Skip to content or view screen version

Is the 9/11 "Pentagon Hole" a Psyop to Distract from Real Questions?

Erik Larson | 18.07.2008 13:24 | Analysis | History | Terror War | Sheffield | World

It's understandable some believe "no 757" hit the Pentagon due to the heavy promotion of that idea, but there's no actual evidence. The theory is being used to mock and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement, & to give Congress and the media a reason to avoid real questions about 9/11. The military drilled for 9/11-style attacks, & they came after years of warnings that Al Qaeda intended to hijack planes for missiles.


*NOTE* If you currently believe a missile or Global Hawk hit the Pentagon, that doesn't mean I think you're "Cointelpro" and intentionally spreading disinfo; as I note in the article, I used to believe "no 757" hit the Pentagon- I've used that claim as "evidence" the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is a lie, and I gave out DVD's that promote the missile/Global Hawk theory. If only certain photos are viewed, the "hole" does appear too small for a 757 to have hit the building. I wrote this article to point out the following: the evidence for "no 757" is at best inconclusive and speculative; the reasons 2 out of 3 people who believe 9/11 was an inside job don't believe the missile claims; the campaign to promote the theory may be a "psyop"; other evidence of malfeasance that is less "ambiguous", with links for more information; the goal of a Truth & Reconciliation Commission or full criminal, Congressional and international investigations of 9/11 is better promoted with solid evidence of the falsity of the official story. The Complete 9/11 Timeline, made from thousands of official statements and credible media reports, ties people to other people, places, events and dates; before 9/11 is used to justify any more laws or wars, those who were in charge on 9/11 and in the years before need to be held to account. As Col. Jenny Sparks has noted repeatedly; nothing should have hit the Pentagon- the questions over what hit the Pentagon may be an intentional distraction. If solid evidence of "no 757" is ever produced, I'll gladly admit my error.

Since 9/11 happened, theories have been circulating on the internet, and by DVDs and books, that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. If all someone had to look at was certain DVDs, books and websites, it's understandable why they might think a jumbo jet didn't crash there; in certain photos, the "hole" appears to be too small to accommodate a 757, and there is not much debris visible in photos of the Pentagon taken soon after the attack.

However, when one views other, less heavily marketed websites, and examines the available photos together, it's evident there's an approximately 90' gash along the first floor, with the fuselage-sized hole in the center on the second floor, and space for the engines to pass through. There are also photos of parts and debris that are consistent with an AA 757; landing gear, a wheel hub, an engine rotor, and aluminum aircraft skin- some even with the red and white paint that AA jets have on the fuselage. Available photos of the destruction, damage and debris in the interior appear consistent with damage that would be caused by a jet liner crashing through the building at over 500 mph and getting shredded in the process.

Photos of other crashes show that, counter-intuitively, some jet crashes leave seemingly little debris. Jets are large, but they are mostly aluminum, and hollow. A Phantom F-4 was test-crashed into a wall; it was smashed to bits. A 747 crashed and burned, completely destroying the fuselage. A DC-8, a plane similar in size to a 757, crashed in a parking lot and was obliterated.

There is also damage at the scene consistent with witness reports of a jet liner; a damaged generator trailer some witnesses saw get hit by the right engine, and downed lamp poles consistent with the reported flight path and the wing span of a 757.

You can see all the linked photos and more, plus read a much more detailed analysis in The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman of 911Research.WTC7.net

In addition, this analysis by WhatReallyHappened.com of the video released by the Pentagon, A Plane Identified in the 9/11 Pentagon Security Video, shows what appears to be the exact form of a 757 partially obscured by the guard shack. Of course, this is video released by the Pentagon, it isn't clear, it could be "photoshopped", and does not clearly show a 757. Alone this isn't conclusive; it is another piece of evidence in a cumulative case for a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Further, nearly all of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts on record are consistent with an AA 757 crashing into the Pentagon. While some who were farther away from the crash thought it was a smaller plane, no one who was close described it as anything other than a commercial passenger jet. Some said it sounded or acted like a missile, but NO ONE said they saw a missile. Many said it was an American Airlines (no one said it was another airline), many remembered the colors being silver, red and blue, many noticed the AA logos, many were even close enough to notice the flaps and the landing gear weren't down- and at least 100 reported seeing it hit the Pentagon. NO ONE reported seeing the plane fly OVER the Pentagon.

