George Monbiot’s Sour 9/11 Grapes
Kurt Nimmo | 21.02.2007 08:45 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Terror War | World
It stinks of desperation. George Monbiot, inveterate leftist of the foundation financed environmentalist persuasion, has once again taken a swing at the “conspiracy idiots” who believe government is capable of mass murder, including the reflexive murder of its own subjects.
It stinks of desperation. George Monbiot, inveterate leftist of the foundation financed environmentalist persuasion, has once again taken a swing at the “conspiracy idiots” who believe government is capable of mass murder, including the reflexive murder of its own subjects.
Not unlike his brethren, most notably Noam Chomsky and Alex Cockburn, Monbiot buys the Ward Churchill version of events in regard to the attacks of September 11, 2001—that is to say Osama and a small number of cave-dwelling Wahhabi fanatics magically made NORAD stand down and defied the immutable laws of physics, thus delivering one to the conclusion a piece of paper cannot be slipped between Monbiot and the moonstruck followers of the neocons, as they all buy the same Brothers Grimm fairy tale.
“Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build,” complains the former BBC employee. “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.”
In fact, Mr. Monbiot and his ilk are part and parcel of the “mainstream political process,” especially considering the degree of foundation funding and support his cherished “movements” receive, from the likes of the Ford, Schumann, Rockefeller, and MacArthur foundations, to name but a handful.
Monbiot’s “progressive” left was long ago sold down the river. In effect, the foundation oiled “movements” so dear to Monbiot’s heart are completely and utterly ineffectual, having accomplished dreadful little over the decades, and instead serve as a facile target of convenience for Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael “Savage” Weiner, Sean Hannity and the neocon fascists dominating the corporate media.
For all his effort and that of his pals, Monbiot has managed to make the machine of progress, as he gauges it, turn in reverse. It is not the 9/11 “morons” destroying Mr. Monbiot’s “movements,” but his own enervated struggle, his own inability to understand reality and deal with it, even as he has made a career out of complaint minus substantial result.
According to Monbiot, questioning the official version of events, replete with bad science and glaring omission, is “a displacement activity” and avoidance “of the real issues we must confront,” never mind Monbiot and his fellows have confronted for decade after decade “issues” they swear are “real,” only to slide backward down a long slope into the muck of irrelevance, made a laughingstock and a cavalcade of clowns by the corporate media.
For Monbiot, the documentary Loose Change is a “concatenation of ill-attested nonsense,” never mind the good professor, from on-high at Oxford Brookes University, does not bother to detail such ill-attestation, caring only to tell us Benjamin Chertoff, the “senior researcher” of Popular Mechanics tasked with slamming 9/11 research far and wide, is not related to Michael Chertoff, a fact disputed by none other than Benjamin’s mother, Judy Dargan, in Pelham, New York. “Yes, of course, he is a cousin,” she told journalist Christopher Bollyn.
Mr. Monbiot is determined to attack the “crazy distraction” that supposedly “presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements,” never mind by and large such movements long ago went to fossil precisely because of the inability of intellectual doyens—represented by Chomsky, Cockburn, and Monbiot—to accept the fact that, indeed, George Bush and the neocons—and yes, even the faceless bureaucrats the progressives submit grant applications to over at the Ford and Rockefeller foundations—are cold-blooded killers who are determined to not only slaughter Iraqis as they did Vietnamese, but no small number of innocent office workers on a sunny morning in New York as well.
But not to despair, George, there is still time.
If you put aside your petty jealousies and hurt feelings and join the 9/11 truth movement you claim to despise, we actually may be able to effectuate change before it is too late.
Short of that, and the possibility of the unthinkable now breathing down our necks, we will know who will share the blame come the day after.
Not unlike his brethren, most notably Noam Chomsky and Alex Cockburn, Monbiot buys the Ward Churchill version of events in regard to the attacks of September 11, 2001—that is to say Osama and a small number of cave-dwelling Wahhabi fanatics magically made NORAD stand down and defied the immutable laws of physics, thus delivering one to the conclusion a piece of paper cannot be slipped between Monbiot and the moonstruck followers of the neocons, as they all buy the same Brothers Grimm fairy tale.
“Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build,” complains the former BBC employee. “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.”
In fact, Mr. Monbiot and his ilk are part and parcel of the “mainstream political process,” especially considering the degree of foundation funding and support his cherished “movements” receive, from the likes of the Ford, Schumann, Rockefeller, and MacArthur foundations, to name but a handful.
Monbiot’s “progressive” left was long ago sold down the river. In effect, the foundation oiled “movements” so dear to Monbiot’s heart are completely and utterly ineffectual, having accomplished dreadful little over the decades, and instead serve as a facile target of convenience for Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael “Savage” Weiner, Sean Hannity and the neocon fascists dominating the corporate media.
For all his effort and that of his pals, Monbiot has managed to make the machine of progress, as he gauges it, turn in reverse. It is not the 9/11 “morons” destroying Mr. Monbiot’s “movements,” but his own enervated struggle, his own inability to understand reality and deal with it, even as he has made a career out of complaint minus substantial result.
