only way he could get it past his editor and into the paper. As we spoke more, he informed me of journalists he knew who'd already lost their job for looking into the flaws of the official 9/11 story.
You might say, "Well if this were happening, I'd have heard about it." Really? How will you hear about it if reporters know that if they report on it, their career will be over? This has improved some, as many reporters have reported on the flaws in the official 9/11 story, or covered the 9/11 truth seeking public.
However, if any reporter continued to focus on this story relentlessly, as they should given how much depends on this, they would no doubt face problems for their career. At this point, they can touch on it, but then must let it go and move on to "celebrity news," etc.
- US govt. officials wouldn't attack their own people:
Google "Operation Northwoods," and this myth will be put to rest.
It has amazed me that people I've known for years in the peace & justice movement, people who've known that the US govt. supported, facilitated, and often "orchestrated," the activities of barbarians in developing nations who slaughtered their people indiscriminately, think that Americans are somehow immune from the monster our covert ops foreign policy has unleashed on the world.
This is so naïve. Our US covert operations have trained Nicaraguans how to murder their local mayors, and commit terrorist acts in their communities. It has trained and supplied Salvadoran troops to slaughter their own people, even using illegal weapons. It has overthrown democracies in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iran, etc. and replaced them with dictators who killed their own people in wholesale fashion. It killed over 2 million in South East Asia based on a "false flag" operation called "the Gulf of Tonkin" incident.
But, these same wide awake peace and justice activists, seasoned activists who've seen the brutality over the years . . . think that this pit bull we've created is unable to "infiltrate media," or "execute coups" within the "magical borders" of America. I'm sorry folks but God isn't protecting the special people of America from the monster our foreign policy has created over the years. We are experiencing with the false flag self inflicted attacks of 9/11, and resultant illegal wars and rollback of civil liberties, exactly what 3rd world nations have felt when our CIA or other covert operations destroyed their democracies in the name of war, power, and profit.
It is time for all patriotic Americans to fight for 9/11 truth. There is no "club," and no "membership card." The fact that the official 9/11 story is an obvious lie, and the emerging facts point to complicity at the highest levels of our government . . . is not a political movement. It is physics and probability, and testimony.
There is no excuse for failing to face the facts. Our entire democracy depends on Americans facing the facts. The peace of the world depends on Americans facing the facts.
It is time to put away the things of children, and open our eyes and become adults. The world cannot survive the massive military might of America, being wielded by childish citizens unable to look with open eyes at hard truths about what has become of our nation.
Bill Douglas
Homepage:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_060919_why__22not_22_to_fight_f.htm
There's only one reason Shayler's getting involved in the 9/11 Truth movement
20.09.2006 15:42
Anyone who wants to support the 9/11 Truth movement should put all their energy into formulating a simple, coherent message. Also it might help to keep pointing out that the sudden tidal wave of official disinformation and distraction techniques (eg the carefully placed nutjob Shayler) must mean we're on to something.
Non-gullible
Here comes another wave of conspiralemmings
20.09.2006 17:27
The Man with the Van
Stooges
20.09.2006 18:24
Sheffield IM, pontificators and fakers - who allowed these 'investigators' to pose as activists here and why are you recruiting away from genuine activism ?
Fakir
Some unsolicited advice for The Man With A Van
20.09.2006 19:09
Here comes another wave of conspiralemmings
20.09.2006 19:27
Please admins, can we finally have an end to this morale & bandwidth sapping twittery!?
The Man with the Van
End Quote
Well I am so happy to see your ardent support for the lofty tenets of free speech and justice, so much so that you would like to shut these discussions down. Here's a radical idea for you Van Man - change the channel and don't read the thread.
However, it is also possible that you are merely a troll, in which case: go fuck yourself and take that message back to Blair, Mi5 and any other government parasite your bullshit represents.
The Man with a Plan for the Man with a Van
What's so implausible about 9/11?
20.09.2006 20:13
Paul
Abridged
20.09.2006 20:14
2) 9/11 Truth movement is an anti-Semitic movement
3) 9/11 Truth people are pushy and rude
4) 9/11 Truth people need therapy
5) If 9/11 facts were a problem, there'd be tons of "experts" complaining
6) If 9/11 facts had problems the free American media would be all over it
7) US govt. officials wouldn't attack their own people
- Conspiracy theories are crazy talk:
Yup. According to conspiracy theorists a great sprawling cabal of evildoers did or didn't fly a plane by or not by remote control into the twin towers, there is numerological ewvidence that secret socities of sanatanists and Jews were behind it.