The Pentagon Eyewitness Testimony Extensive collection of eyewitness accounts with sources, compiled by Arabesque.Blogspot.com

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described A breakdown of what witnesses claimed to see, by Arabesque.Blogspot.com

So, if there's all this evidence that an AA 757 crashed at the Pentagon, and if there's no substantive evidence that anything other than an AA 757 hit the Pentagon, why are the claims that "no 757 hit the Pentagon" so widely circulated that 12% of Americans (about 36 million people), according to this 2006 ScrippsNews poll, believe a missile hit the Pentagon? Certainly, very few people would believe it, if not for the numerous DVDs, websites, books- and now tens of thousands of perhaps well-intentioned "9/11 Truthers" that are spreading this claim along with other information that contradicts the Official Conspiracy Theory. The fuselage "hole", in certain photos where much is obscured by smoke and foam, does appear to be too small for a 757 and there is perhaps surprisingly little debris outside the building and in available photos of the interior (there are not many available; why not? Many must have been taken). Many likely still accept the "no 757" claim at face value because they have not yet been exposed to less heavily promoted material. I believed the "no 757" claim myself at first; Loose Change 1 was my introduction to alternative ideas about 9/11, summer 2005. Previously I had accepted the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory without seriously questioning it. I naively assumed that people would not put out material with such extraordinary claims without checking all the facts first; once I did more research, I became skeptical of Loose Change as well.

Loose Change, one of the most widely-viewed full-length internet films of all time, made much of the "no 757" claim in its 1st and 2nd editions- Loose Change, Final Cut the 3rd edition acknowledges some of the reasons many people who question the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 do think a 757 hit the Pentagon- the damage path and eyewitnesses, for instance. However, Final Cut still incorrectly implies the damage to the Pentagon and "lack of large structural debris" outside is not consistent with a 757 hitting the building. It correctly points out that no part has been positively identified as being from Flight 77, but as you can see from my links above, parts have been identified as being from a 757. Researcher Aidan Monaghan, through use of FOIAs, lawsuits and Requests for Correction, has documented some serious discrepancies about "Flight 77"; for instance, the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) aka "black box" provided to the NTSB by the FBI and represented as being from Flight 77 was "last modified" more than 4 hours BEFORE it was reportedly recovered (see also this Request for Correction filed with the NTSB). Also, the NTSB reports are missing part/serial numbers for the FDRs in question (see also this article about the FBI response to a lawsuit filed by Monaghan).

Loose Change Final Cut also correctly points out that "What hit the building MAY be important; however, our focus should be on why it was hit in the first place". Why wasn't the plane intercepted long before it reached DC? The Pentagon was struck at 9:38 am, nearly an hour and a half after the first sign of hijacking was received at 8:14 am, which itself came after years of warnings and intelligence on Al Qaeda-Bin Laden plans to hijack planes, use them as missiles and target the Pentagon and World Trade Center, as well as current intelligence that the hijackers were in the US. According to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey in a Nov 8, 2004 interview broadcast on CNN, "The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn't do anything to harden our border security, didn't do anything to harden airport [security], didn't do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn't do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn't warn the American people…You [Bush] knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign, I think correctly so, to increase the capacity of that commission's report to be heard by the people's Congress." At the Complete 911 Timeline you can review all the information that the US government had prior to 9/11 that has been made public so far, including what was left out of, or distorted by, the 9/11 Commission Report.

