9/11 Truth Movement vs. 9/11 Truth

[American Dream]

This thread has been extremely enlightening! David Rovics, at minimum, is our canary in the coal mine, showing us that something unhealthy is engulfing the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as it is.

Rovics, someone who agrees that the System is extremely screwed-up, that there is a world elite who must be deposed, and etc., appears to be a LIHOP'er who is not convinced by physical evidence in favor of CD, no-planes and etc. All of this is lumped together in his view as the same smarmy 9/11 Truth Movement, with which he does not agree.

Many millions of others who do not support the status quo, most of them with with less developed or radical politics than he, also hold negative views of the Movement. Equally so, many Truthers hold negative views of his position, as well as that of Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky et al.

So what is a good strategy here? Is it to primarily focus on bringing together a small cadre of activists with the most deeply conspiratorial view of 9/11? I would maintain not. Is it to bring together the broadest coalition possible of those who think things are wrong with the body politic? Not if the coalition is too wishy-washy, and lacks vision, power and purpose.

The best strategy is somewhere in between- where we work to form alliances with people who aren't in perfect agreement with us, yet hold fast to the truth as we know it, keeping our eyes on the larger goals.


My personal goals:

1. Educate large numbers of people to how wrong the current state of affairs is, and what possible solutions might be.

2. Mobilize alliances around a shared vision to build alternatives to the existing social order, as well as to directly confront the powers-that-be.

3. Take collective action, knowing that it is on all of us to be leaders as well as followers, that we will "make the road by walking", and that this process is going to continue for the rest of our lives.



Does 9/11 organizing have a place within this kind of plan? Obviously it does, but I think we have to continually revisit what points are worth fighting about, and where we should agree to disagree, in light of the big picture.

[erosoplier]

Conspiracy theologian
David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Truth Movement and Bush-Cheney’s “stupid” imperialism

By Matthew Singer 03/27/2008

When David Ray Griffin conceived his first book regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001, his interpretation of what transpired that day revolved around the concept of blowback, that the attacks were a byproduct of America’s decades of aggressive foreign policy toward the Middle East. In short, at the time, he bought the official story of 9/11. He wasn’t letting the United States government off the hook for their role in the attacks, but he wasn’t placing culpability where he would eventually place it: squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration.

While researching for that first book, Griffin came across a growing community — concentrated mostly online — of people questioning the circumstances of Sept. 11 as reported by the mainstream media. Now, the retired professor, theologian and longtime Santa Barbara resident is one the leading voices of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement, citizens who believe the horror of that day was not caused by radical Islamic terrorists but was orchestrated within the walls of the White House. Derided in the press as loony conspiracy theorists (if given any attention at all), the group, Griffin says, now includes intellectuals such as himself, as well as architects, engineers, pilots, former military officers and even ex-CIA operatives.

“The change in the movement has been rather drastic, because a few years back, people would dismiss us as a bunch of crazies on the Internet. And then when I joined, it was a bunch of crazies on the Internet and an aging theologian,” Griffin says. “But now they can’t make that charge anymore because there are far more intellectuals and professionals identified with the movement that have gone on record [opposing] the official story.” In addition, he says, polls indicate the general public is beginning to view the conventional portrayal of 9/11 with an increasingly skeptical eye as well. And to what does Griffin, who will speak at the Ventura Women’s Center on March 28, attribute the shifting tide? “Simply the power of truth — the old saying, ‘the truth will out.’ Once you start getting into it and looking at the evidence, it’s overwhelmingly obvious that the official story is false.”

VCR: Do you feel part of a movement?

It's definitely a movement, and like some movements, it moves slowly. It's been rather amazing over the last year, year and a half, the growth of the movement on the intellectual and professional side. I forget exactly how long ago it was when the first intellectual group started, which was Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Then there was Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. There was another group, which I think was earlier, called SPINE, the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11. More recently, we've gotten professional groups. The first of those was Veterans for 9/11 Truth, where you have a growing number of former military officers, and then Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and that organization is growing pretty rapidly. But then the most rapid growth was when Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth was started over half a year ago, and they have over 300 members now. So the change in the movement has been rather drastic, because a few years back, people would dismiss us as a bunch of crazies on the Internet, and then when I joined it was a bunch of crazies on the Internet and an aging theologian. But now they can't make that charge anymore because there are far more intellectuals and professionals identified with the movement that have gone on record [opposing] the official story.

To what do you attribute that growth?

Simply the power of truth - the old saying, "the truth will out." Once you start getting into it and looking at the evidence, it's overwhelmingly obvious that the official story is false ... There is a distinction between the movement, people who actively identify and read about it and go to 9/11 blogger to see what the latest is and so on, and the larger public that gets tapped into when there's a Zogby poll or some other poll where we're talking 30, 40, 50 or even more percent of the population saying, depending on how the question's worded, they don't believe the official story. The breakdown in the fear or whatever factors there are that prevent people from looking at the evidence, the breakdown in those factors is the main reason. For many people, the Iraq War, when people realized they didn't just make a mistake, they lied, when that sunk in, that they would lie about something of that magnitude, which has resulted in more American deaths than 9/11 did, then people say, I'm not so skeptical that they wouldn't lie about this. And when they covered up the truth about the air at Ground Zero, when the White House told the EPA, tell the people the air is clean, and that's going to lead to maybe far more deaths than 9/11 itself did, we're talking 10,000 or 20,000 maybe, that's murder right there. When they see they can sentence thousands of people to a horrible life and an early death, why not 9/11 too? And then the professionals, when you see former CIA agents and analysts endorsing 9/11 books - I've had four endorse my book - then that makes them open their minds enough to open the book, and once they open the book and look at the evidence, I've had very few people who've actually read my book and say, oh, that's just nonsense.

Are you convinced the US government orchestrated 9/11, or do you simply believe there is enough inconsistencies in the official story to warrant a new investigation?