According to Monbiot, questioning the official version of events, replete with bad science and glaring omission, is “a displacement activity” and avoidance “of the real issues we must confront,” never mind Monbiot and his fellows have confronted for decade after decade “issues” they swear are “real,” only to slide backward down a long slope into the muck of irrelevance, made a laughingstock and a cavalcade of clowns by the corporate media.
For Monbiot, the documentary Loose Change is a “concatenation of ill-attested nonsense,” never mind the good professor, from on-high at Oxford Brookes University, does not bother to detail such ill-attestation, caring only to tell us Benjamin Chertoff, the “senior researcher” of Popular Mechanics tasked with slamming 9/11 research far and wide, is not related to Michael Chertoff, a fact disputed by none other than Benjamin’s mother, Judy Dargan, in Pelham, New York. “Yes, of course, he is a cousin,” she told journalist Christopher Bollyn.
Mr. Monbiot is determined to attack the “crazy distraction” that supposedly “presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements,” never mind by and large such movements long ago went to fossil precisely because of the inability of intellectual doyens—represented by Chomsky, Cockburn, and Monbiot—to accept the fact that, indeed, George Bush and the neocons—and yes, even the faceless bureaucrats the progressives submit grant applications to over at the Ford and Rockefeller foundations—are cold-blooded killers who are determined to not only slaughter Iraqis as they did Vietnamese, but no small number of innocent office workers on a sunny morning in New York as well.
But not to despair, George, there is still time.
If you put aside your petty jealousies and hurt feelings and join the 9/11 truth movement you claim to despise, we actually may be able to effectuate change before it is too late.
Short of that, and the possibility of the unthinkable now breathing down our necks, we will know who will share the blame come the day after.
Kurt Nimmo
Homepage:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=777
Additions
from the archives: Monbiot supporting a military invasion of Iraq
22.02.2007 22:33
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/02/021127_Guardian_Panorama_Iraq_Reply.HTM Writing in the Guardian, George Monbiot declares:
"[I]f war turns out to be the only means of removing Saddam, then let us support a war whose sole and incontestable purpose is that and only that..." (Monbiot, 'See you in court, Tony,' The Guardian, November 26, 2002)
Monbiot would doubtless deny to his last breath that his support for an assault against just this shattered Third World country as a last resort has anything to do with the ceaseless propaganda that has poured from the tireless cynics of the Bush/Blair administrations and their media commissars. He holds his views (+he+ believes) because Iraq +is+ a special case, not because propaganda has +made+ Iraq seem a special case. This is the awesome power of deception - fascinating for everyone except the people on the end of our bombs.
media lens
Comments
Hide the following 22 comments
Not often I agree with Monbiot but....
21.02.2007 16:58
No doubt the documentary shown the other night which pretty much dissproved everything in 'Loose Change' is all part of the conspiracy against your 'truth'. One interesting point made by the programme was that the CIA/FBI/ESTABLISHMENT IN GENERAL has fuelled the 9/11 conspiracy nutters fire by not releasing facts about the attacks which should be in the public domain. Could it be that 9/11 truth loonies are seen by the neocons as an ally because:
1) They cause dissunity in the global anti war movement?
2) They make it easy for the neocons to write the anti war movement off a being mad?
3) They stage endless and pointless debates which tie people up and stop them doing other stuff?
4) They care only about 9/11 (oh yes and 7/7 and JFK) and have ittle or no formula for bringing about real change?
5) Take peoples attention away from the obvious and undisputed facts about the 'War on Terror' thus watering down the movement against it?
Hows that for a conspiracy?
Guido
You're so very wrong
21.02.2007 19:50
For all the loose change out there then get this!
Loose Videos Kill the Evidence Stars
Disinfo like that propagated by "Loose Change" certainly feeds psuedo-leftist establishment propagandists like Monbiot.
If Loose Change gets people thinking about 9/11 evidence, then good.
If screenings of Loose Change bring people together to discuss 9/11 evidence and what can be done with it, then good.
If people are put under the impression that Loose Change is anything remotely like the be-all-and-end-all of 9/11 evidence, then bad.
In fact, very very bad.
Loose Change is *severely* flawed, as this 9/11 *research* site explains -
This is curious:
"911 Solution - The big clue everyone missed" (about 10 minutes).
For whatever reason, it's been removed from Google Video at least twice.
9/11 researchers need to move beyond the "they did 9/11 to conquer the Middle East and impose a Police State" line, and similar lines as well.
That hypothesis produces too many absurdities.
911research.wtc7.net/
Darth Qaeda
And....
21.02.2007 19:52
=================================
Why are we so quick to defend George Bush? The victims deserve to know the truth
by Age Tuesday February 20, 2007 at 01:45 PM
I fail to see the point in copying and pasting articles such as this from another website, especially opinion articles that have no references or sources to back up their claims.
It is not a well-written article and is full of emotive language and seems more intent on labelling the so-called "conspiracy theorists" as lunatics, rather than presenting arguments with supporting evidence.
If you check out the article in Popular Mechanics, which is so often referred to by those trying to “debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories”, its explanations and argument are very flimsy. Furthermore, as evidence it cites the reports by FEMA and NIST.
However, these are the same reports that are considered completely inadequate and which cannot be considered to be unbiased as they were conducted under the instruction and political manipulation on the Bush Administration.