Even the more mundane theories are completely mad. They suggest that every single person that disagrees with with them is an idiot, a plant or scared of being killed by the cabal.
- 9/11 Truth movement is an anti-Semitic movement:
Sorry, but there are many illogical and falacious theories that try and implicate Israel and Jews in General with no evidence.
Check out Rense and Prison Planet for some nice examples.
- 9/11 Truth people are pushy and rude:
Yes they are. If you disagree with them they quickly stoop to ad hominems, obscenity and defamation. See the Flight 97 debacle for vivid proof of this.
- 9/11 Truth people need therapy:
Well, the vast majority of them need education more than therapy. Some do need therapy, they display classic signs of psychosis and neurosic.
- If 9/11 facts were a problem, there'd be tons of "experts" complaining:
Are you really suggesting the whole of the world's professional community from Tehran to Beijing to Berlin are all scared to speak out against the Cabal. See above RE: therapy.
- If 9/11 facts had problems the free American media would be all over it:
Given that the intelligence services in the US & the UK have already haemorraged many documents incriminating the Coalition (Abu Ghraib; WMD; Dodgy Dossier) it is patently obvious that if 9/11 Truth were to produce anything with any substance, the media and professional community would be all over it.
- US govt. officials wouldn't attack their own people:
Fact: there is no proof that Northwoods was entertained as a serious option, and far less that any of its suggestions were actioned. There is actual doubt to its authenticity as document in the first place.
Spook Plant
Okay
20.09.2006 20:17
I can't wait to hear this......
Architect
The Man with a Plan for the Man with a Van
20.09.2006 20:18
You see this place is for ACTIVISM, not for stupid conspiracy thereories. Per definition you are in the wrong place.
Please relocate to www.inactiviststooges.gov
White Van Man
No 911 articles on NYC IM ;Eight 911 articles on Sheffield IM
20.09.2006 20:27
New York Indymedia
Not a single article of 911 'news'. Anti-war stuff, sure, anti-Bush stuff, all the activists stuff is there.
Sheffield Indymedia
Top Story: 9/11
A further 7 9/11 911 stories.
And how many died in Sheffield on 911 again ?
And so why the displaced obsession ?
The 'truth' is a right wing cult funded by the CIA started trying to exploit 911 to distract and diminish the peace movement. The US activists have experience of them since they same cult was at work in the 60's trying to (often violently) disrupt the peace movement then. They are new here, so they inveigle themselves into young left of centre groups, and they disrupt and they recruit. They have cadre-schools. Their leader, a Rev. Moon clone called Larouche, claims responsibility for Reagans Star Wars ( as does Moon). His stated world view is to the nutty sde of Ickes. For instance, the Beatles lyrics were written by MI5. The Queen controls the world. HG Wells, Bertrand Russell and Noam Chomsky are evil illuminatti. Straight-jacket stuff perhaps, but they are far from incompetent. They have numerous fronts and either an effective intelligence network based on deep cover infiltrators or just the support of an effective security agency. They recruit from young left wing college drop-outs and brainwash them into a sense of superiority and devotion.
This may seem outlandish so check the facts for yourself, but search first for a list of Larouche front websites as there are many. It is no stanger than a reasonably bright person being taken in by the Scientologists or the closer equivalent, the Moonies. Where the Moonies recruit from spiritual-types, middle class and educated for the most part, the Larouche go for protestor-types, middle class and educated for the most part. You lot, except the daft proles and thick peasants !
Their front organisations are expanding in Europe, Australia, the Middle East and parts of South America. They effectively control by force of numbers the wikipedia Larouche Wikipedia page but you can check the history for strikingly opposing reports.
I only know this cos I offended one of them on another forum, MediaLens. One of their cadets criticised George Soros for being a promoter of marijuana. I said there must be better reasons to criticise any billionaire, meaning I saw no great evil in promoting marijuana. I was then accused of being an 'druggie agent of Soros and a friend of Chip Berlet', whoever he is. I was pretty quickly hacked off the net, not for long though but even being careful I was later hacked off again. So I studied a bit, feel secure now.
I watched over the internet as their front in Sweden expanded in a couple of years. Kids would start getting listed as members, and when I googled them, I saw normal teenage/twenty-something blogs suddenly stopping when they'd joined, and they'd suddenly drop out of Uni - their previous friends blogs would either stop mentioning them or worry about them.