Hijacked planes being used as missiles was a scenario the US military had drilled for; they were even conducting war games on 9/11 that mimicked elements ofthe attacks. Why was the plane not shot down by the Pentagon's anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles? How could the plane have been flown by Hani Hanjour, who could barely fly a Cessna? Why did it hit the recently reinforced section of the Pentagon, opposite the top brass, which was a matter of public record? This section was nearing completion of its renovations, and was mostly empty except for civilian contractors and some military staff, including defense accountants.

Some "Truthers" claim that 9/11 Truth activists who maintain that a 757 hit the Pentagon are circulating disinformation and are "Cointelpro" Agents. Cointelpro was an FBI program, supposedly discontinued in 1971, that was designed to "increase factionalism, cause disruption and win defections". Likewise, the Church Committee's investigation in 1975 found that the CIA had infiltrated most major media as part of a program called "Operation Mockingbird" intended to manipulate and control public opinion. At the time most of the major media outlets were owned by 50 some corporations; now just 5 mega-corporations control almost all the news and information Americans see and hear- if they rely on TV, radio and print media. The claims by the US State Dept, Popular Mechanics and many, many corporate media that the "missile or Global Hawk hit the Pentagon" theory is one of the main tenets of the "9/11 Truth Movement" (and that it isn't true) may also have actually contributed to the belief that it is. Most Americans understand the Democrats, Republicans and corporate media primarily serve Establishment special interests and are willing to subvert the Public interest to do so. People understand that information that might upset the status quo is frequently omitted from media and government reports, or distorted if mentioned. So when the government and corporate media deny something heavily, it likely causes some to give credence to what they're denying. A 2007 Sacred Heart University poll found that only 19.6% of Americans can say they believe "all" or "most" media reporting; 23.9% said they believe "little"or "none", and 55.3% said they believe "some".

So why, after being FOIA'd and sued, has the Pentagon only released 2 grainy videos in which it's difficult to clearly see anything? FOIA requests by Scott Bingham (link goes to Archive.org; Flight77.info is no longer run by Bingham) and JudicalWatch.org only sought records related to what hit the Pentagon; they did not request video or records pertaining to the approach of the plane, so that may be part of the problem. See also this timeline from 911Research.WTC7.net documenting their efforts. But why hasn't the Pentagon released video, if they have it, clearly showing the hit, or even the approach of the plane, in order to dispel the "conspiracy theories"? Is it just reflective of the Pentagon and Bush Administration's penchant for secrecy and control? Are they trying to cover something up? Are they purposely fueling the controversy about the Pentagon in an attempt to divide & confuse the 9/11 Truth Movement, and divert people's attention and activism from real questions and evidence of corruption and malfeasance? It may be some combination of these reasons, and/or in addition to others.

Why would they want to fuel speculation and controversy; aren't they concerned about truth and their public image? The Pentagon's public image has been consistently tarnished by revelations of lies and corruption, and it hasn't resulted in greater oversight or budgetary restrictions, so why would they care? For instance, the "Pentagon Papers" leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, published by the New York Times and later made into a book, proved the DoD was lying about their illegal escalation of the conflict in Vietnam; the 2nd, and maybe not even the 1st, Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, but it was still used to justify war with Vietnam; Operation Northwoods showed the Joint Chiefs were willing to deceive and even kill Americans in order to create a pretext for invading Cuba. More recent examples of scandals without consequences include Donald Rumsfeld's announcement on September 10, 2001 that, "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions"; DoD obstruction and lies regarding the Able Danger program that had identified Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers more than a year before 9/11; the DoD role in the lies and deceptions that led to the attack on Iraq, and their lies and deceptions about the occupation of Iraq.

