Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.


Archive for October, 2010

Read more on the Explosive Truth about the WTC Destruction

On September 9, 2010, joint press conferences were hold in Los Angeles and New York by members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, U.S. Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth. Below is the video of their statements.

An Open Letter to Terry Allen, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, David Corn, Chris Hayes, George Monbiot, Matthew Rothschild, and Matt Taibbi1

by David Ray Griffin
July 6, 2010

According to several left-leaning critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement, some of its central claims, especially about the destruction of the World Trade Center, show its members to be scientifically challenged. In the opinion of some of these critics, moreover, claims made by members of this movement are sometimes unscientific in the strongest possible sense, implying an acceptance of magic and miracles.

After documenting this charge in Part I of this essay, I show in Part II that the exact opposite is the case: that the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center implies miracles (I give nine examples), and that the 9/11 Truth Movement, in developing an alternative hypothesis, has done so in line with the assumption that the laws of nature did not take a holiday on 9/11. In Part III, I ask these left-leaning critics some questions evoked by the fact that it is they, not members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, who have endorsed a conspiracy theory replete with miracle stories as well as other absurdities.

I The Charge that 9/11 Truth Theories Rest on Unscientific, Even Magical, Beliefs

Several left-leaning critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement, besides showing contempt for its members, charge them with relying on claims that are contradicted by good science and, in some cases, reflect a belief in magic. By “magic,” they mean miracles, understood as violations of basic principles of the physical sciences.

For example, Alexander Cockburn, who has referred to members of the 9/11 Truth Movement as “9/11 conspiracy nuts,”3 quoted with approval a philosopher who, speaking of “the 9-11 conspiracy cult,” said that its “main engine . . . is . . . the death of any conception of evidence,” resulting in “the ascendancy of magic over common sense, let alone reason.”4 Also, Cockburn assured his readers: “The conspiracy theory that the World Trade Centre towers were demolished by explosive charges previously placed within them is probably impossible.”5 With regard to Building 7 of the World Trade Center, Cockburn claimed (in 2006) that the (2002) report by FEMA was “more than adequate.”6

Likewise, George Monbiot, referring to members of the 9/11 Truth Movement as “fantasists,” “conspiracy idiots,” and “morons,” charged that they “believe that [the Bush regime] is capable of magic.”7

Matt Taibbi, saying that the “9/11 conspiracy theory is so shamefully stupid” and referring to its members as “idiots,” wrote with contempt about the “alleged scientific impossibilities” in the official account of 9/11; about the claim that “the towers couldn’t have fallen the way they did [without the aid of explosives]”; of the view (held by “9/11 Truthers”) that “it isn’t the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick”; and of “the supposed anomalies of physics involved with the collapse of WTC-7.” He had been assured by “scientist friends,” he added, that “[a]ll of the 9/11 science claims” are “rank steaming bullshit.”8

Chris Hayes, writing in The Nation in 2006, did not stoop to the kind of name-calling employed by Cockburn, Monbiot, and Taibbi. Also, he knew, he admitted, of “eyewitness accounts of [people] who heard explosions in the World Trade Center.” And he was aware that “jet fuel burns at 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit [whereas] steel melts at 2,500.” He asserted, nevertheless, that “the evidence shows [a 9/11 conspiracy] to be virtually impossible,” so that the 9/11 Truth Movement’s conspiracy theory is “wrongheaded and a terrible waste of time.”9

Noam Chomsky has also declared that the available facts, when approached scientifically, refute the 9/11 Truth Movement. Speaking of evidence provided by this movement to show that 9/11 “was planned by the Bush Administration,” Chomsky declared: “If you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence.”10 In spite of his dismissive attitude, however, Chomsky in 2006 gave some helpful advice to people who believe they have physical evidence refuting the official account:

“There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists . . . who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis. . . . Or, . . . submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn’t a single submission.”11

In These Times writer Terry Allen, in a 2006 essay entitled “The 9/11 Faith Movement,” assured her readers that “the facts [do not] support the conspiracists’ key charge that World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by pre-positioned explosives.”12