Now, occassionally they do publicity actions in their 'training', but most of their time is spent listening to Schubert and learning how superior that they are ( yer normal public-school education I guess ) but also how their sexual potency can only be realised by following the words of Larouche. The devotees are commonly called Larouchies. Don't let me bias you, do your own research.
I think it is a safe bet that they are with us just now, both as punters posting and as IMCistas hiding/promoting and worse, writing. There used to be a lot of out and out Larouche reprints here, presumably there was some purge because now only the fronts post here. If my accusation id false then explain why does the UK IMC have more 911 posts than the New York one ? Why is it mostly coming from Sheffield ? Why are 911 opinion pieces not getting hidden as 'non-news' ? Why are Sheffield Indymedia not promoting anti-war direct-actions locally but instead writing 'news'/opinion stories with privelleged options ( Highlights/Coloured text et al) ? Why is Sheffield so inactive compared to other IM regions when it such a target-rich area ?
What'd I'd like is the original first 20 folk who setup or contributed to IM is to come together and issue a 'bill of health' for each of the volunteers now active. Go and meet them, talk to them and check out their stories. This place is damaged goods unless you do in my opinion, each story is as liable to be propaganda
Je t'accuse
RE: non-gullible, Shayler, UK 911 Truth Movement
20.09.2006 22:24
V
Disinfo agent, perhaps?
20.09.2006 23:16
So, no mystery there... Different IMC sites cover 9/11 in different ways, this reflects the nature of Indymedia, a network of autonomous collectives, for example contrast NYC with Portland (which isn't exactly close to NYC either):
Most of your other points are really wrong but one sticks out, and is really rather odd:
"I was then accused of being an 'druggie agent of Soros and a friend of Chip Berlet', whoever he is."
If you are the anti-Larouche cult slayer you claim to be you would know who Chip Berlet is since he is the main person behind the Public Eye site which has lots of anti-Larouche material on it:
I have only spent the odd hour on this stuff (it has little relevence to me since have never heard of any Larouche followers in Sheffield, if there are any they keep such a low profile as to be unnoticable...) and I recognised his name instantly, you say "do your own research", but it is not concievable that you could do much research without coming across Chip Berlet, this is more than very fishy, it's almost less believable than hologram planes and that is saying something...
I'm the last person to start accusing people of being disinfo agents, in fact I don't think I have ever done that, but if I ever did a list of suspects "Je t'accuse" would be right up there...
Je t'accuse
"Conspiracy theories are crazy talk "
21.09.2006 01:25
Ted Hughes
Reasons
21.09.2006 12:46
1) Conspiracy theories are crazy talk
2) 9/11 Truth movement is an anti-Semitic movement
3) 9/11 Truth people are pushy and rude
4) 9/11 Truth people need therapy
5) If 9/11 facts were a problem, there'd be tons of "experts" complaining
6) If 9/11 facts had problems the free American media would be all over it
7) US govt. officials wouldn't attack their own people"
Yes and the rest, how about:
8) It would be impossible to pull off a stunt like that with military precision, the numbers of people who would have to a) be involved. b) be prepared to keep silent about it, c) would be prepared to do it. Why not secretly fund terroists who dislike america to do it for you? so much simpler! black ops. Of which their are 100's of examples of this from the US through history.
9) the flawed "loose change" in which as an example they claim a video of bin laden is faked because he is wearing a ring and a watch. (disallowed by sharia law). Unfortunately all images of B. Laden show him wearing said ring and watch (including others used as evidence which are real in loose change). - not researched at all.
10) "world tradecenter 7 camedown with only a small fire" mmm, two massive buildings came down in the vacinity, one quite close. do you think that the falling debris by some miracle missed building 7? you cannot see the side of the building closest to where wtc 1 + 2 were, it would by high probability have sustained serious structural damage.
It was orchestrated, but by black ops
David Shayler is attempting to steer the movement away from this truth.
Sue di nim
Classic disinfo indeed, posting under your accusers name
21.09.2006 13:10
I never investigated who Berlet was as I haven't claimed to be 'anti-Larouche cult slayer' - why lie and misrepresent me when my own post is still visible, just out of habit ? In fact I've never even watched Buffy the Slayer, which perhaps explains the difference in our world views. If I wanted to quote anyone to rubbish Larouche then I would quote Chomskys withering critique of him (
And you've never came across any Larouchies in Sheffield because they keep a low-profile ? Sure, they never post here for example do they ? Never heard of Paul Joseph Watson ? I reckon from the inactivity of Sheffiled activists that Sheffield IM has more than a few Larouchies on board. You included.