If you read the first sentence of my Debunking 9/11 Debunking, you'll see that I say the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is obvious. It was only in my first book, The New Pearl Harbor, when I was using the term prima facia, saying we have prima facia evidence that it was an inside job. But at that point, that was before the 9/11 Commission had issued its report, so I remained open to the possibility that they could answer the various questions we had raised. In that book, I was simply a stenographer, really, for the 9/11 Truth Movement. I just organized the various arguments and evidence that had been marshaled. But when the 9/11 Commission report appeared and I saw how they treated the evidence, they ignored 99 percent of it, and that 1 percent of it, where they thought they could distort the facts to make it look like it was OK, they did that. That book was called 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, and at the end of that book, I said far from allaying my suspicions that it was an inside job, it confirmed them. Ever since then, I've clearly been on that side.

Do you have a personal theory of what really happened on Sept. 11?

No, and I made a big point of not developing such a theory, and even encouraging members of the movement not to do this, because insofar as there are antagonisms and disputes within the movement, they're related primarily to those things, where people say, well, here's what hit the Pentagon, and others say that's not true. I put my focus on evidence that the official story is false, and that evidence is so abundant and overwhelming, to make the case you don't have to prove what really happened and who did it and so on. It's like if you had a murder trial, and Jones is accused of murder. The defense attorneys can prove that Jones didn't do it without having a theory about who really did. All you have to do is a good alibi and lack of evidence and so on. Likewise, we can show that there is no evidence that al Quaeda did it, there's no way they could have done it, when you look at the details-for example, bringing the buildings straight down at virtual freefall speed. There is a sketch of a theory, that it was an inside job, that explosives were used in the buildings. But what kind of explosives exactly? When they were they put in there? How many were there? All those things some people want to get into. Or the critics say, you've got to have a theory. No, you don't have to have a theory. When you develop a theory, that's what the debunkers love, they want to say, that's nonsense and take attention away from all the evidence we have marshaled to show the official story is false.

What do you think about the more fantastic theories? Do they help or hurt the movement?

Those are the kind of theories I'm talking about. All we need to do in regards to the Pentagon is show that Hanji Hanjor could not possibly have flown a 757, let alone into the trajectory that Flight 77 allegedly took. The best 757 pilot in the world could not have flown that trajectory. Theories are of different levels. The idea that a missile hit the Pentagon isn't as far out as the idea that no planes hit the buildings. I even know second hand a guy who was in the Pentagon who said a missile hit the Pentagon. It appeared I had endorsed that theory in my first book, The New Pearl Harbor, but as I said I was more a stenographer in that book, and I was explaining Terry Maholms theory, a Frenchman who developed that theory, and I explained he had some reasons for it. The point of explaining the theory was to point out the negative argument, that it couldn't have been Flight 77, it couldn't have even been a 757.

The most common theory as to the motive for the government's orchestration of 9/11 is that it was a so-called "false flag operation" meant to justify the War in Iraq. But the whole plot seems overly complicated for what the Bush administration would have supposedly wanted to accomplish.

In the beginning of Debunking 9/11 Debunking, the introductory chapter I devote to both the press, both the mainstream and left-wing press, and all the al-priori reasons people give for saying, oh, it couldn't have been. I keep coming back to, you can't settle these questions by armchair theorizing, you have to look at the evidence. Once you look at the evidence, it's overwhelming that it was an inside job. A secondary question is, if you're going to say it's an inside job, you have to have a plausible motive. Plausible motives aren't hard to come by, and one shouldn't assume it's a single motive. There were obviously various people and agencies involved, and they would have had their different motivations. If you get into why bring down the World Trade Center, one factor is, of course, these were symbols of American commercial dominance of the world, and therefore plausible targets of al Queada, if you're going to do a false flag operation so you can blame somebody, you have to make it look like something they would do, and they would want to hit our military and commercial symbols, so you hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. But there are other big buildings that could've served too. Then you see there were reasons why it would've been nice for the city of New York to be done with those buildings. They were filled with asbestos, the estimate some years ago is it would've cost a billion dollars or so simply to take out the asbestos. When you started thinking through that line of thought, you see Larry Silverstein buys them, and he ends up making several billion dollars. So you've got a win-win situation there. With the Pentagon, if you're going to look at actual motive, you've got to look at what particular part of the Pentagon was it, and it was probably the most difficult part of the Pentagon to hit with an airplane. So you realize there was some particular to go for that part of the building, so start look at what particular people were killed, what were they doing. You have to get to that level of empirical if you're doing to deal with motive.

With regard to the question of imperialism, it wasn't just Iraq. We had declared intention to attack Afghanistan by July of 2001 and I reported that in most of my books. It was almost the domestic front. When you're going full scale into imperialistic enterprise, you want to have the power to stop the natives when they get restless, and here was the PATRIOT Act, already written. 9/11 allowed that to be enacted without any question. Also, part and parcel of the imperial goal was raising defense spending rather enormously. 9/11 was an enormous success from that point of view, when you see that we were already spending as much as the rest of the world put together on military matters. They thought that wasn't enough, so now we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than we were before. When you realize we're talking about the two biggest motives that cause people to do really evil things - lust for power and lust for riches - we're talking about trillions of dollars here, we're talking about control. It wasn't going to just be Iraq and Afghanistan, they had about seven countries on their list. Wesley Clarke revealed this in a couple of his books. They were really talking about controlling the world's oil, and whoever control the world's oil over the next 20 years will pretty much control the world. We're talking about enormous treasures here for people who are motivated by the lust for power and the lust for riches. When you put it in that perspective, you've got plenty of motive. If you want to compare that to the motive the 9/11 Commission gives us, that Bin Laden and his people hated America's freedom, they don't quite compare.

Do you feel the discussion of a possible inside job helps derail conversations regarding U.S. foreign policy in the Mid-east over the last few decades?