Of course, they are somewhat concerned about their public image, which is probably why stories like these never get widely covered in the corporate media, when reported at all- unlike stories about missing white women, drunk-driving celebrities or candidates without flag lapel pins, which get covered ad nauseum. Perhaps a better question would be why would they be concerned about something only 12% of Americans believe, and that most people, including 9/11 skeptics, don't take seriously- especially if it isn't even true? I would say they're probably more concerned that currently 81% of Americans suspect a coverup on some level regarding 9/11, according to a 2006 NYTimes/CBS poll. The number of people who believe the Bush Administration is "mostly lying" about what they knew prior to 9/11 has risen from 8% in 2002 to 28% in 2006.The ScrippsNews 2006 poll I referenced earlier in this article also found that 36% of Americans thought it "'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them 'because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.'" A ScrippsNews November 2007 poll asked a similar, slightly broader question, and discovered 62% think it "very" or "somewhat" likely "some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings." And 51% support Bush and Cheney being investigated in connection with 9/11, according to a 911Truth.org-commissioned Zogby poll September 2007.

It could be that the hype over the "Pentagon hole" is itself a massive propaganda-psyop-disinfo-neoCointelpro operation designed to get activists asking the wrong questions, distract from real questions, promote bogus "evidence" and set up the "9/11 Truth Movement" to be embarrassed, confused and discredited, if at some future date they decide to release demonstrably unedited video of a 757 approaching and hitting the Pentagon- perhaps if they start to feel threatened by shifting public opinion, and increased demands for answers and accountability regarding 9/11, and investigations by Congress or an international body? See these articles for more detailed analysis:

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman of 911Research.WTC7.net

The Pentagon Honey Pot by Arabesque.Blogspot.com

CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the 'Smoking-Gun' Anti-Controversy by Arabesque.Blogspot.com

Pentagon Flight Path Misinformation, Stand-Down, War Games, and the Three Mysterious Planes by Arabesque.Blogspot.com

Special Report: COINTELPRO Michael Wolsey's Visibility911.org hosts 4 podcasts on disinformation; interviews with Jim Hoffman of 911Research.WTC7.net, WTC7.net and 911Review.com (not .org); William Pepper, author of An Act of State about the assassination of Martin Luther King; John Albanese, creator of the film Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime; and "audio excerpts from a documentary by Adi Gevins titled Me and My Shadow: A History of the FBI's Covert Operations and COINTELPRO produced in 1976 during the time when the FBI's Counter Intelligence Programs were being exposed."

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformationposted by 911Truth.org

The Complete 911 Timeline hosted by CooperativeResearch.org aka HistoryCommons.org, compiled by Paul Thompson, et al. This timeline contains over 5000 entries, exclusively from mainstream sources; the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 is thoroughly contradicted and discredited by the reports and statements put out by the US government itself, and by reports put out by the Operation Mockingbird media.

A new investigation is needed to determine the details about who in the US government knew what when and what they did and didn't do about the impending 9/11 attacks; it's clear from the public record that the Official Conspiracy Theory about 9/11 (that Al Qaeda/Bin Laden wasn't infiltrated and manipulated by the CIA and allied intelligence services, that they didn't have funding sources with ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan's ISI and the CIA, that they acted alone, that our intelligence, law enforcement and defense agencies couldn't "connect the dots" due to "system failure" and "failure of imagination", and that no one should be held accountable or even investigated for dereliction of duty, criminal negligence and obstruction of justice, or prosecuted for complicity, mass murder and treason) is a fraud.

Articles 33-35 of Kucinich's Impeachment Resolution are reason enough to immediately impeach and remove Bush; but if the Judiciary Committee wants to hold public hearings first, then let them do so.

Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

The problems that led to the success of the 9/11 attacks will not be solved just with impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney, however; it may be that a Truth & Reconciliation Commission modeled on South Africa's will be necessary to uncover all involved parties and determine what safeguards are needed to protect our nation, Constitution and Republic; for instance, who made the single $5 Billion purchase of US Treasury Notes early September 2001? Why have the results of the 38+ SEC investigations into 9/11 insider trading never been made public?