Je t'accuse
Urm, got *any* evidence?
21.09.2006 15:11
Onto the substance of you allegation, do you have any evidence of any LaRouche activist in Sheffield, at all?
According to the Wikipedia they don't have any groups in the UK:
What are their UK groups called? Who is involved with them?
Paul Joseph Watson, well that is an interesting one, does anyone have any evidence that he even knows Sheffield Indymedia exists let alone reads or posts here? Has anyone ever seen him at a demo in Sheffield, would anyone even recognise him? To say that he isn't exactly a well know figure in the Sheffield activist scene would be to put it mildly...
How many activists in Sheffield have you spoken to about this? Have any confirmed your fears in any way?
What is rather amusing is that you have even less evidence for your conspiracy theory than the US Government has for their 9/11 conspiracy theory... hehe, how ironic...
Je t'accuse
For Architect
21.09.2006 16:51
Lot's of Love
Nobody
Nobody
Plenty evidence
21.09.2006 17:08
I suggested the 20 first IM folk to investigate all current UK IM volunteers for signs of indoctrination, and I base that request on the state of the 'newswire', and to avoid claims of a withchunt. I feel the response I've had so far is self-damning, and so I'll be recommending folk stop even reading the UK IM sites until this is addressed. So my own networking doesn't suffer, I'll be inviting folk I've worked with and trust to share their actions and idea off site, probably something wiki where we are all admins. If you want an invite, post here under your normal monicer with a specially created email address.
Some of the 911ers here will be genuine folk, some of them are cultists. The mount of reposts and 'party-line' posts from both punters and admins makes this site a poisoned apple.
Sit&Spin
Nobody
21.09.2006 17:14
Spook Plant
we've been here before, so let's think this through carefully
21.09.2006 18:08
1. Northwoods was - as far as anyone can ascertain - a genuine proposal, in which the downing of an airplane over Cuban territory was but one of several proposals to instigate a war. In addition to Northwoods however, there are the well documented cases where similar "false flag" operations were activated - e.g. Tolkin and even Pearl Harbour would count as a LIHOP false flag. There may well be others, but those two will do for now. So yes, it is entirely plausible for the US government to attack its own people to further its tactical and strategic ends.
2. The architect of the WTC is quoted as saying that the buildings were built to withstand being hit by several Boeing 707 airplanes (which are reasonably similar to 737), and that following a fire in the WTC the central columns were changed in such a way to prevent the chimney effect, thereby cutting off the flow of air that would fuel any future fire. On this basis, it would be difficult to argue how kerosene near the top of the building would melt steel at the bottom of the building for the building to collapse.
3. Buildings obey gravity and will therefore collapse following the path of least resistance, which is not pancaking, and which is not straight down at nearly 9.8meters per second (free fall) into their own footprint. No building has ever been observed to do that left to its own collapse, which is why there is such an industry in controlled demolitions, because demolition and collapse are uncontrolled. On 9-11, this controlled collapse happened three times on the same site during the same incident.
4. Firefighters and numerous other witnesses testify that they heard/saw explosions going off - firefighterseven talking about the explosions as if charges used in controlled demolitions were being used. They should know - they have attended more fires and are trained not to jump to conclusions.
5. The famous picture of the woman leaning out of the gaping hole in the side of the building (WTC1?): it is difficult to imagine she could do that given the alleged heat of the fire that was alleged to be burning in there - hot enough to bring down the building. That seems anomalous.
6. Moving away from the buildings themselves, there are a string of circumstantial coincidences that taken together - at least in a court of law - would bury a defendent. For example: it is difficult to account for the warnings from 11 countries that were not listened to or responded to appropriately - coincidence 1 = bad use of intel and a treasonable failure to respond. The slew of different military exercises going on simultaneously (which again has never happened in US military history) where the major eastern sea-board cities and the capital are left unguarded because the planes are off in Alaska and the further reaches of the country, involved in missions that are almost identical to the actual hijacking, in other words, the event gets buried under background noise so it becomes invisible. The third coincidence, Ashcroft stops taking commercial flights for about a month pre 9-11 and on the evening of 9-10 the mayor of LA is phoned by Condi Rice and warned to not fly to NYC as planned. The fourth coincidence - there is strong evidence that there was a deliberate order for the response planes to "stand down", which resulted in the absolute worst delay ever recorded in scrambling fighter jets to intercept three rogue planes as per SOP. Coincidence five - all those put options in the days running up to 9-11 that individually, in an hour, exceeded the total put options on any airline in any of the months of the respective histories of those airlines. Coincidence six - the bare-faced lying of GW Bush recounting his tale about when he first became aware the US was under attack and all that stuff about him sitting in a classroom in Florida.