And this is the main argument that underlines the 9/11-truth movement, that there must be an independent investigation into the events of 9/11. Regardless of the conclusions reached by some within the movement i.e. that the government manufactured the events, many of those demanding the truth are relatives of the victims searching from answers. Instead of answers from the government they have endured harassment, gag order after gag order and betrayal.
These people deserve to know the truth as we all are regardless of how disturbing it may turn out to be. Its time to stop the personal and emotional charged attacks on those seeking the truth, many of whom are dedicating their lives to the matter, and to allow the issue to be debated in a rational manner.
Neil
The Guardian? Fixed! The latest: Terror Storm: Birth or treason!
21.02.2007 20:27
"From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq": Craig Unger on How the Neoconservatives Are Pushing For An Attack on Iran
“Once again, neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about W.M.D.," Unger writes. "Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington—this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom."
Your want the truth no probs Bush and the neocons have been done!
Truth 911 and CIA false flag opps!
============================
“Terror Storm”
Watch For Free, Spread The Word Please help us get Terror Storm to as many people as possible!
New, Stunning 9/11 documentary
Reopen 9/11Now Available From Voice in the Wilderness Productions: A Beit Shalom Ministries Presentation
9/11: The Birth of Treason
This stunning new documentary provides the most comprehensive view of the evidence which proves 9/11 was an inside job. Also contained are the most recent and most in depth interviews with Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Dr. Jones covers his recent exchanges with NIST, freefall speed of the towers, and his research into Thermite/Thermate explosives. Kevin Ryan goes in depth about being fired by Underwriters Laboratories for blowing the whistle on data falsification. Also Interviewed:
===================================
Bush knocked down the towers - 9/11 Truth
Bin Laden didnt Blow Up the projects, BUSH Knocked the towers.. Mos Def, Immortal Technique and Eminem.
Ask yourself
3. Faking the 'War on Terror'
The 'War on Terror' is spurious because there is strong evidence that the events to which it is purportedly a response-the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001-were orchestrated not by Osama bin Laden (whose partisans or minions served, however, as useful patsies), but rather by high-placed elements within the United States government. There are several converging lines of evidence: taken separately, they cry out for investigation; taken together, they appear seriously incriminating.7
There have been substantial developments during the past year in the assessment of material, photographic and testimonial evidence relating to the collapses of the three towers of the World Trade Center (the 47-storey WTC 7 as well as the 110-storey Twin Towers). These include scientifically informed analyses which demonstrate the physical impossibility of the official account of the Twin Towers' collapse,8 analyses of statements by fire department personnel and by survivors that there were numerous secondary explosions in the buildings in the interval between the airplane crashes and the collapses,9 video and photographic evidence that structural steel in the South Tower was being cut and melted by thermate charges during the final minutes before the tower's collapse,10 videos and photographs of the collapses of the towers in which "squibs" (explosive horizontal ejections of dust and debris) are visible well below the lines of collapse,11 and laboratory analyses of structural steel from the towers which point to its having been cut by thermate charges.12
Controlled demolition of course implies foreknowledge of the attacks as well as a complex pattern of organization-some aspects of which were made visible by Michael Ruppert, whose book Crossing the Rubicon revealed that the U.S. air defence system was effectively disabled on 9/11 by a network of air-defence and anti-terrorism exercises which transferred most of the available interceptor aircraft out of the northeastern U.S. to Alaska and Alberta, and for a crucial period that morning left the military air traffic controllers responsible for deploying the remaining jet fighters unable to determine which of the many apparently hijacked aircraft appearing on their radar screens were real, and which blips were merely part of a response-to-multiple-hijackings exercise.13 The likelihood that al Qaeda operatives could have organized the demolitions in the World Trade Center complex (whose security was contracted to Securacom, a company with close Bush family connections),14 as well as somehow coordinating airliner hijackings with what amounted to a planned disabling of the air defence system, is close to nil.