When you've got different theories, to go back to the murder trial, you quite often have two different as to who the culprit was. You've got two conspiracy theories, one of them says Jones conspired with these certain people to have his wife murdered, the other says Smith conspired with some people to murder Jones' wife for these reasons. You have to look at both theories and both motivations, but you don't look at motivations in isolation, you look at motivations in conjunction with evidence. You might say, it looks like Smith had the stronger motivation, but all the evidence points to Jones. In this case, you've got all the evidence points to an inside job and also the stronger motivation, arguably at least, was with the ones who wanted a false flag operation as a pretext to enact their policies. That term conspiracy theory always gets used in a completely one-sided way. A conspiracy is when two or more people agree in secret to do something illegal. The government's theory is it was a conspiracy between Bin Laden and a bunch of al Queada members.

We shouldn't think American imperialism began with the Bush-Cheney administration. The American empire has been growing for over a century. We've done unspeakable things over that period. The media may a big deal out of the fact that Jeremiah Wright said goddamn the United States of America. Well, William James said that about 100 years ago in relation to what we had done in the Philippines. If I ever get my book done on American imperialism, the chapter on the Bush-Cheney period will be called the Third Revelation. The first revelation to Americans about our imperialist drives was in that period of taking over Cuba and the Philippines and a few other countries, Puerto Rico and so on. The second revelation occurred with Vietnam. Now we're in the third revelation, where Americans are realizing we are an empire and have done ugly things. When it comes to then what was the real cause of 9/11, the fact that we say, no it wasn't blowback, it was a false flag operation, as long as you put it in context and say it was a false flag operation in order to continue the same, and in fact intensify, the same kind of imperialistic practices we have been engaging in for a long time, it doesn't seem like it would have that harmful consequence.

How does 9/11 factor into this year's election? Do you think no matter who is elected this pattern will continue?

We can hope some of the things Obama says he says simply because he knows what he has to say to get elected, like attacking inside Pakistan whether they want it or not, and certain things he has said in regards to Israel and Palestine. We don't know. I'm hoping regardless of what happens, we get 9/11 revealed, because my argument has been that unless we do, it's likely we'll continue our imperialistic ways, it will just be a change in degree at most. Generally, the distinction has been between more intelligent and more stupid imperialism; the Bush-Cheney imperialism is about as stupid as it can get, because it's so obvious and it makes everyone angry, whereas you had a kinder, gentler imperialism during the Clinton years, and you had very few people complaining about America as an empire. But we were, and we did several really bad things during that period. I've argued that there needs to be a two-fold revelation. Americans need to realize 9/11 was an inside job and realize it was carried out for imperialist reasons, and it they see that, then there might be a revulsion against imperialism and people saying we really don't want to be an imperialist nation. And when people see it doesn't work out so well anyway - a large part of this imperialist drive started out of this previous Depression, and the goal of the United States was to have such a control of the world's economy that we would never have another Depression. Now it looks like, partially because of years of stupid imperialism, we're going to have one anyone.

What's the likelihood of the Bush administration being called to justice in our lifetime?

I think it's unlikely, but it could happen, and it's so important that it does happen that it's very important we keeping working to make it happen. It's possible Kucinich would have hearings, he said he would. My publisher is sending my most recent book, The 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, to a large number of members of Congress. We're doing what we can.

Has this made you more cynical?

I've worked with these issues for a very long time. Some of my books have been on the problem of evil. The capacity of human beings to do what you would normally think of as unthinkable things I have been aware of for a long time. It hasn't made me any more cynical or pessimistic about humanity. What it has done has made me more aware, much more aware of how complicit the mainstream media is, and a lot of people are encouraging me not to use the term mainstream media and say corporately controlled media. There is a good point to that, because mainstream suggests the media are where most Americans are, and that's not right. Most Americans are against the war and have been for a long time. The media have only reluctantly come around and said since it's unwinnable, we're against it too. The way they have treated the 9/11 truth movement, they like to say we don't take sides, we don't do investigative reporting anymore, we just report, he said-she said. They don't even do that. They take the side, they endorse the official conspiracy theory, they ridicule the alternative theory and they will not even report the evidence we use. They'll pick up a couple things they think are absurd and mention those, so they take the point of view of cheerleader for the official conspiracy theory and the debunker. So they're not even doing he said-she said, they're just saying he said and she's an idiot.

link

[isachar]

Ted Olson's purported phone calls with his wife supposedly aboard Flight 77 a fairy tale.

Joe Vialls was all over this early on, as well as researchers in Toronto (?)who documented the fallacy of being able to make cell phone calls from airliners travelling at significant altitude (since verified by myself during multiple commercial airline flights over the last 6 years)

Nothing about the official 911 fairy tale holds up. Nothing.

Yet it doesn't stop the Rovics, Jeff's and assorted other Amen Amy's, deniers and sycophants, and apologists from attacking those who reject the official pablum and seek to have all the lies exposed. Not just those that some deem politically acceptable or expedient.

The facade is crumbling. Witness those on this board who in the past have vehemently attacked any and all who questioned the methods and reliability of the phony NIST report, who now widely acknowledge it to not be defensible. Even they are learning - slowly, albeit reluctantly and truculantly.

As Elaine said to Jerry about his new girlfriend's boobs: 'Fake, fake, fake, fake" (and she didn't mean just one).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=8514

Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials

By David Ray Griffin

Global Research, April 1, 2008

Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: “Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.” According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” saying that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.”2

Ted Olson’s report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation’s support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror.” Ted Olson’s report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.3

However, although Ted Olson’s report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.

Olson’s Self-Contradictions
Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7

However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

The final disintegration of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson’s Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson’s story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.11

According to Olson, his wife had said that “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.”12 This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and boxcutters. This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even “[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build”13), and that the pilot, Charles “Chic” Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as “really tough” by one of his erstwhile opponents.14 Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: “I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”15

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that “the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots.”16

Conclusion
This rejection of Ted Olson’s story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson’s report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.

NOTES

1 This essay is based on Chapter 8 (“Did Ted Olson Receive Calls from Barbara Olson?”) of David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).

2 Tim O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,” CNN, September 11, 2001 (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).

3 This was pointed out in The 9/11 Commission Report, 8.

4 Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/200 ... 91401.html).

5 “America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,” Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 (http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html).