7. These coincidences don't even begin to touch on the other stuff such as the inability of the alleged hijackers to fly planes, how 9 of the hijackers are still alive, how the WTC colapse turned everything into dust but a passport belonging to a hijacker somehow flies out of the airplane and the collapsing building to arrive unscathed at Ground Zero, nor how the crash site in Penn doesn't really resemble much a crash site ever seen before, nor even the rumours that bin Laden was in a military hospital in Dubai days before 9-11 being visited by the CIA attache there, nor the PNAC citation about needing a new Pearl Harbour. Nor does it cover the fastest removal and contamination of a crime scene in US history, the violation of all NTSB and crime forensic guidelines for dealing with plane crashes and mass homicides, and the degree to which the US government dragged its feet to even launch an investigation, which was chaired by an insider to the White House and at which Commission, the president and VP both refused to answer some questions and redacted a range of detailed documents, claiming them to be classified.
This is all stuff just recalled off the top of my head, and so there's bound to be more detailed anomalies. But the point is that it is not just the collapse of the buildings, which is anomalous in and of themselves. Rather, it is the entire kit and kaboodle, the whole meal-deal that is anomalous, and which those who dismiss 911-truth like organisations as being conspiraloons NEVER resolve. The 911 truth orgs are not compelled to explain this away because taken together the case is pretty damning in both the macro and the micro details. On one day in history, all of these events suddenly happen as a once-off never to be repeated eventuality and the hijackers just happened to take advantage of this opportunity? Now *that* is a conspiracy theory to beat conspiracy theories!!
So, let me just turn this around for a second and ask all of those who claim that those who seek to unravel the issues behind 9-11 are mere nutters to stop for a moment and answer the basic question: how does anyone ... how can anyone account for all these (allegedly) disconnected events happening one autumn day in the USA which then - again coincidentally - triggers the endless war against terror, the dismantling of civil liberties and the illegal occupation of soveriegn nations? Think carefully because if you answer that the government story is accurate, you also have to take into account that the government that has given you the official version (under duress and with bare minimal funding, I hasten to add) is the same government that told us we had to go to war because Iraq was linked to 9-11 and had stockpiles of WMD, including nukes, it could launch in 45 minutes.
Now really guys - who the hell are you going to believe? Those who say "Hey, the official account does not hang together and we want an independent enquiry to uncover what happened" or those who blatantly lie, steal, usurp, torture, eavesdrop, murder and steal your civil liberties and the rights to protest? Who are you going to side with?
If you still want to swallow the government story, or try to pursuade me that all these amazing coincidences did happen, once in a lifetime and ne'er again, then okay. But then, please, don't ever criticise those who think differently and claim that they have no grasp of science or are just looney!
dr jeckyl does not hyde
Ah, the old false opposition...
22.09.2006 01:15
As though there were only a choice between two factions of lying scumbags. You going to try persuade me to vote NewLabour next?
I choose neither; thanks all the same.
Spook Plant
Stalin's back in town
22.09.2006 02:00
I think the truth about 911 is important
If your're anti-War you should be anti-The war on Terror - it is a war that won't end!
The War on terror is a lie how do you fight a lie? with the truth.
Truth is, 911 was an inside job. the energy equations show that.
This is information, nothing else - do what you want with it
This is a comment from
27. To: yukon (#22)
Steel wool will burn easily. Steel contains iron. Iron will burn and steel will melt. So where do you have a problem?
Did you graduate from the Monty Python School of Science?
There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!
honway posted on 2006-08-14 21:11:03 ET
I was at a stop the war rally the other night not a mention of the strategic reasons for these wars our leaders think so necessary for the continuing support for the consumerist bourgoise lifestyle of many there.
The last war stopped by direct action was vietnam - so the war stopped what else changed?
911 False flag
Nuff said
Nobody
re: Ah, the old false opposition...
22.09.2006 05:06
Ah, the old false opposition...
22.09.2006 03:15
"Now really guys - who the hell are you going to believe?"
As though there were only a choice between two factions of lying scumbags. You going to try persuade me to vote NewLabour next?
I choose neither; thanks all the same.