Add to this the destruction of material evidence at the WTC site, the extreme reluctance of the Bush administration to permit any inquiry into the events of 9/11, and the well-established fact-mendaciously denied by senior members of that administration-that foreign intelligence services, having evidently penetrated different parts of the 9/11 planning, gave them detailed advance warnings, and a pattern emerges that cries out for criminal investigation. Searching analyses of these issues, as well as of many features of the attacks, the ensuing cover-up, and the underlying geopolitics, have been published by Michel Chossudovsky and by other researchers,15 and the theologian and ethicist David Ray Griffin has produced magisterial summations of the evidence pointing to the Bush administration's implication in the events of 9/11.16
The 'War on Terror' is fraudulent, then, because its purported and actual goals are systematically at variance. Only in the most nakedly Orwellian sense can one claim that a project which began with apparent false-flag terrorist attacks that killed some three thousand people on American soil, and has since involved wars of aggression that have killed and maimed well over 25,000 American soldiers-not to mention killing scores of thousands of Afghans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and exposing millions of their fellow citizens to the murderous and ineradicable toxicity of depleted uranium-is in any sense concerned with enhancing the security of Americans, or of anyone else. The pretexts used to legitimize the invasion of Iraq have without exception been exposed as lies and disinformation17-an embarrassing fact that has not prevented the Bush administration, with the supine or active collaboration of the corporate media, and, to their shame, the diplomatic support of western countries including Britain, France, Germany and Canada, from constructing a parallel set of lies and deceptions to legitimize an apparently imminent attack upon Iran.18
It is less widely appreciated that the invasion of Afghanistan was likewise carried out under false pretexts. Planned and threatened months before 9/11, this act of aggression was carried out for geopolitical reasons enunciated more than a year earlier by the Project for the New American Century, a pressure group whose key members have all held high office in the Bush administration.19 It should be of some interest to Canadians to know that in September 2001 the United States rejected offers of the Afghani Taliban regime to deliver Osama bin Laden to Pakistan for trial there;20 to know that opium production, which the Taliban had nearly eliminated in the provinces it controlled, bounced back to a new high once the U.S.-backed warlords of the Northern Alliance came to power;21 and to learn that the appalling oppression of Afghan women by reactionary theocrats that the Bush regime adopted as an ex post facto reason for its invasion appears not to have significantly diminished under the Karzai regime.22 Canadians might also be intrigued to discover that in June 2006 a journalist who wondered about the absence of any mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's FBI Most Wanted listing was informed by Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, that the reason for this absence "is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."23 This looks rather like an acknowledgment that the so-called "Bin Laden confession video" released by the U.S. in December 2001, and widely represented as justifying the attack on Afghanistan, is in fact not authentic.24
The 'War on Terror' is also fraudulent because while purporting, as Bush himself has declared, to confer upon others what Americans "wish for ourselves-safety from violence, the rewards of liberty, and the hope for a better life,"25 his administration has in fact sought through false-flag terrorism and shameless propaganda and disinformation to frighten Americans into supporting a resource-war geopolitics of unconstrained aggression. Concomitants of this endless warfare include the devolution of what is now called the "homeland" in the direction of a one-party state,26 a deliberate voiding of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a parallel extinction of international human rights law whose visible embodiment is an archipelago of prisons and torture houses extending from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Graib and Bagram.27
sam
Guido, some suggested listening and reading for you...
21.02.2007 20:30
I suggest you listen to the talk he gave a few months ago:
Nafeez Ahmed "INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: THE SECRET HISTORY"
9/11 need to be considered in context, near the end of the talk Nafeez makes some valid critisisms of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but remember that he is actually a part of it.
His big book on this is:
The War on Truth
9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism
Yes of course the likes of Shalyer are bonkers, but to dismiss all the independent research that has been done on this and to accept and believe the neocons "war on terror" and "clash of civilizations" is a VERY big mistake.
This mistake is well documented in this interview:
The “War against Terror” is a War against the People
Silvia Cattori interviewing Youssef Aschkar
This is an extract:
"I should point out here that the ideology of the neocons, such as we see it played out on the ground, is the first and only ideology in history that seeks to produce opponents rather than adherents, leaving to its opponents the job of supplying it with its adherents."
"Let me explain. This ideology works to produce opponents by pushing them towards fanaticism in such a way as to stir up and nourish every fanaticism on earth, including Muslim and Arab fanaticism, and this enables Muslims to be given a very negative image, so that in the end – and this is the goal – hostile reactions are produced towards Muslims. Even staunchly secular people, on both sides, will imperceptibly find themselves led to question their own secularity, and to see in “the Other” someone who cannot be lived with. That is what is going on now, and what is in the process of destabilizing Europe, of causing a cleavage between the two shores of the Mediterranean basin, and of sabotaging and wrecking the Barcelona projects for a Mediterranean partnership."
"If this cleavage worsens, voices will be heard – even in Europe – calling for people to sign on to the neocons’ doctrines of “war against terrorism” and “Muslim fanaticism”. Only at that point will the neocon ideology have accomplished its mission: having helped to provoke the growth of fanaticism among Muslims, it will also have stirred up in the West, in return, adherents to its thesis of a “clash of civilizations”. And Europe, stubborn up to that point, will finally align itself with the ideology of the neocons. Progressives and politicians in general are unaware of these manoeuvres."
Yes the 9/11 Truth Movment seems obsessive from the outside, yes there are cult likes aspects to parts of it, (as there are for socialist and anarchist groups as well) but to throw it all out and swallow the BBC pro-war spin is a bigger mistake than the mistakes that some in the 9/11 Truth Movement have made / are making.
fuck the permawar
Simple questions for Guido
21.02.2007 21:23
Why did the twin towers fall into their basements?
Please!
Johnny
simple answers for johnny
22.02.2007 01:39
The twin towers fell into their basements because gravity pulled them there. They collapsed because the fires caused the steel members to buckle as a result of thermal expansion. Once just one strut supported floor collapsed onto floors below, those floors in turn were unable to resist the shock load and momentum quickly built up. They did not fall "faster than the effects of gravity". That would have taken only 8 seconds. They would have had to be rocket propelled to do that. I for one didn't see any rockets propelling them downwards on the day. The puffs of smoke "from squib explosives" were simply the result of the piston effect of ceilings collapsing into the rooms below, reducing their volume, compressing the smoke and dust laden air contained therein and forcing it to burst out sideways through windows. It's all very well explained here
To all you conspiracy theorists, I'm willing to bet you have NO significant scientific or engineering qualifications. This is why you are all so incredibly and selectively gullible about the torrent of pseudo scientific "evidence" that infests the internet. So many of the so called 911 experts are professors or doctors of philosophy, theology and the like. Do you really expect them to know structural engineering inside out?
a scientist
Plants Abound
22.02.2007 03:58
Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11
by Bill Christison
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 14, 2006
However horrendous the crimes of two of the world’s great liars and terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon, it is imperative that we not let the deeds of Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush distract us from another recent event.