In conclusion: the available evidence indicates a 757 crashed at the Pentagon; not a missile, Global Hawk or anything else. The campaign to get people to believe the Pentagon was hit by a missile, Global Hawk or anything other than a 757 may be a neoCointelpro psyop. Much more solid evidence that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is a fraud can be found on the many links in this article, especially the Complete 911 Timeline. For the sake of our Republic, the Constitution, the People, our nation and our posterity- educate yourself; research and investigate, don't take things at face value and don't trust anyone, including me- check things out for yourself, and what you feel confident about- share with your friends, family, neighbors, coworkers, media and representatives. Advocate and agitate for full investigations of 9/11, with accountability. 70% of the 9/11 families questions were ignored by the 9/11 Commission- demand answers and accountability; full criminal, Congressional and international investigations, with subpoena power and all "persons of interest" testifying in public under Oath.

Erik Larson
- Homepage: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=8161

Additions

Dennis Kucinich's 9/11 related Articles of Impeachment

18.07.2008 15:43

The 3 Articles of Impeachment from Dennis Kucinich that the above article references can be read here:

# Article XXXIII — Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/402169.html?c=on#article-xxxiii

# Article XXXIV — Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/402169.html?c=on#article-xxxiv

# Article XXXV — Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/402169.html?c=on#article-xxxv

There is also another related to 9/11:

# Article II — Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/402169.html?c=on#article-ii

Dennis Kucinich recently has a conference call with activists from 911truth.org:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich talks with Truth Movement -- Listen now/Transcript
 http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20080711175039667

And Flashpoints had him on at the time he tabled these 35 articles:

"A wide-ranging interview with Representative Dennis Kucinich on his articles of impeachment against Bush/Cheney, and we'll speak to Kucinich about why he did it now, and what the response has been"
 http://aud1.kpfa.org/data/20080611-Wed1700.mp3

There is a transcript of this interview on ICH:  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20123.htm

And Gore Vidal has refered to this as "the most important motion made in Congress in the 21st century":  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20099.htm

Chris


Comments

Hide the following 11 comments

why "a Truth & Reconciliation Commission modeled on South Africa's"?

18.07.2008 14:19

Is that really the best you can suggest?

Did you really rummage around your magical top hat ignoring the bunnies, bunches of roses and silk handkerchief bunting and produce "a Truth & Reconciliation Commission modeled on South Africa's" as the most apt way to push forward your audience and readership, who I suspect are supposedly believers in the US republic, in your closing paragraphs?

Are you fan of the "the South Africa Truth & Reconciliation Commission"?

Did it answer all your questions and queries and leave you feeling satisifed?

For what is worth, (and I suspect very little), the morning of that day I knew about the Pentagon before either NYC or Maryland. I had been awoken in the European city where I was and told the news over a sat-phone whilst the CATT crew were whooping delight at their very big arms-fair gig that day in England as trading stopped. But now you say the Pentagon was a distraction.

Gosh and golly.

I would have expected to see much more telly, CCTV and amateur video footage about it by now, if so, and even a few movies with respected plump white men blacking out the screen and giving me sound effects. That must be what you mean by the "psy-op" thing. It's a distraction because we don't go on about it all the time.

crafty.

Just like South African apartheid nuclear arsenals and biochem WMD.

Anyway I'd get a much needed buzz out of inquiring whither you thought the 4th plane was going to "put down".



hmmmmm


Point missed.

18.07.2008 14:49

The entire 9/11 Truth movement is a negative distraction from the real issues not just one of its ridiculous theories.

Gawain


What happened on 9/11 is *a* real issue

18.07.2008 15:11

Of course there are lots, and lots, so many in fact that people can only be active on a few at a time, of real issues. Why some "anti-authoritarian's" think that they feel that they have a right to dictate what issues are "real" and what are not is a bit of a mystery to me...

Why does 9/11 matter? Because it is *still* being used as a justification for imperial genocide in the Middle East and police state measures in the West.