Spook Plant
================================
To choose neither is your perogative of course, SP. The choice however is not the same as a menu option, but merely between something being true (as the official story claims to be) or false (as the 9-11 groups claim the official story to be). The official story requires far too many leaps of faith, and when Occam's razor is applied to the official story of incompetence, neglect, pure luck, three instances of violations of physical science, and all of the rest that is wrapped up in the grand narrative of the 9-11 Commission's report, the grand narrative falls apart like sliced ham. The narrative cannot be sustained without the reader suspending disbelief and granting some extraordinary warp of everyday military, engineering, political, economic, historic, and social reality in order for the grand narrative to hang together.
The choice is therefore only between "yes" it happened the way the 9-11 Commission have described it or "no" more there is more to this story than is being told by the Commission. On the assumption S.P. that you are a reasonable person, I should imagine that you - like most of us - will use a multitude of contextual factors to arrive at a determination of whether someone is telling the truth or not. Like most of us, you may not be able to recite these contextual markers, but you'll know when something smells fishy. Given the context of the 9-11 Commission, the subsequent discovery of lies told to the US and UK citizens to go to war, the absurd refusal of Bush & Co to even hold a 9-11 Commission, the paltry funding given to it, the on-going obfuscation of White House witnesses and the two-step around pivotal issues by Bush & Cheney when giving evidence, the rapid cleanup of the site at Ground Zero contrary to all SOP (in fact, so many events that day were contrary to SOP, which is itself suspect or at least indicative of gross criminal negligence), the extent to which certain key people were privvy to foreknowledge, and on and on ... when you amass these contextual markers that have nothing to do with the physics of collapsing buildings, it is difficult to swallow the official line. Now S.P., you might be very gullible, in which case, this might offend you, and for that my apologies. However, on the assumption that you are a critical thinker, and bearing in mind that history is a narrative developed to sustain certain forms of power and legitimacy of world view, ask yourself: why would the most powerful nation on earth allow itself to be left wide open to attack on the day that 19 hijackers just happened to be doing a hijacking, and then drag its feet to have a full investigation, preferring to suddenly re-assert its authority and go to war against the Middle East at the drop of a hat, without even knowing the facts of the case? Something is fishy about that too. This concern is exacerbated when we discover that Bush is very sympathetic to the End Timers who are often quite cheerful about facilitating Armageddon which they tend to describe as a nuclear conflagaration between the Christians and Jews on one side and Islam on the other (the so-called clash of civilisations, Bush & Blair like to talk about, even though Persia is, in many respects, the cradle for Western civilisation).
When the events of 11th September are resituated within the context of what we know now about that day, and what we know subsequent to that day, it is difficult to remain sitting on the fence about it. Which is really why this whole 9-11 thing just won't go away: when something sticks in one's craw, one keeps coughing until it clears ... or dies choking. The opposition is no more false than deciding between something that is true and reasonable versus something that is false and untenable. If you have a third option, then please share it. As far as I can discern, there is no "false" opposition here. It is not between two groups of "lying scumbags" but between the story perpetrated by the official doctrine or demanding that this issue be re-opened and properly investigated with complete transparency and accountability to get to the bottom of one of the most pivotal events of our lifetime. Forget the 9-11 truth groups - you do not need to side with or against them. All you need to do, if at all interested in this event, is to start asking yourself some questions about it. It is difficult to maintain the official narrative for very long. Now that might put you in the camp of those you don't like, but that doesn't make them wrong. But, it does make the official account seriously and fatally flawed - and that's the point, not which T-shirt you wear.
dr jeckyl does not hyde
Milkmaid's algaebra
22.09.2006 10:42
1.) It doesn't lead to action
2.) It doesn't even raise awareness, since you are just preaching to the converted.
_____________
Now, what kind of mad thinking is that!? If Bush & co are lying then 9/11 Truth must be true. No, I actually believe that Bush & Co are liars and 9/11 Truth are not just liars they're totally barking.
The similairty in reasoning is akin the self-recursive logic you encounter in the religously devout.
9/11 Truth isn't about enquiry. It has already arrived at its conclusions. Therefore it is a belief system.
"Sorry, I don't pray that way!"
Spook Plant
Let us Prey (sic)
22.09.2006 14:31
So you knew all about false flags before? did you try to inform the rest of us about that particular MO of the power freaks? Seems to me that you that you didn't.
My awareness has been raised and I've become more "active" as a direct result of 911 truth.
But 911 truth is definately stuffed full of the barking - best place for 'em!
Let 'em pray in any way they see fit.
Peace
BTW How's your compost?
twopercenthuman