The U.S. alliance with Israel and the power of the lobby that lets Israel so easily influence U.S. foreign policy have been major factors in allowing the monstrous slaughter of innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. What is happening in these lands may also encourage Olmert and Bush to start new hostilities in Syria and heavy, possibly nuclear, bombings in Iran -- and this entire mess of neocon pottage may lead to a new World War and clashes of civilizations and religious fundamentalisms that these two wretched politicians seem quite literally to want to impose on the rest of us. It’s a tough case to make that anything else going on in the world -- anywhere -- could possibly be of equal importance.
But on July 29 and 30, and then again on August 1, something else happened that increasing numbers of people believe is of equal importance. On these dates C-SPAN rebroadcast a panel discussion, held originally in late June, sponsored by an organization called the American Scholars’ Symposium to discuss what really happened on September 11, 2001. Held in Los Angeles, the meeting lasted two days, and the C-SPAN rebroadcast covered one almost two-hour wrap-up session. The meeting was attended by 1,200 people interested in hearing something other than the official story of 9/11. The TV audience was evidently large enough to spur C-SPAN to broadcast the panel discussion five separate times in four days.
Even a month late, this is a lot of airtime for stories that many people call conspiracy theories -- and for which many others use nastier descriptions. It is possible that the head of C-SPAN, Brian Lamb, so strongly disbelieves the conspiracy theories that he felt giving them ample publicity would discredit them further. It is equally possible, however, that Lamb, who seems honestly to believe in presenting various sides of most issues as fairly as he can (although not always giving every side equal time), tried to do exactly that on the many legitimate questions raised about what actually happened on September 11. In any event, C-SPAN has made a major effort to bring information on the principal theories about 9/11 to the mainstream U.S. media. Lamb cannot be blamed for the coincidence that recent heavy military activity in Gaza and Lebanon is nearly drowning out his efforts.
Let’s address the real issues here. Why is it important that we not let the so-called conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 be drowned out? After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the “official story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. The items below highlight the major questions surrounding 9/11 but do not constitute a detailed recounting of the evidence available.
ONE: An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion; among other things, the hole in the Pentagon was considerably smaller than an airliner would create. The building was thus presumably hit by something smaller, possibly a missile, or a drone or, less possibly, a smaller manned aircraft. Absolutely no information is available on what happened to the original aircraft (American Airlines Flight 77), the crew, the “hijackers,” and the passengers. The “official story,” as it appeared in The 9/11 Commission Report simply says, “At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour. All on board, as well as many civilians and military personnel in the building, were killed.” This allows readers to assume that pieces of the aircraft and some bodies of passengers were found in the rubble of the crash, but information so far released by the government does not show that such evidence was in fact found. The story put out by the Pentagon is that the plane and its passengers were incinerated; yet video footage of offices in the Pentagon situated at the edge of the hole clearly shows office furniture undamaged. The size of the hole in the Pentagon wall still remains as valid evidence and so far seems irrefutable.
TWO: The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed. All three were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11. A substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues and byproducts from such demolition charges were present in the three buildings after they collapsed. The quality of the research done on this subject is quite impressive.
If the judgments made on Points ONE and TWO above are correct, they raise many “Who done it” questions and strongly suggest that some unnamed persons or groups either inside or with ties to the government were actively creating a “Pearl Harbor” event, most likely to gain public support for the aggressive foreign policies that followed -- policies that would, first, “transform” the entire Middle East, and second, expand U.S. global domination.
These first two points provide the strongest evidence available that the “official story” of 9/11 is not true. If the government could prove this evidence false, and its own story on these points correct, all the other data and speculation supporting the conspiracy theories would be undermined. It has provided no such proof and no answers to growing questions.
Other, less important points supporting the theories include the following.
THREE: For at least one hour and 45 minutes after the hijacking of the first aircraft was known, U.S. air defense authorities failed to take meaningful action. This strikes some “conspiracy theorists” as valid evidence that the U.S. Air Force was deliberately restrained from acting. Maybe so, but my own skepticism tells me that the inefficiency of U.S. defense forces is likely to be just as plausible an explanation.
FOUR: Some of the theorists believe that the 19 named hijackers were not actually the hijackers. One claim is that the names of the hijackers were not on the manifests of any of the four aircraft.
FIVE: None of the 19 hijackers’ bodies were ever autopsied (since they were allegedly totally destroyed in the crashes, including even the people in the Pennsylvania crash).
SIX: At least five of the alleged hijackers (or persons with identical names) have since turned up alive in the Middle East. Nonetheless, the FBI has never bothered to re-investigate or revise the list of hijackers. Does this suggest that the FBI knows that no one in the administration is interested in reopening any further investigations?
SEVEN: Numerous pilots have allegedly told the theorists that none of the 19 hijackers could have flown the airliners well enough to hit the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon with as much accuracy as was displayed. The debate on this issue simply raises more doubt about the government’s charge that the people it has named as hijackers are the real hijackers.