Remember Blair on Newsnight explaining why he was able to win support for the attack on Afghanistan?

"I keep having this mental picture in my mind of August 2001 and coming along to people and saying there's this terrorist organisation in Afghanistan, they are evil people who will try and mount major terrorist attacks on our country, we've got to go into Afghanistan and deal with them."

"I think people would have said to me, you know you must be crackers what on earth are you on about. I mean people wouldn't have even have heard of who al-Qaeda was but a month later it happened."

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm

Also 9/11 had a profound (negative) effect on the anti-capitalist movement:

"September 11th was such a weird event, such a catastrophe, that it makes it almost impossible for us to perceive anything else around it. In its immediate aftermath, almost all of the structures created in the [anti-]globalization movement collapsed."

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/10/383687.html

So, Gawain, would you care to explain what parts of the corporate media's tale about 9/11 are not true, or do you believe it all...?

And, Gawain, can you please enlighten us with your list of "real" issues so that we all know what we should be doing?

Chris


Don't be cruel!

18.07.2008 15:26

I am glad someone is still interested in 9/11 many years after the events. As of yet the entire truth movement have not been able to produce a coherent narrative to explain what happened on that fateful day. The same goes for all those smug people that believe 'al-qaeda-ology'. Neither belief system accounts for all of the facts.

I have long suspected that the witterings of the truth movement and the accepted story are one and the same - rubbish, albeit designed for different market-segments. By analogy, it is like how a multinational food company sell normal 'junk' food that 95% of people buy AND GM-free, 'organic', 'free-range', 'fair-trade' products under a different label to cater for the 5% that are not happy buying the regular product.

With 9/11 you have the 'Osama' story for the majority and 'conspiracy theories' for those that just won't let go. When you look at both of these 'products' the consumer is shoe-horned into believing al-qaeda-ology one way or another. The 'Press for Truth' people believe in 'al-qaeda-ology' as does the likes of 'explosives in towers' Steven Jones as do the 'no-planers'. Perhaps the most devout 'al-qaeda' believers are those that debunk the conspiracy theories. In a game of virtual top-trumps they play the bin-Laden cards, dismissing the crazy claims but never questioning the validity of the supporting evidence for the accepted story.

There is a subtle problem with 'al-qaeda-ology' in that the 'I did not have sexual relations...' Clinton was duped into believing it all way back in 1998 when cruise missiles took out a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan out of the mistaken belief that Osama's buddies were making chemical weapons there. At the same time missiles went into Afghanistan to take out the 'terrorist training camps', however, did you, your news reader or any independent witnesses verify for themselves that this story was anything but bogus?

Many Americans allegedly have short memories, however, when it comes to Clinton and lack of integrity, memories seem to be elaphantine. He is hated for his lying to the public, no matter how much UK liberal apologists try and deny it. These same liberal apologists are also devout 'al-qaeda' believers, the nearest they will go into the 9/11 rabbit-hole is to suggest that the Saudis must have been complicit somehow. Michael Moore helped to explain that line of enquiry in his 'Fahrenshite 9/11'. 'Liberals' bought this with their free-range-oats and gm-free biodiesel, to also find excuses to move on from the story, deeming the Afghan intervention to be 'humanitarian'.

No matter where you turn you will only get nonsense - the accepted story, the liberal way of seeing things and the conspiracy theories are all utter gob-shite. Every narrative has vested interests, whether that is selling wars, movies or tee-shirts. Also, the real story is so 'scary' and self-censored by nobodies that moderate websites like this one that you will never get to hear it.