6 In his “Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture,” delivered November 16, 2001
(http://www.fed-soc.org/resources/id.63/default.asp),
Olson said that she “somehow managed . . . to use a telephone in the airplane to call.” He laid out this version of his story more fully in an interview reported in Toby Harnden, “She Asked Me How to Stop the Plane,” Daily Telegraph, March 5, 2002 (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/200 ... 30502.html).

7 I discussed the technical difficulties of making cell phone calls from airliners in 2001 in Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2007), 87-88, 292-97.


8 See the submission of 17 February 2006 by “the Paradroid” on the Politik Forum (http://forum.politik.de/forum/archive/i ... -p-24.html). It is quoted in David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008), 75.

9 United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, Exhibit Number P200054 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecas ... 00054.html). These documents can be more easily viewed in “Detailed Account of Phone Calls from September 11th Flights”
(http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evid ... etail.html).

10 FBI, “Interview with Theodore Olsen [sic],” “9/11 Commission, FBI Source Documents, Chronological, September 11,” 2001Intelfiles.com, March 14, 2008,
(http://intelfiles.egoplex.com:80/2008/0 ... ments.html).

11 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007).

12 O’Brien, “Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane.”

13 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 16
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_sta ... ent_16.pdf).

14 Shoestring, “The Flight 77 Murder Mystery: Who Really Killed Charles Burlingame?” Shoestring911, February 2, 2008 (http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/ ... eally.html).

15 “In Memoriam: Charles ‘Chic’ Burlingame, 1949-2001,” USS Saratoga Museum foundation (available at http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/plane ... bered.html).

16 Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11 (Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2007), 12.

17 Of these two possibilities, the idea that Ted Olson was duped should be seriously entertained only if there are records proving that the Department of Justice received two collect calls, ostensibly from Barbara Olson, that morning. Evidently no such records have been produced.


This article is based on Chapter 8 of Dr. Griffin's new book, "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press," (Northampton: Olive Branch, 2008).

This book reframes the central events of 9/11 as a series of 25 internal contradictions. The only way that its readers will be able to continue to accept the official story is to accept mutually contradictory accounts.

"9/11 Contradictions" may have the best chance of any of DRG's books (or indeed any book) of opening up a new investigation into 9/11.

[nomo]

I'm just waiting for this thread to reach page 9.

[stickdog99]

Hmmm.... post quoting relatively moderate criticism of 'truthers' followed by 4 pages of people falling over each other to see who can be the biggest self-parody of the attitudes the article is complaining about, drifting off topic eventually into posting 9/11 photos and yelling DUUR WTC CD LOOK AT PITCURE!! LOL SHEEPLE

I'm starting to see a pattern forming...

Hmmm.... another bullshit article dismissing the idea that the entire basis of the Global War of Terror (tm) is a sham by ridiculing the worst fringes of the generally informed, intelligent people who have reluctantly come to this conclusion while offering such official conspiracy protectorate chestnuts as "scientists would never mislead us like that" and "if you want the real truth, read Popular Mechanics" is roundly applauded and staunchly defended by the Cat in the Hat, Thing One and Thing Two.

I'm starting to see a pattern forming...

Meanwhile: http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 338#199356

[orz]

Apology accepted.

Access denied.

something that puts a chink in their cognitive dissonance armor.

The dissonance is not the armour in this metaphor. The "information that will reduce dissonance" is.

Man, you put me on a stage or radio show with ANY "debunker"

"There's no business like show business...."

ARGH don't you get that this mentality is exactly the problem here!!?

And I remember when I made the realization (which was long before I gave CD any credence, BTW) that it was something other than a "terrorist" attack --"

The cognitive dissonance I experienced when I realised the WTC attacks were an inside job controlled demolition was nothing compared to that which i felt when I later realised I was wrong about that. I do empathise and can kind of understand why so many people haven't managed to overcome that dissonance yet.

Joe Vialls was all over this early on, as well as researchers in Toronto (?)who documented the fallacy of being able to make cell phone calls from airliners travelling at significant altitude

Yes all those guys certainly proved you can't make a cell phone call from an aircraft by demonstrating that you can occasionally make cell phone calls from aircrafts.

[compared2what?]

And yet, whenever I have asked you, or seen anyone else ask you, to produce any kind of evidence at all for the story you know so thoroughly, you never ever reply.

I do not think there is anything close to enough persuasive evidence to attribute the world-moving events of the last decade solely, or even primarily, to esoteric ritual. I do not deny that esoteric ritual practices by the powerful occur. Nor do I assert it. It strikes me as likely. But why they engage in these practices, assuming they do, and what they have attained by them is something that I see no clear and definitive case for at all. None. However, you do. To you it is clear that it's all to attain esoteric superpowers in league with Satan. To then do what, you may have said, but I don't recall, so please refresh my memory.

Also, please obliterate me. Give it your all.

While yes, that is my belief...I am not bringing my Fortean belief of the world/world events to this thread.

Im talking about the proven 1979-2001 post BCCI networks that spanned from Afghanistan to Sudan to Bosnia and worldwide, dovetailing with world intelligence, corporations, and multi layered interests.

What is it that I assert, within this line of inquiry, do you take issue with?

Are you of the belief that Osama is completely innocent, no such thing as al Qaeda, 9/11 was merely a US inside job?

First of all, that was the most imperceptibly painless obliteration I've ever experienced. It's almost like I still have a leg to stand on! Thank you.

What is it that I assert, within this line of inquiry, do you take issue with?

In the narrowest sense, the unsupported assertion that if you were put on a stage or radio show with ANY "debunker" liberal, conservative or apolitical, you would obliterate them within minutes.

In a broader and, to me, truly urgent sense, the habitual unsupported assertion of belief as fact per se that it represents, especially when it suggests, as the example cited does explicitly -- and as many of your assertions do, either implicitly or explicitly -- that not only do you know things that the people whose beliefs differ from yours don't, but that you are therefore superior to them in the codified, class-based way of all systems wherein the obliteration of inferiors of any kind by superiors with true knowledge is not only permissible, but natural and for the greater good of the world.