EIGHT: No one, except possibly government investigators who are not talking, has seen the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. Some of the conspiracy theorists suggest that it was deliberately destroyed before it hit the ground; others suggest that the plane actually landed in Cleveland and that passengers then were whisked away to some unknown destination. What happened to them at that point is simply a large question mark that makes it more difficult to believe this particular scenario.
NINE: Machinations in the U.S. stock market in the days before 9/11 suggest that some inside players in the market knew or suspected that United and American Airlines stock would soon drop. Two of the four of the aircraft involved in 9/11 were, or course, United planes and the other two were American Airlines planes.
It should be reemphasized that these items do not make up a complete list of all the charges made by the theorists, but they are a good sample. Anyone interested in perhaps the best summary of these charges should watch the video “Loose Change.”
To repeat, points ONE and TWO above are the most important. If something other than an airliner actually did hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and if the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center actually were dropped to the ground by controlled demolitions rather than by anything connected to the hijackings, the untrue stories peddled by The 9/11 Commission Report are clearly susceptible of being turned into major political issues.
A Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll taken from July 6 to 24, 2006 concluded that “more than a third [36 percent] of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them, so that the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” The poll also found that “16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.”
A poll done by the Zogby polling organization two months earlier, between May 12 and 16, 2006, and using questions worded somewhat differently, suggested even more strongly that the issue could become a “big one” if aggressively publicized. This poll concluded that 42 percent of Americans believed there had indeed been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11, and an additional 10 percent of Americans were “unsure.” The co-author of the poll, W. David Kubiak, stated that, “despite years of relentless media promotion, whitewash, and 9/11 Commission propaganda, the official 9/11 story still can’t even muster 50 percent popular support.”
Whichever of these polls is closer to the truth, it would seem that there is considerable support for making a major political issue of the subject.
This should be worked on at two different levels. At the first level, the objective should be long-term, centered on making a maximum effort to find out who the individuals and groups are that carried out the attacks in New York and Washington. Then, these people should be tried in an international court and, if possible, convicted and punished for causing so many deaths. Such a trial, accompanied by actual change in U.S. policies, would show that some people on this globe are at least trying to move closer to more just and decent behavior in human relationships around the world.
At the second level, the short term, the task should be to immediately set to work as hard as is humanly possible to defeat in this year’s congressional election any candidate who refuses to support a no-holds-barred investigation of 9/11 by the Congress or a high-level international court. No more evidence than is now available is needed in order to begin this process.
A manageable volume of carefully collected and analyzed evidence is already at hand on both items ONE and TWO above. Such evidence should be used right now to buttress charges that elements within the Bush administration, as well as possibly other groups foreign or domestic, were involved in a massive fraud against the American people, a fraud that has led to many thousands of deaths.
This charge of fraud, if proven, involves a much greater crime against the American people and people of the world than any other charges of fraud connected to the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It is a charge that we should not sweep under the rug because what is happening in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and Iran seems more pressing and overwhelming. It is a charge that is more important because it is related to all of the areas just mentioned -- after all, the events of 9/11 have been used by the administration to justify every single aspect of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since September 11. It is a charge that is more important also because it affects the very core of our entire political system. If proven, it is a conspiracy, so far successful, not only against the people of the United States, but against the entire world. Finally, it is a charge too important to ignore simply because the U.S. government refuses to discuss it. We must force the Bush administration to discuss it.
Discussions aggressively pushed day after day about what really happened on 9/11 will be one of the most important tasks between now and early November. Such discussions can, one hopes, provide progressives with a way to jolt voters out of their apathy and inchoate willingness to support the status quo that they think gives them security -- and encourage more voters to stop supporting Bush, the Republicans, and the wobbly Democratic politicians who might as well be Republicans. A major issue like this, already supported by many voters, may prove particularly important in a congressional election year when new uncertainties in the Middle East, new possibilities of terrorism against the U.S. in retaliation for recent large-scale acts of Israeli/U.S. terrorism in Gaza and Lebanon, and the corrupt almost-single-party U.S. political system combine to make it more likely that supporters of Bush will retain their majority this November.
In terms of electoral impact, it would not matter whether heavy publicity did in fact force the administration to accept a new high-level investigation of the 9/11 events. Initially, the principal goal would be to contribute heavily to the defeat of both Republicans and Democrats who refuse to support wholeheartedly a major new investigation by Congress or an international court. This might result in the defeat of more Republicans than Democrats in November, but ultimately the hoped-for goal should be the end of a system in which Democrats are barely different from Republicans, along with cutbacks in the political power of wealth and the foreign and domestic lobbies paid for by wealth. These are the dominant features of our system today that have practically eliminated meaningful democracy in the U.S. This failure of democracy has happened before in U.S. history, but this time it is likely to last longer -- at least until U.S. policies begin to pay as much attention to the needs of the world as they do to selfish or thoughtless needs of the U.S. and of its military-industrial complex. Attacks on the criminal events surrounding 9/11 might speed this process.
Virtually no members of Congress, Democratic or Republican, will relish calling for a further investigation of 9/11. For right now, in addition to other motives, the issue should be used to go after those political prostitutes among elected office-holders who should also be defeated because they are so easily seduced by money and power to vote for immoral wars against weak enemies.