But does the truth matter? If a small group of people were to set the world into a never ending war on the opening day of an arms-trade fair in London by attacking the heart of the military machine and the stock market, only for the vested interests of the arms-trade to lie about it, would it matter? Not really. Much like how Samson brought down the pillars on the Philistines, the important thing was that the Philistines got their just deserts. Knowing who did it really does not matter. The same here, the world has been brought into a never ending war that has to be never ending because it is against a fictional enemy. Pieces of silver get spent on this war on a make believe enemy, the effect being to control domestic dissent - why, nobody even dares to even dream of insurrection these-a-days. The western 'coalition' has been dealt the same 4th generational, unwinnable war the Soviets had to fight in Afghanistan way back in the eighties. Economic collapse is now well underway for the UK/USA alliance punishing everyone that was stupid enough for believing 'al-qaeda-ology'. The war is more insidious that way and everything that was ever fought/written/believed counts for nothing. The millions of deaths (think Iraq and no healthcare back home) is a small price to pay for the cowardice and ego-centricism of the 'al-qaeda-ology' believers. Only your grand-children will know the truth and how stupid everyone was regarding today's 'missile gaps' and 'red scares'.

Only a few people know the truth and none of them have the heart to tell you. These people have slipped away from the White House, NATO and number 10. Their lives are as complete and content as the Nazis that escaped to South America. Their gods punish them in mysterious ways, torturing and twisting their compassion-less-hearts.

"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men." - Edward R. Murrow, CBS newscaster, 20 October 1953.

Tim Osman


Truth and Reconciliation

18.07.2008 19:20

thanks, Chris, for your interest in the article.

Call me an idiot, but i'm an optimist; if the "powers that be" weren't afraid of the truth and public opinion, they wouldn't tell so many lies, and they wouldn't be spending billions of dollars to "manufacture consent".

to paraphrase John Albanese; this is the information age- the old disinfo models no longer work.

The Web has expanded the mind of the human race, and it's not shrinking; in fact, the expansion is accelerating.

I don't know that the S Africa model is perfect or entirely suitable; that's why i said "modeled" on it. The longer the perps take to start the process themselves, the more aware and ready the People will be once it happens- and it's inevitable.

Erik Larson


RE.

19.07.2008 11:33

"Why some "anti-authoritarian's" think that they feel that they have a right to dictate what issues are "real" and what are not is a bit of a mystery to me..."

In the paranoid world which you inhabit my comment could well be interpreted as dictatorial. Everywhere else its called expressing an opinion.

"Why does 9/11 matter? Because it is *still* being used as a justification for imperial genocide in the Middle East and police state measures in the West."

Yes and if your bogus theories were to be proved the whole world is just going to change over night isn't it? Imperialism has been around just as long as civilisation. All 9/11 did was give an excuse to execute plans for Iraq ect that had been in place for a long time. For those of us whose political lives started before 9/11 the Police state was here too. Remember the Public Order/Criminal Justice act? Ever been to Northern Ireland? That would of course require thinking outside of the 9/11 bubble and having a view of history than is more than 8 years old.

"Also 9/11 had a profound (negative) effect on the anti-capitalist movement:"

Only if you have a completely USA-centric view of the world and all your perceptions are based on whats news on CNN. In Brussells (December 2001) just a few months after 9/11, more anti capitalists took to the streets (against the neo-liberal policies of the EU summit) than were seen in Seatle. The following year in Barcelona the biggest ever anti capitalist mobilisation of 500,000 occurred. Some of us can see beyond the priorites of the corporate media.

"please enlighten us with your list of "real" issues so that we all know what we should be doing?"

That is entirely a decision for the individual. If they wan't to dedicate their lives to the rapidly shrinking, discreditedand and laughable 9/11 truth movement then fine. Some of us believe that they are helping the ruling class by proxy. If people want to concentrate on issues based on undisputed facts about poverty, starvation, enviromental destruction ect, then at least they can get on with it without the need for a never ending and unresolvable 'debate'. Here's a prediction: In ten years time you will be no closer to changing the world with your 'theories' than you are now. But you might just be looking back and wondering if your time and energy was well spent?