The reason I take issue with the latter is that for as long as there have been incompatible belief systems, which is approximately for five or so millennia, give or take a thousand years, is that within that time-span, I can't think of a single one of the almost continuous outbreaks of genocidal carnage or wholesale oppression that have been visited upon large numbers of unempowered people during it in which the beguiling appeal of formally equivalent assertions was one of the several smokescreens that prevented the vast majority of people on both sides of a notional divide from seeing that on a non-notional level, division was not in their own better interests. If this were Middle Earth, and smokescreens were rings, that particular smokescreen would be the one that bound them.

In this reality, you can invest all your time and energy removing smokescreen after smokescreen and revealing truth after truth into infinity, but if you don't remove that one you not only don't understand your enemies, you don't meaningfully understand who they are or what they do well enough to avoid unwittingly helping them perpetuate a smokescreen that serves no one's interests other than theirs, which include the non-figurative obliteration of people whom they view as inferior. If I had the power to awaken anyone to any of the truths to which I subscribe on the basis of information and reasoned analysis, it would be that one. Because although I don't want to obliterate anyone, including my enemies, I do want to prevail against them, at least to the extent of not getting played by their bullshit paradigms. And realistically speaking, also at most to the exact same extent, sadly. Individually, I don't have the resources to do more than that and to state my basis for doing it.

The first two paragraphs of the above do have two unsupported or very minimally assorted assertions of fact: (1) That you frequently present your beliefs as fact in phraseology that explicitly or implicitly suggests that those who hold them are superior to those who don't, and that those who don't are de facto your opponents rather than, say, your fellow men or your potential comrades; and (2) that just about every instance of carnage, genocide, or mass oppression in history relies on or is enabled by the perpetuation of that paradigm by all parties, the overwhelming majority of whom are acting in good faith and out of genuine conviction that what they say and do is necessary to prevent sinister forces from prevailing. And that this is how the minority (aka the sinister forces) have managed to persist through the ages, and to prevail often enough that cumulatively they are now within spitting distance of having prevailed. That's happened before, and eventually it falls apart, but it usually leaves wounds that never heal, so I'd prefer not to see it happen again.

I'd be happy to support those assertions with specific citations if necessary. But I hope it's not necessary.

Are you of the belief that Osama is completely innocent, no such thing as al Qaeda, 9/11 was merely a US inside job?

No. But except insofar as quarreling over such simplistic dichotomies prevents both serious discourse and a practical understanding of the ongoing conquest of the many by the few, via either impoverishment, emotional manipulation, psychological terrorism, or mass slaughter, whether in combination or singly, neither do I believe that they are pertinent questions.

I don't take issue with you personally, and I hope you know that. I regard you as my fellow in perilous times. That's valuable in itself, and I'm grateful for it. I take issue with your method of defining the peril and your definition of it, because I think that by inadequately addressing the perils facing you and me both, they aid it.

ON EDIT: I finished the sentence that was unfinished when I hit submit. Oops.

[slow_dazzle]

Pity b/c there are some damned good insights in this thread.

erosplier - I used to be agnostic (now there's an awful pun if there ever was one) about David Ray Griffin. But his collaboration with Dr Peter Dale Scott suggests to me that DRG is on the level. PDS understands how Deep Politics and Parapolitics work and he doesn't fall into the trap of getting side tracked by single 9/11 issues. He alludes to them in his work but he always sees the little bits in the context of the overall picture of which 9/11 is only a part, albeit an important part. So if PDS is prepared to collaborate with DRG that suggests the latter is on the side of the angels until someone proves otherwise.

compared2what? -

Excellent comment on the never ending nest of Russian Dolls that is made up of demolishing (there I go again) each untruth only to to find yet another doll inside the last one:

In this reality, you can invest all your time and energy removing smokescreen after smokescreen and revealing truth after truth into infinity

On the one hand, the official versions of events can be dismantled with relative ease. On the other they lead nowhere and absorb energy. I know as well as the next person that the collapse of the buildings is a WTF? moment. Seven years on we are no closer to getting to the bottom of it. Forty five years on we know that the Lone Gunman theory is untenable but the perps are either dead or still walking free.

Where do we go from here? I don't know because I don't have the knowledge to even guess. I'm just biding my time until things really start getting a bit nutty once the economy collapses b/c collapse seems inevitable. Today's "rally" was another "dead cat bounce" aimed at bolstering the investor confidence that lies at the heart of the system. The really shitty stuff hasn't been averted, only postponed.

[8bitagent]

Hi All,
Reading this thread is kind of sad. I feel like when we were in homeroom we all agreed to play a game at recess. Now, it is recess, the clock is ticking and we are all arguing over which game to play. Some have kickballs, some have wiffleball bats, some have jump ropes.

Meanwhile the clock is still ticking.

Why don’t we first have a common reference point for a discussion, and then proceed? We can always have another discussion with another reference point later on.

Does anyone have any real complaints about the following author and his books?

Because Peter Dale Scott(along with Sander Hicks, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, etc) present REAL evidence...that isnt always easy for people to collate and digest.

People want CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, FAKE REMOTE PLANES, PENTAGON MISSILES, CHENEY AND BUSH HAVING A CIGAR LAUGHING, and Osama crying going "I had nothing to do with this, Im innocent!"

Thats the mindset of a lot of "truthers", then this Rovics gatekeeper comes out and says "See, theres nothing to questioning 9/11! Theyre all a bunch of loons! The liberals are right to shun these dunces"

This thread has been extremely enlightening! David Rovics, at minimum, is our canary in the coal mine, showing us that something unhealthy is engulfing the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as it is.

Rovics, someone who agrees that the System is extremely screwed-up, that there is a world elite who must be deposed, and etc., appears to be a LIHOP'er who is not convinced by physical evidence in favor of CD, no-planes and etc. All of this is lumped together in his view as the same smarmy 9/11 Truth Movement, with which he does not agree.

Many millions of others who do not support the status quo, most of them with with less developed or radical politics than he, also hold negative views of the Movement. Equally so, many Truthers hold negative views of his position, as well as that of Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky et al.