At the Los Angeles meeting of the American Scholars’ Symposium, one of the main speakers, Webster Tarpley, summarized his own views on the events of 9/11. He emphasized that “neocon fascist madmen” had perpetrated the 9/11 “myth.” He went on to say, “The most important thing is that the 9/11 myth is the premise and the root of the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War and the coming attack on Iran. ... We must ... deprive [the myth’s perpetrators] of the ability to stampede and manipulate hundreds of millions of people [with their] ... cynically planned terrorist events.”
Let’s give Webster Tarpley and other mistakenly labeled conspiracists who have labored in the wilderness for so long three cheers.
Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies. He can be reached at:
911=PNAC, CIA, Mossad
simple response for johnny
22.02.2007 04:31
Secondly the twin towers could not free fall from the top to the basement into the hole of the building under no circumstances whatsoever.
The twin towers would have to have sat on the rubble at least a quarter of the way up the towers and would have tilted to the opposite site that they were hit.
In addition for simple people there are over a 100 discrepancies if you watch the videos.
“Terror Storm”
Watch For Free, Spread The Word Please help us get Terror Storm to as many people as possible!
New, Stunning 9/11 documentary
Reopen 9/11Now Available From Voice in the Wilderness Productions: A Beit Shalom Ministries Presentation
9/11: The Birth of Treason
This stunning new documentary provides the most comprehensive view of the evidence which proves 9/11 was an inside job. Also contained are the most recent and most in depth interviews with Dr. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. Dr. Jones covers his recent exchanges with NIST, freefall speed of the towers, and his research into Thermite/Thermate explosives. Kevin Ryan goes in depth about being fired by Underwriters Laboratories for blowing the whistle on data falsification. Also Interviewed:
Open your eyes man so you can see.....
Johnny
Ho Hum
22.02.2007 09:42
When all these conspiracys have been disproved what exactly will you lot do with your lives??
P.S. I cant help noticing that whenever one of these theorys about 9/11 or 7/7 gets soundly dissproved you lot just move on to another one. A lot of the drivel written about 7/7 on this newswire was made to look absurd when Al-Quaida released some of the bombers martyrdom videos. Did anyone apologise for wasting everyones time with their abduction theorys? No they just moved on to the next pointless and unresolvable debate. And whose purpose does that serve?
Guido
trying to educate Johnny :-(
22.02.2007 09:57
Eh? I can and millions of other people saw the building on fire.
"because fire cannot melt steel in any circumstances whatsoever"
What! Well that's a bit of an absolute. Must be rather difficult to make steel in the first place if you can't melt it during the manufacturing process using...um, a fire. Seriously though, NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT THE STEEL WAS MELTED. You don't get out much do you? Not much experience of the real world? Never watched a blacksmith at work? If you had, you would see that the steel workpiece is heated to just red heat in a very simple fire. Even at that relatively low temperature - about 700 deg C, the steel is completely changed, becoming much softer and more malleable so it can be rolled and flattened like pastry. Not only that but like most metals, it expands and this expansion would have exerted tremendous stress on the entire steel structure, deforming it and eventually breaking the joints apart. You didn't read that article did you?
"Secondly the twin towers could not free fall from the top to the basement into the hole of the building under no circumstances whatsoever"
Eh? Another meaningless absolute. Not even sure what you mean there. If you mean that they should haver tilted as they fell then no, they were not trees. Dunno about where you are but in my part of the world, gravity acts downwards not sideways. The quickest way for a structure to fall when it is collapsing in on itself from top to bottom is straight downwards. It's all explained in that link I posted. You didn't read that article did you?
Oh, and one other technical thing for =PNAC etc. Thermite/thermate are NOT explosives. For them to be termed explosives they would have to release large volumes of gas incredibly quickly which they don't. They burn at quite a controlled rate over several seconds. Have you ever watched thermite burn like when it is used to weld railways lines together? No? Sorry you don't get out much do you? Don't have much experience of the real world do you? Don't actually know much about science and engineering which is why you should not be spouting all this nonsense stuff. This is why you are so easily led by all those pseudo scientists with their own agenda.
a scientist
Circular illogic
22.02.2007 10:47
Keep dreaming, but please keep your delusions to yourselves
Agrip
"Hows that for a conspiracy?"
22.02.2007 10:47
I think that there a few problems with your argument:
1) They cause dissunity in the global anti war movement.
Firstly, how do they do this? It takes two to tango.
Secondly, what exactly is the global anti-war movement if its not made up of all those who are against (I'm presuming you mean) the War on Iraq? That must include an incredibly broad spectrum of often competing beliefs/ideologies - it certainly isn't the preserve of the left. Such a broad coalition would surely be most effective if it channelled its energy into working together at expressing the thing that makes them part of the movement ie their opposition to the war. If they want to spend their time squabbling instead of making the war unviable, then they're not really much of an anti-war movement anyway. Now you might say - "yes that is what the 'conspiraloons' do" - but you seem to be doing it as well. I personally don't see any point in spending loads of energy trying to uncover what really happened - because if the suspicions are correct, then the evidence will be hidden, and the system will drown any progress in a flood of disinformation. However, I do think its healthy to see a growing distrust of official stories, and I personally fail to understand what gets some people so excitable when it comes to the truth activists. I can't pretend that I have a solution to the major problem we face as members of this global anti-war movement - ie our complete ineffectiveness (which is how it must seem to the victims of a war thats been going for 1300 days already). In light of this I don't presume to have the right to tell anyone else what they may or may not think, or expend their energy on, and I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable being as definite as you are about this.