In an essay posted at AlterNet a few months after 9/11, David Corn used a purely a priori argument to demonstrate – at least to his own satisfaction – that 9/11 could not have been an inside job: “U.S. officials would [not have been] . . . good [capable] enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough.”13 In 2009, after having been silent about 9/11 for the intervening years, he addressed the issue again. Referring to “9/11 conspiracy silliness,” “9/11 conspiracy poison,” and “9/11 fabulists,” Corn declared:

“The 9/11 conspiracy . . . was always a load of bunk. You don’t have to be an expert on skyscraper engineering . . . to know that [this theory] make[s] no sense.”14

Corn thereby implied that, whereas anyone can know that the 9/11 Truth Movement’s conspiracy theory is false, those people who are “expert[s] on skyscraper engineering” would have even more certain knowledge of this fact.

As to how people (such as himself) who are not experts on such matters could know this movement’s conspiracy theory to be “a load of bunk,” Corn again employed his three-point a priori argument, as re-worded in a later essay, according to which the Bush administration was “not that evil,” “not that ballsy,” and “not that competent.”15 Corn even referred to his three-point argument as “a tutorial that should persuade anyone that the 9/11 theory makes no sense.” Although this “tutorial” does not, of course, convince members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Corn explained this fact by saying: “I have learned from experience that people who believe this stuff are not open to persuasion.”16

In any case, although his argument against the inside-job theory was almost entirely a priori, he did make the above-mentioned suggestion that one’s a priori certitude would be reinforced by people, such as “expert[s] on skyscraper engineering,” who have relevant types of expertise to evaluate the empirical evidence.

A fuller statement of the general claim made by these authors – that the 9/11 Truth Movement is based on unscientific claims – was formulated by Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive. In an essay entitled “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Already,” Rothschild wrote:

“Here’s what the conspiracists believe: 9/11 was an inside job. . . . [T]he Twin Towers fell not because of the impact of the airplanes and the ensuing fires but because [of] explosives. Building 7, another high-rise at the World Trade Center that fell on 9/11, also came down by planted explosives. . . . I’m amazed at how many people give credence to these theories. . . . [S]ome of the best engineers in the country have studied these questions and come up with perfectly logical, scientific explanations for what happened. . . . At bottom, the 9/11 conspiracy theories are profoundly irrational and unscientific. It is more than passing strange that progressives, who so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming, are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”17
However, in spite of the confidence with which these critics have made their charges, the truth is the complete opposite: It is the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center, which has been endorsed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that is profoundly unscientific (partly because it ignores a massive amount of evidence pointing to use of explosives18 ), and it is precisely for this reason that the 9/11 Truth Movement has come up with an alternative explanation – namely, that the WTC buildings were brought down in the procedure known as “controlled demolition.”

II Miracles Implied by NIST’s Explanation of the WTC’s Destruction

The main reason why NIST’s theory of the destruction of the World Trade Center is profoundly unscientific is that it cannot be accepted without endorsing miracles, in the sense of violations of fundamental principles of physics and chemistry. I will demonstrate this point in terms of nine miracles implied by NIST’s accounts of the destruction of Building 7 of the World Trade Center (WTC 7) and the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2).

1. The Fire-Induced Collapse of WTC 7: An Apparent Miracle

WTC 7 was a 47-story building that, although it was not hit by a plane, came down at 5:21 PM that day. Unlike the collapse of the Twin Towers, the collapse of this building was not publicized. The 9/11 Commission Report, for example, did not even mention it.19 Many people have, accordingly, never heard of this building’s collapse. A Zogby poll in 2006, for example, found that 43 percent of the American people were still unaware that a third WTC building had collapsed, and even though NIST’s report on its collapse appeared in 2008, many people today still do not know that this building also came down.20 For the purposes of the present essay, in any case, the main point is that, insofar as people profess belief in the official account of this building’s collapse as articulated by NIST, they imply an acceptance of several miracles.