So what is a good strategy here? Is it to primarily focus on bringing together a small cadre of activists with the most deeply conspiratorial view of 9/11? I would maintain not. Is it to bring together the broadest coalition possible of those who think things are wrong with the body politic? Not if the coalition is too wishy-washy, and lacks vision, power and purpose.

Right, but isnt it MADDENING that liberal activists, researchers and thinkers who know all about the dark undercurrent of global hegemonic and corporate evil...then have a massive cognitive dissonant brain fart when it comes to 9/11?

WHY CANT they ask one very simple question:

Who funds and controls Islamic terrorism? This is what it all comes down to

Incompetence, LIHOP, blowback, etc theories ALL rely on the belief that "al Qaeda" is independent. This is a lie.

People NEVER bother to ask three simple taboos:
1. Who controls/funds Islamic terror
2. Where do the drugs come from and who profits
3. Where to all the missing children go?

Follow these three taboos, and it all leads ultimately to the same nexus.

But the left isnt interesting in asking the tough questions...they rather talk about how we must fight the good fight against evil Islamofascists,
bring in Obama, bring in more conservationist groups, reduce overpopulation, and how funny and rebellious Colbert and Olbermann are.

there's those leftists who have done immense good exposing School of Americas, corporate destruction of the enviroment and population water supplies, war profiteering, genocide, exposing the IMF and World Bank, WTO, etc

then there are those who merely parrot the popular liberal zeitgeist without much of their own thought, like mindless Bill Maher followers

[8bitagent]

ARGH don't you get that this mentality is exactly the problem here!!?


The cognitive dissonance I experienced when I realised the WTC attacks were an inside job controlled demolition was nothing compared to that which i felt when I later realised I was wrong about that. I do empathise and can kind of understand why so many people haven't managed to overcome that dissonance yet.

I dont believe the towers were "CD'd" nor that 9/11 was strictly a US neocon inside job at all.

I believe its much more frightening and complex, and all this blowback/incompetence crap is the most mind numbingly braindead bullshit next to the right wing's "Iraq has WMD's"

The left think its racist to say "how could a cave dwelling bunch of fanatics blow up three towers with boxcutters?" ...THEY are the racist ones for supporting the murder of thousands of Afghanis under Operation Enduring Freedom

I say fuck the left for believing in the right wing's "Islamofascists behind it all" crap. Whats the difference between liberals and right wingers if they both believe the same 9/11 propaganda?

And you damn right many of us are passionate on this issue.

When it comes to the liberals, its like being in a room with a giant green elephant...and we get told were idiots for pointing it out

Hmmm.... post quoting relatively moderate criticism of 'truthers' followed by 4 pages of people falling over each other to see who can be the biggest self-parody of the attitudes the article is complaining about, drifting off topic eventually into posting 9/11 photos and yelling DUUR WTC CD LOOK AT PITCURE!! LOL SHEEPLE

I'm starting to see a pattern forming...

Hmmm.... another bullshit article dismissing the idea that the entire basis of the Global War of Terror (tm) is a sham by ridiculing the worst fringes of the generally informed, intelligent people who have reluctantly come to this conclusion while offering such official conspiracy protectorate chestnuts as "scientists would never mislead us like that" and "if you want the real truth, read Popular Mechanics" is roundly applauded and staunchly defended by the Cat in the Hat, Thing One and Thing Two.

I'm starting to see a pattern forming...

Meanwhile: http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 338#199356

The left's overall failure to see that the War On Terror is a scam, that all they complain about is because of 9/11...which is a sham that killed 3000 people and subsequently more...

is what makes me come to think there's not much difference between "evil right wing neocon Bush followers" and "fighting the good fight anti Iraq war liberals". They both believe that Afghanistan is a good cause, and that the biggest threat is Osama and Islamic boogeymen

[American Dream]

8bitagent wrote:

But the left isnt interesting in asking the tough questions...they rather talk about how we must fight the good fight against evil Islamofascists, bring in Obama, bring in more conservationist groups, reduce overpopulation, and how funny and rebellious Colbert and Olbermann are.

Those people do not represent "the Left" per se. I would term them liberals. In the areas I have lived there is a much greater diversity of opinion of thought at any demonstration or event. The middle-of-the-roaders are represented, sure, and they may believe in the Democratic Party, that writing to their congressperson will suffice, and etc. However, there are always more
"rad" people too, especially amongst the younger generations. These people have no problem with 9/11 conspiracies, government mind control, and other such topics.

So let's be careful about reffering to "the Left" as some kind of monolithic organization. It is not.

[8bitagent]

And yet, whenever I have asked you, or seen anyone else ask you, to produce any kind of evidence at all for the story you know so thoroughly, you never ever reply.

I do not think there is anything close to enough persuasive evidence to attribute the world-moving events of the last decade solely, or even primarily, to esoteric ritual. I do not deny that esoteric ritual practices by the powerful occur. Nor do I assert it. It strikes me as likely. But why they engage in these practices, assuming they do, and what they have attained by them is something that I see no clear and definitive case for at all. None. However, you do. To you it is clear that it's all to attain esoteric superpowers in league with Satan. To then do what, you may have said, but I don't recall, so please refresh my memory.

Also, please obliterate me. Give it your all.

While yes, that is my belief...I am not bringing my Fortean belief of the world/world events to this thread.

Im talking about the proven 1979-2001 post BCCI networks that spanned from Afghanistan to Sudan to Bosnia and worldwide, dovetailing with world intelligence, corporations, and multi layered interests.

What is it that I assert, within this line of inquiry, do you take issue with?

Are you of the belief that Osama is completely innocent, no such thing as al Qaeda, 9/11 was merely a US inside job?

First of all, that was the most imperceptibly painless obliteration I've ever experienced. It's almost like I still have a leg to stand on! Thank you.

What is it that I assert, within this line of inquiry, do you take issue with?

In the narrowest sense, the unsupported assertion that if you were put on a stage or radio show with ANY "debunker" liberal, conservative or apolitical, you would obliterate them within minutes.