2) They make it easy for the neocons to write the anti war movement off a being mad?
If it wasn't for the truth activists, the neocons would take us seriously? Nah!
3) They stage endless and pointless debates which tie people up and stop them doing other stuff?
How do they do this? Are people gullible sheep who are conditioned to respond to distractions, in order to forget their aims? Right now you're feeding the debate and keeping it going. Is that going to stop the war?
4) They care only about 9/11 (oh yes and 7/7 and JFK) and have ittle or no formula for bringing about real change?
That has to be a gross over-generalisation - like any global anti-war movement, there will be a broad spectrum of often competing ideologies/beliefs in any global truth activist movement.
Any chance that you could lay down your formula for bringing about global change? I would, but I don't have one :(
5) Take peoples attention away from the obvious and undisputed facts about the 'War on Terror' thus watering down the movement against it?
How? Are people not free agents with minds of their own? The corporate media works hard at distracting us with showbiz gossip, sex scandals and immigrant bashing, but it hasn't prevented the emergence of movements against capitalism.
Hows that for a conspiracy?
Problematic.
innocent bystander
more simple answers for Johnny
22.02.2007 10:50
Eh? I can and millions of other people saw the building on fire.
"because fire cannot melt steel in any circumstances whatsoever"
What! Well that's a bit of an absolute. Must be rather difficult to make steel in the first place if you can't melt it during the manufacturing process using...um, a fire. Seriously though, NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT THE STEEL WAS MELTED. You don't get out much do you? Not much experience of the real world? Never watched a blacksmith at work? If you had, you would see that the steel workpiece is heated to just red heat in a very simple fire. Even at that relatively low temperature - about 700 deg C, the steel is completely changed, becoming much softer and more malleable so it can be rolled and flattened like pastry. Not only that but like most metals, it expands and this expansion would have exerted tremendous stress on the entire steel structure, deforming it and eventually breaking the joints apart. You didn't read that article did you?
"Secondly the twin towers could not free fall from the top to the basement into the hole of the building under no circumstances whatsoever"
Eh? Another meaningless absolute. Not even sure what you mean there. If you mean that they should haver tilted as they fell then no, they were not trees. Dunno about where you are but in my part of the world, gravity acts downwards not sideways. The quickest way for a structure to fall when it is collapsing in on itself from top to bottom is straight downwards. It's all explained in that link I posted. You didn't read that article did you?
Oh, and one other technical thing for you, =PNAC etc. Thermite/thermate are NOT explosives. For them to be termed explosives they would have to release large volumes of gas incredibly quickly which they don't. They burn at quite a controlled rate over several seconds. Have you ever watched thermite burn like when it is used to weld railways lines together? No? Sorry you don't get out much do you? Don't have much experience of the real world do you? Don't actually know much about science and engineering which is why you should not be spouting all this nonsense stuff. This is why you are so easily led by all those evil pseudo scientists with their own agenda.
a scientist
Sort the wheat from the chaff
22.02.2007 11:48
The audio here is good good on this, listen from the bottom up:
think
Disinformation - Infiltration, Misinformation, Disruption
22.02.2007 12:29
Agents of disinformation may not “play their hand” until the right moment and disinformation must appear credible in order to be effective. Deceptive evidence is often delivered alongside accurate information.
Disinformation requires intentionality while misinformation does not. In the 9/11 truth movement, you will come across both—evidence, materials, researchers, and groups that either consciously or unconsciously promote false or misleading information. Much incorrect information within the 9/11 truth community likely began as disinformation but has been perpetuated as unintentional misinformation.
Infowar
Homepage:
http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/
here is more evidence from experts
22.02.2007 12:55
a scientist
If explosives were used
22.02.2007 17:31
A question
The Conspiraloons are back
22.02.2007 21:23
Well, it's not.
I have the USG and GWB as much as the next man. But frankly, the theories are as sound as a Labour PPB.
The CT mob seem to forget that we should deal with evidence per the left hand chart.
Architete
Horray, Architect is back!
22.02.2007 23:45
valley of the trolls
Homepage:
http://www.iansimpsonarchitects.com/
Faith and loons
23.02.2007 00:50
Djinn
Actually...
23.02.2007 11:08
Steven Jones has followed the scientific method, but you don't need to see the controlled demolitions to see it was some kind of inside job, there are many many other indicators ot this, like the involvement of alledged hijackers with the intelligence agencies of many countries.
For example see:
No George Monbiot, These Are The Facts of September 11th 2001
John Doraemi
And:
How the FBI protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer
Dr. Peter Dale Scott
And who is the we that Djinn speaks of? If you think that everyone who uses this site believes the official conspiracy theory you haven't really been paying attention have you?
You can't have noticed the Terror War topic:
And you probably didn't notice that there are proven posts from spooks arguing the same stuff are you:
Doesn't it ring any alarm bells when you find you are putting forwards the same politics as disinformation agents?
Who's we?