by Qutb » Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:04 pm
Proldic, I was living in France when Thierry Meyssan released his "Pentagate" and "l'Effroyable imposture". It was very interesting and instructive to follow the lively debate that ensued in the French media. Unlike in the US, 9/11 "conspiracy" was broached in the mainstream in France. Now, Meyssan is a smart guy. He's worked for the OSCE, his <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.voltairenet.org/fr" target="top">Réseau Voltaire</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> is in general a good source of information, and in <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.effroyable-imposture.net/sommaire-en.php" target="top">l'Effroyable imposture</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> (The Big Lie), he presented some real information and offered a sound analysis of how 9/11 was used politically. That went unnoticed, however, because his theory that no plane hit the Pentagon became something of a scandal, and his evidence was easily picked apart and debunked. Meyssan appeared in TV debates to defend his theory and impressed no one, and all sides of the political spectrum were quick to distance themselves from his "preposterous" theories (subsequently picked up by Dave Von Kleist). And this "no plane" theory is what he's known for now. <br><br>This is exactly what is going to happen to "controlled demolition", if it reaches the mainstream, and it serves to illustrate the danger of promoting "physical evidence". <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'm thinking this shows their (Public Broadcasting's) involvement in generating this line of inquiry, no?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>That's speculative, there is perhaps grounds to suspect them of some creative editing there, but I dunno. I don't know if Silverstein is "in on it", but he has refused to comment on the speculations about what he meant. I'll just add one more item to your "it's ridiculous to think...." list:<br><br>It's ridiculous to think that Silverstein <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>inadvertently</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> admitted controlled demolition of WTC7, and then didn't make sure PBS edited that part out of the interview.<br><br>People are just too quick to jump on anything that may look like a "smoking gun", without examining it critically first, or considering the possibility that it may be a red herring planted for them to pick up.<br><br>With regard to physical evidence in general, when people have invested a lot of time, energy and prestige in pushing those cases, it becomes difficult to admit that they've been wrong all along. Meyssan still insists that no "commercial jetliner" hit the Pentagon, which sadly detracts terribly from his credibility, and from the potential size of his audience. I think it would be difficult for a guy like Jim Hoffman to come out and say, "well I guess it wasn't a controlled demolition after all". But if you read his "rebuttal" of the NIST report, he really doesn't have much ammunition to attack them with. He tries to explain away the photographic evidence of sagging trusses and bowing perimeter columns by suggesting that it's just refracted light that makes them appear that way. He's so clearly grasping at straws, but he'll probably never let go.<br><br>It's probably never a good idea to use physical evidence if you're going to challenge the "official version" of an event, unless you can be fairly sure about your case and there's no other evidence. The proper evaluation of physical evidence usually requires an expert opinion, which the researchers/activists then become dependent on. If I was in charge of "morale operations" with regard to 9/11 "Truth", the first idea I'd come up with would be to "plant" several "experts" who would challenge the physical case for the "government's position" using bogus science, specious arguments, cherry-picked evidence etc., to make a superficially plausible case. People's natural tendency for wishful thinking would ensure that they would get a following.<br><br>I would also make sure the initial government investigation was very sloppy, to give the impression of "huge inconsistencies in the official version", and featured some planted red herrings. Like, say, FEMA's claim that the north tower antenna falls before the rest of the tower (NIST has shown that the antenna doesn't begin to fall, it's the upper floors that tilt). Later, the proper, independent investigation will of course debunk all that and do the investigation properly (as NIST has done), leaving researchers without the evidence they <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>thought</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> they had. <br><br>And to withhold key evidence, even though it would support the "government's version", to give the impression of a cover-up of the physical evidence.<br><br>As proldic so eloquently pointed out in his last post in the CD thread, contrast the uncertainties of any case which relies too heavily on a specific interpretation of the physical evidence, with the undeniable, uncontested, un-debunkable evidence that doesn't require someone's expert knowledge in some esoteric hard science field: <br><br>The Secret Service knew before Bush left the hotel that morning that several hijackings were underway, yet Bush goes on with his scheduled program, and doesn't interrupt it after the second plane hits the WTC. The Secret Service does nothing.<br><br>The key architects of the war on Iraq had publically stated their desire to attack Iraq for years prior to 9/11, and the need for a "New Pearl Harbor".<br><br>Bush was briefed on August 6, 2001 of plans to hijack airliners and to "strike within US".<br><br>FBI field agents were obstructed from investigating the hijackers/alleged hijackers prior to 9/11.<br><br>Two of the hijackers rented a room from a long-time <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/11/ar911.hijackers.landlord/" target="top">FBI informant</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->.<br><br>Able Danger identified Atta as member of a "terrorist cadre".<br><br>Wargames were scheduled for that day, mirroring what really happened.<br><br>The routines for dealing with a hijacking situation were changed a few months prior.<br><br>Ali Mohammed is proof that US intelligence had infiltrated al-Qaida.<br><br>Pakistani general Mahmud Ahmed, who ordered $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta, according to Indian intelligence, was in Washington on 9/11 and had ben meeting with the CIA, Pentagon, NSC, etc.<br><br>And so on, and so forth. Tying all the undeniable evidence together into a coherent case of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>they must have known and decided to let it happen</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, is something I think could go somewhere. That's a 9/11 truth movement I would support. Many, of course, suspect or are convinced that it goes further, and that US military/intel planned and orchestrated the whole thing. But that's a more difficult case to make, and evidence is much more scarce - unless you're convinced by the physical evidence. <p></p><i></i>