In a broader and, to me, truly urgent sense, the habitual unsupported assertion of belief as fact per se that it represents, especially when it suggests, as the example cited does explicitly -- and as many of your assertions do, either implicitly or explicitly -- that not only do you know things that the people whose beliefs differ from yours don't, but that you are therefore superior to them in the codified, class-based way of all systems wherein the obliteration of inferiors of any kind by superiors with true knowledge is not only permissible, but natural and for the greater good of the world.

The reason I take issue with the latter is that for as long as there have been incompatible belief systems, which is approximately for five or so millennia, give or take a thousand years, is that within that time-span, I can't think of a single one of the almost continuous outbreaks of genocidal carnage or wholesale oppression that have been visited upon large numbers of unempowered people during it in which the beguiling appeal of formally equivalent assertions was one of the several smokescreens that prevented the vast majority of people on both sides of a notional divide from seeing that on a non-notional level, division was not in their own better interests. If this were Middle Earth, and smokescreens were rings, that particular smokescreen would be the one that bound them.

In this reality, you can invest all your time and energy removing smokescreen after smokescreen and revealing truth after truth into infinity, but if you don't remove that one you not only don't understand your enemies, you don't meaningfully understand who they are or what they do well enough to avoid unwittingly helping them perpetuate a smokescreen that serves no one's interests other than theirs, which include the non-figurative obliteration of people whom they view as inferior. If I had the power to awaken anyone to any of the truths to which I subscribe on the basis of information and reasoned analysis, it would be that one. Because although I don't want to obliterate anyone, including my enemies, I do want to prevail against them, at least to the extent of not getting played by their bullshit paradigms. And realistically speaking, also at most to the exact same extent, sadly. Individually, I don't have the resources to do more than that and to state my basis for doing it.

The first two paragraphs of the above do have two unsupported or very minimally assorted assertions of fact: (1) That you frequently present your beliefs as fact in phraseology that explicitly or implicitly suggests that those who hold them are superior to those who don't, and that those who don't are de facto your opponents rather than, say, your fellow men or your potential comrades; and (2) that just about every instance of carnage, genocide, or mass oppression in history relies on or is enabled by the perpetuation of that paradigm by all parties, the overwhelming majority of whom are acting in good faith and out of genuine conviction that what they say and do is necessary to prevent sinister forces from prevailing. And that this is how the minority (aka the sinister forces) have managed to persist through the ages, and to prevail often enough that cumulatively they are now within spitting distance of having prevailed. That's happened before, and eventually it falls apart, but it usually leaves wounds that never heal, so I'd prefer not to see it happen again.

I'd be happy to support those assertions with specific citations if necessary. But I hope it's not necessary.

Are you of the belief that Osama is completely innocent, no such thing as al Qaeda, 9/11 was merely a US inside job?

No. But except insofar as quarreling over such simplistic dichotomies prevents both serious discourse and a practical understanding of the ongoing conquest of the many by the few, via either impoverishment, emotional manipulation, psychological terrorism, or mass slaughter, whether in combination or singly, neither do I believe that they are pertinent questions.

I don't take issue with you personally, and I hope you know that. I regard you as my fellow in perilous times. That's valuable in itself, and I'm grateful for it. I take issue with your method of defining the peril and your definition of it, because I think that by inadequately addressing the perils facing you and me both, they aid it.

ON EDIT: I finished the sentence that was unfinished when I hit submit. Oops.

I completely see what your saying. That the in fighting is what keeps the powers at be in power. That the same self righteousness of "Im right, youre wrong" I often exude, is exactly the machinery that perpetuates wars, genocide, etc

That "absolutism" is what brings things like the Fourth Reich about.

That if we cant listen to the other side, have what they say rattle and register in our noggin, then it's merely empty words into the ether...and fighting continues.

But allow me to use an even simpler analogy. Lets say youre in a room, and two people are shouting at each other about the color of the sky. One says its green, the other pink. You stand up and point out that if they both look up, the sky for the last month has been stark blue. Blue.

You have "Cheney did 9/11, US inside job!" on one side, and "Osama did 9/11, US government was incompetent, blowback is the true culprit"
on the other.

To BOTH camps I say wake up. I don't believe this is fostering or perpetuating infighting.

Yes, I do believe that if you put me one on one with any liberal academia, hawkish Republican, or anyone who laughs at 9/11 questioning; I could dance circles around them.

The reason? Because I would bring up stuff they would agree with.

I'd ask why did the Bill Clinton administration protect Saudi charity networks and Osama funding financiers from FBI prosecution? Why did Washington and Qatar protect Khalid Mohamed from the FBI in 1996?
Why did the Clinton CIA continually use al Qaeda forces in the Balkans conflict, and fund the Taliban's rise in 1996?

I'd ask how come none of the helpers in America who were helping the hijackers have been prosecuted. I'd ask how come at every nexus point of 9/11, the hijackers and al Qaeda operatives had intelligence assets/informants, Saudi diplomats, Pakistani ISI, etc. I'd ask how come almost all the money for 9/11 came through complicit Dubai banking systems, with money coming from CIA and Turkish drug smuggling, Saudi Arabia, Pakistani ISI, and corporate slush funds? I'd ask what the real truth behind Mohamed Atta's journey is. I'd ask why the Bush administration is covering up deeply complicit parties in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and actually rewards them

This isnt LIHOP, MIHOP, incompetence/blowback. This is reality.

And I do not see how the liberals or hawkish right wingers could disagree with my assertions.

I simply ask "who controls and funds al Qaeda" and "why hasnt there been any real 9/11 trials that have lead to convictions"

8bitagent wrote:

But the left isnt interesting in asking the tough questions...they rather talk about how we must fight the good fight against evil Islamofascists, bring in Obama, bring in more conservationist groups, reduce overpopulation, and how funny and rebellious Colbert and Olbermann are.