I begin with a fact about WTC 7’s collapse that at least appears to entail a miracle: that it was (according to the official account) the first steel-frame high-rise building in the known universe to be brought down solely by fire. The Twin Towers were hit by airliners, so the official account could attribute their collapses to the airplane impacts as well as to the ensuing fires. But WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, so its collapse apparently had to be attributed to fire alone.

The unprecedented nature of a fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building was expressed a couple of months after 9/11 by New York Times reporter James Glanz. Calling the collapse of WTC 7 “a mystery,” Glanz reported that “experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.” Glanz also quoted a structural engineer as saying: “[W]ithin the structural engineering community, [WTC 7] is considered to be much more important to understand [than the Twin Towers],” because engineers had no answer to the question, “why did 7 come down”21

The mystery was not lessened in 2002 when FEMA issued the first official report on this building’s collapse. Saying that its “best hypothesis” was that flaming debris from the collapse of the North Tower had ignited diesel fuel stored in the building, resulting in large, steel-weakening fires that made the building collapse, FEMA admitted that this hypothesis had “only a low probability of occurrence”22 (although Alexander Cockburn years later, as we saw above, would declare this report to be “more than adequate”).

This cautionary statement by FEMA did not, however, prevent defenders of the official account from claiming that WTC 7’s collapse was not really very mysterious after all. In a 2006 book, Popular Mechanics told its readers what they could probably expect to find in the report on this building to be put out by NIST – which had taken over from FEMA the responsibility for issuing the official reports on the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Citing NIST’s “current working hypothesis,” Popular Mechanics said that WTC 7’s diesel fuel had probably fed the fires “for up to seven hours.”23

Also, using NIST’s then-current thinking in order to claim that “WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated,” Popular Mechanics argued that critics could not reject the official account on the grounds that it would make WTC 7 the first steel-frame high-rise to have failed “because of fire alone,” because, Popular Mechanics claimed, the causes of WTC 7’s collapse were analogous to the causes of the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2: “A combination of physical damage from falling debris [analogous to the damage caused in the Twin Towers by the airplane impacts] and prolonged exposure to the resulting [diesel-fuel-fed] fires [analogous to the jet-fuel-fed fires in the Twin Towers].”24

Popular Mechanics called this twofold explanation a “conclusion” that had been reached by “hundreds of experts from academia and private industry, as well as the government.” This claim evidently impressed many people, including Chris Hayes and Matthew Rothschild, both of whom said that Popular Mechanics had disproved the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Rothschild, repeating Popular Mechanics’ twofold explanation, wrote:

“Building 7 . . . is a favorite of the conspiracy theorists, since the planes did not strike this structure. But the building did sustain damage from the debris of the Twin Towers. ‘On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom – approximately ten stories – about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out,’ Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, told Popular Mechanics. What’s more, the fire in the building lasted for about eight hours, in part because there were fuel tanks in the basement and on some of the floors.”25
Hayes, saying that “Popular Mechanics assembled a team of engineers, physicists, flight experts and the like to critically examine some of the Truth Movement’s most common claims,” reported that these experts “found them almost entirely without merit.” This counter-claim by Popular Mechanics evidently settled the matter for Hayes.26

Also, although Terry Allen did not mention Popular Mechanics, her article was apparently dependent on it. Assuring her readers that she had found it “relatively easy” to undermine the “facts” employed by the 9/11 Truth Movement, she wrote:

“Many conspiracists offer the collapse of WTC Building 7 as the strongest evidence for the kind of controlled demolition that would prove a plot. Although not hit by planes, it was damaged by debris, and suffered fires eventually fueled by up to 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored near ground level.”27
Like Rothschild, therefore, she gave the same twofold explanation for WTC 7’s collapse that had been provided by Popular Mechanics.28

However, when NIST finally issued its WTC 7 report in 2008, it did not affirm either element in the twofold explanation that had been proffered by Popular Mechanics. With regard to the first element, NIST said: “[F]uel oil fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7.”29 With regard to the second element, NIST said: “Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 [the North Tower] had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7.”30

This second point means that, contrary to what Popular Mechanics had claimed it would say, NIST actually asserted that WTC 7 was brought down by fire, at least primarily. In NIST’s words, the collapse of WTC 7 was “the first known instance of the total collapse of a [steel-frame] tall building primarily due to fires.”31