Gawain


a view of history than is more than 8 years old

19.07.2008 23:15

Many people who have done work on 9/11 clearly have "a view of history than is more than 8 years old", look at some of the work by Nafeez Ahmed on this site for example:

The Hidden Holocaust - Our Civilizational Crisis
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/388961.html

Creating Terror
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/376665.html

International Terrorism: The Secret History
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/11/356939.html

Ties With Terror: Western-Al-Qaeda Relations in the Post-Cold War Period
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/368971.html

The Strategy of Tension
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/370836.html

Of course tricking the populas into supporting imperial war is not a new trick... what would be nice though would be if people stopped falling for it...

Chris


Truth and Reconciliation

21.07.2008 17:04

Like Thomas Jefferson, I believe the People will make the best and the right decisions, when we have all the facts. "Elites" are losing their power to control information, and 9/11 has woken people up in huge and rapidly growing numbers to the extent of the illegitimacy and corruption, and the failure of our "public servants" to protect our nations and our lives, let alone actually serve the public interest.

News:
Quarter of the planet to be online by 2012
 http://www.itnews.com.au/News/79192,quarter-of-the-planet-to-be-online-by-2012.aspx

Erik Larson
mail e-mail: 91erik@gmail.com


Yes but....

21.07.2008 17:22

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed does not, as far as I am aware, go in for the sort of loonspud theories commonly bandied around on this site re 9/11 and 7/7 ie. insisting it was an inside job (and indeed stridently announcing that this has been 'proved' in both cases), towers brought down by controlled demolition, no planes, holograms, energy weapons from space, no such thing as Islamic terrorists etc. Oh yes, and a rather odious obsession with the 'role of the jews' is never far from the surface either.

If the 'truthers' stuck to commonsense investigations into security failings, cover-ups in the face of incompetence etc, I am sure they would be treated with much less derision. However they do not, and treat every skeptical voice with knee jerk responses of 'shill' and 'spook', so personally I think they are fair game.

My Twopenneth Worth


Indeed...

21.07.2008 17:37

...the fact that the 7/7 'truth' website has, as far as I can see, studiously ignored the work of Nafeez Ahmed's work on the London bombings, while simultaneously reviewing works of utter shite, such as Daniel Obachike's work of libellous, evidence-lite paranoid fiction on the same topic, indicates to me that they will ignore anything, no matter how well researched, if it does not conform to their 'inside job' obsessions. Mind you, having said that, in fairness their review of the Obachike book was quite critical and raised a number of points for the author to address (which, unsurprisingly, he has ignored, - see the comments attached to their review), so there must be at least some more 'grounded' critics in their ranks.

Me again


Yes But - Gawain, Me Again etc should be more exact in your mud slingery

21.07.2008 21:25

To Gawain= Guido Reports?

Three examples of typical disinformation.

"loonspud theories"

And here are those "loonspud theories"

BTW If they are "proved" then they are no longer "theories" they are facts! it's how the Scientific Method works - you have theories "loonspud" or otherwise and you try to prove them.


" towers brought down by controlled demolition, no planes, holograms, energy weapons from space, no such thing as Islamic terrorists etc"

Controlled Demolition is a Hypothesis and not a "lunspud theory" this is a typical disinformation rouse - by conflating and associating a credible Hypothesis based on Empirical Science with real "loonspud theories" you're attempting to obscure this credible Hypothesis based on Empirical Science. Which either means you have no understanding of Empirical Science or you are deliberately misleading, by doing what you're doing

So "Holograms" (for example) = "loonspud theory" and "Controlled Demolition" = Credible Hypothesis based on Observational, Empirical Science" - There is a difference.

And here is another typical disinformation tactic - the contention is that if you believe any of these "loonspud theories" then automatically and by association you are an anti semite.

Is this part of the training or are you just another useful idiot?

"a rather odious obsession with the 'role of the jews' is never far from the surface either."

Your arguments are so tactically similar to the right corporate media approach to this subject, that I have genuine doubts as to your motivations.

Boycott Oil
2%




2%Human