Those people do not represent "the Left" per se. I would term them liberals. In the areas I have lived there is a much greater diversity of opinion of thought at any demonstration or event. The middle-of-the-roaders are represented, sure, and they may believe in the Democratic Party, that writing to their congressperson will suffice, and etc. However, there are always more
"rad" people too, especially amongst the younger generations. These people have no problem with 9/11 conspiracies, government mind control, and other such topics.

So let's be careful about reffering to "the Left" as some kind of monolithic organization. It is not.

I agree, but the liberals should also know there's no monolithic "evil right wing" either...and I know many dislike the Alex Jones crowd, but hes had many "good" people on the right.

I feel most at home with left leaning people, I just feel deeply betrayed by my experiences with the California liberal anti war/anti Bush crowd and the online liberal experience. They don't see how Maher, Olbermann and Colbert is the same propaganda as Hannity, Oreilly and Rush...just in a more smarmy, snarky package.

[AlanStrangis]

People want CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, FAKE REMOTE PLANES, PENTAGON MISSILES, CHENEY AND BUSH HAVING A CIGAR LAUGHING, and Obama crying going "I had nothing to do with this, Im innocent!"

Thats the mindset of a lot of "truthers", then this Rovics gatekeeper comes out and says "See, theres nothing to questioning 9/11! Theyre all a bunch of loons! The liberals are right to shun these dunces"

This thread has been extremely enlightening! David Rovics, at minimum, is our canary in the coal mine, showing us that something unhealthy is engulfing the 9/11 Truth Movement, such as it is.

Rovics, someone who agrees that the System is extremely screwed-up, that there is a world elite who must be deposed, and etc., appears to be a LIHOP'er who is not convinced by physical evidence in favor of CD, no-planes and etc. All of this is lumped together in his view as the same smarmy 9/11 Truth Movement, with which he does not agree.

Right, but isnt it MADDENING that liberal activists, researchers and thinkers who know all about the dark undercurrent of global hegemonic and corporate evil...then have a massive cognitive dissonant brain fart when it comes to 9/11?

WHY CANT they ask one very simple question:

Who funds and controls Islamic terrorism? This is what it all comes down to

Incompetence, LIHOP, blowback, etc theories ALL rely on the belief that "al Qaeda" is independent. This is a lie.

People NEVER bother to ask three simple taboos:
1. Who controls/funds Islamic terror
2. Where do the drugs come from and who profits
3. Where to all the missing children go?

In short, what we've seen lately is two guys "Mr Old Skool" and "Truther Joe" trying to get to someplace, and each are holding part of the map, insisting that the other guy's is wrong.

The reason the 'old skool' activists get worked up is partially because a VERY vocal (minority?) the 'New Coke' Truthers behave like utter dicks in public. I've seen it first hand. Why do so many insist on trying to be Alex Jones?

To call Noam Chomsky a 'gatekeeper' because he doesn't even bother to look at 9/11 is ludicrous and insulting. He's been helping to build a map for decades. I don't AGREE with him, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I also don't agree with the sites like DU and Kos banning 9/11 posts, but if the truthers were smart, they'd game the system by seeding it with posts that had NOTHING to do with CD (regardless of one's personal opinion on the subject), and spend more time focusing on the intersects you mention.

For example, with the recent arrest of Vicktor Bout, there was ample opportunity to bring up intel agency/drug/gun/terror intesects in Bosnia, including the CIA working with the KLA.

Many of the 'old skool' activists I've 'converted' are due to playing up their assumptions. The number one being that "sometimes the CIA works with the bad guys because the enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea. Once they realize that said mantra is the rule, not the exception, they're much more willing to bleed over into other subjects.

And if I see one more video on YouTube proclaiming victory in 'nailing' Larry Silverstein I'm gonna cringe. That's borderline obsessive compulsive.

[American Dream]

8bitagent wrote:

I agree [there is no monolithic "left"], but the liberals should also know there's no monolithic "evil right wing" either...and I know many dislike the Alex Jones crowd, but hes had many "good" people on the right.

Agreed. Here I think we have to differentiate between the "establishment right" and those who are more truly populists, libertarians and/or independents. Alex Jones, I will support on many/most points, but I'm going to call bullshit on scapegoating immigrants for globalization or other such errors.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

"1,3-diphenylpropane."

Gawd, almost noone is discussing the evidence of the actual crimes of one day.

Discussion creep regarding a crime is exactly like the dropping off of explosive pressure as you move away from the epicenter: The pressure on the target is diminished logarithmically.

(This is what proves that OKCity was an inside job, too. That truck couldn't have done the damage. Physically impossible.)

Choose irrefutable facts over theories when they are available. You'll come up with better theories the more facts you incorporate into them.

For instance, a $100,000 cash transfer to Mohammed Atta proves nothing about 9/11.
There's no proof Atta had anything to do with the crime of 9/11 and the cash transfer could've been part of the patsying process.

But controlled demolition is proven and thus so is the massive cover-up.
And it implies how few people might've been able to load the three buildings with thermate and bombs.

Means
Motive
Opportunity
Precedent
Evidence

.....
Here's architect Richard Gage's powerpoint presentation with 438 slides with the whole shebang so you can play 9/11 truth at home-
http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt/index.php

I'm just going though it now myself.

Besides the months of flowing molten metal (denied by NIST) under the three demolished WTC buildings which spells out THERMITE (along with metallurgical analysis and the temperature-color proof of molten metal pouring out of the WTC just before coming down), I just ran across slides 126 and 127.

The gel used to hold the thermite in place was also found.

slide 126-

But sol-gels to hold the thermite would leave tell-tale residue, 1,3- diphenylpropane (1,3, DPP)...

"Pore size effects in the pyrolysis of 1, 3-dyphenylpropane confined in mesoporous silicas"

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/jounals/C ... i=b310405b

(research by chemist Kevin Ryan)

slide 127-

EPA analysis of the WTC dust showed:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Eric Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others":
"1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any other sampling we've done," Swartz said."

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-h ... right-area

http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/xlmreport.di ... _chk=65088

And be sure to look at the metallurgical analyis of unexploded thermite chips in slides 139-143.
A perfect match.

Well, gooooolly, sarge!