One ambiguity needs clearing up: Although in these just-quoted statements, NIST seemed to indicate that the debris damage had a “little effect” on initiating the collapse, so that this collapse was only primarily (rather than entirely) due to fire, NIST generally treated fire as the sole cause: Besides repeatedly speaking of a “fire-induced” collapse,32 Also, in a press release announcing its Draft for Public Comment in August 2008, NIST called the collapse of WTC 7 “the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building.” This press release, moreover, quoted lead investigator Shyam Sunder as saying: “Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 . . . caused an extraordinary event.”33 The brief version of NIST’s final report said: “Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.”34 The long version said: “WTC 7 sustained damage to its exterior as a result of falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1, but this damage was found to have no effect on the collapse initiating event.”35

It is not wrong, therefore, to say that NIST portrayed WTC 7 as the first (and thus far only) steel-frame high-rise building to have come down because of fire alone. NIST said, in other words, precisely what Popular Mechanics, knowing that claims about unprecedented physical events are deeply suspect, had assured people it would not say.

In doing so, moreover, NIST contradicted both parts of Popular Mechanics’ explanation for WTC 7’s collapse, which, according to Rothschild and Allen, had provided the basis for discounting the 9/11 Truth Movement’s claims about this collapse. To review: Rothschild said that the official account was credible, contrary to the Truth Movement’s claims, because “the building did sustain damage from the debris of the Twin Towers” and the “fire in the building lasted for about eight hours,” due to the “fuel tanks in the basement and on some of the floors.” Allen likewise said the official account was believable because, although WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, “it was damaged by debris, and suffered fires eventually fueled by up to 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored near ground level.”36

But then, when NIST later denied that either the debris-damage or the diesel fuel played a role in the collapse of WTC 7, Rothschild and Allen did not retract their prior assurances. It seems that they, in effect, simply said – like Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live in the 1970s – “Never mind.” Their attitude seemed to be, in other words, that whatever the government says, that is what they will believe. Whatever kind of journalism this is, it is certainly not truth-seeking journalism.

In any case, NIST’s claim that WTC 7 suffered an unprecedented, fire-induced collapse is made even more problematic by the fact that the fires in this building were relatively unimpressive, compared with fires in some other steel-frame high-rises. In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted eight of the building’s 38 floors. In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors. In neither case, however, did the building, or even a single floor, collapse.37
In WTC 7, by contrast, there were long-lasting fires on only six of the building’s 47 floors, according to NIST, and by “long-lasting,” NIST meant only that they lasted up to seven hours.38 It would be exceedingly strange, therefore, if fire had produced a total collapse of this building. The claim becomes even stranger when one discovers that NIST had no evidence that the fires on any of the floors lasted for much over three hours.39

Accordingly, besides undermining the confident explanations of WTC 7’s collapse offered by Popular Mechanics, NIST’s conclusion about this building – that it was the first steel-frame high-rise building ever to be brought down by fire – appears to constitute a rather remarkable miracle-claim.

Click here for the rest of the article Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile – The first scientist who found thermite in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery using the scientific method.

Read more on the Explosive Truth about the WTC Destruction

Monday, 25 October 2010
By Allen L. Jasson

I recently wrote in MWC News arguing the case for Why 9-11 Truth Has Won, due primarily to the weight of irrefutable scientific proof of the two key elements that evidence controlled demolition of the three WTC Towers – free fall collapse and the presence of thermite, explaining the total absence of structural resistance. For this and for other reasons the successful demand by the 9-11 Truth Movement and others for a new, wider, proper investigation is only a matter of time. The flood would come. The recent political squabble in Australia represents further breaching of the dam wall that will bring that flood.

For those who usually give no attention to the list of US client states that rubber-stamp the UN votes of the US and Israel and contribute to the thin veneer of moral legitimacy of its obviously illegal wars for oil and empire, Australia is that large Southern Hemisphere continent between Indonesia and Antarctica. Aside from assisting the CIA in minor ways in its intrigues against the Chilean, left-wing government of Salvador Allende in 1973 the Australian secret services were doing their treasonous part at home by contributing to similar intrigues against the Australian, left-wing government of Gough Whitlam. Many Australians today understand that both of the major parties dominant in Australian politics (just as in the US and Britain) are, in the words of George Galloway “two cheeks of the same backside” and that whichever is in office, which always depends on the consent of the US ambassador and the foreign owned corporate media, the government is a US-compliant puppet no different to those of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kevin Bracken appears to be one Australian who understands the situation and gave some indication of it in his attack on a radio talk-show host with the comment that “Unfortunately cowards like yourself have set the political agenda in this country for too long”. In his position, as Victorian Trades Hall president, he probably knows better than most how Australia’s situation came to be. But Bracken has opened another great crack in the dam wall for 9-11 Truth with his public comments that the attacks of 9-11 were not the result of terrorist activity and that the official story was itself a conspiracy theory that “didn’t stand up” to scientific scrutiny.

Stamping on the Ants’ Nest

Predictably, Bracken’s comments brought out the swarms of angry demands for silence. The talk show host instantly drew the “nutter theory” card and dismissed any suggestion of debate, the political “opposition” demanded that the government take action against Bracken “to send a message that such remarks are unacceptable” and the Prime Minister dismissed the comments as “stupid and wrong”. This pattern of certain opinions being “unacceptable” or offensive is so long established in Australia that it has become part of the “culture”. One is often told, in the manner of a gentle warning, that “you’re entitled to your opinion” but the expression of opinion, particularly if at variance with the accepted wisdom, is generally regarded as anti-social behaviour. Having the audacity to ardently defend an opinion is a social outrage that will attract a reputation for intellectual arrogance or, in the Australian idiom, being “up yourself”. Corporate power has assumed the de facto role of censor and enforcer having not only the capacity to deny livelihood or career advancement but also to deny service when “unacceptable” opinions are expressed (For example).

Opinion flows from the top as a lava of unfounded assertions such as “It was a terrorist attack, and we condemn it” from zealous lackeys to power like Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd while contrary opinions may be dismissed out of hand as “stupid and wrong”, also without any need for rational substantiation.

However, none of these defenders of the nest, it seems, has realised that their exertions only emphasize that if these views were so “stupid and wrong” they would be no threat to the establishment view, and probably would not be shared by more than 50% of the Australian public. Still more, none of these instruments of managed public opinion has the wit to understand that once the accepted wisdom is seen as obviously flawed, the tactic of silencing all debate on the subject only further entrenches the widespread view that there are matters in need of debate and that resistance to it suggests they may somehow pose a threat to established power.

It was the opposition’s shadow Attorney General, Robert Clarke who made the inevitable appeal to “support the troops” in claiming that the remarks “were a direct insult to Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan”; this from a man who should realise their presence there is illegal. Here again, we have remarks reflecting a failure to realise that a public increasingly unhappy about an ongoing involvement in Afghanistan, even those who find offensive any reference to the ongoing murder and maiming of Afghan civilians, may be inclined to consider that it would mean something far worse than an “insult” to Australian soldiers if indeed, it should emerge that they are fighting a war for profit for oil companies based on a lie (particularly if there is little sign of an Australian share in the spoils falling to influential people)..

Losing Their Grip

In general, the organizations of the left/progressive movements have been tirelessly relentless in their persistence in tactics that are now obviously failing, if they ever were successful. (Why?) The unbelievable stupidity of engaging in absurd antics to attract the attention of corrupt, corporate, mainstream media to their causes is still evident and demonstrations are still the tactic of choice despite the now obvious indifference of governments to the numbers and to emerging public disillusion, not only with these forms of dissent, but to the political process in general. The people who own western capitalism on the other hand maintain and apply a knowledge base that grows with experience and usually adapt their methods. Their resort to overworn tactics for stifling debate is unusually inept and suggests that in spite of their now universal daily access to the minds of the masses they are losing their grip.

Given the now widespread awareness of:

•The fallacy of “liberation” of Iraq
•The absence of WMD
•The transfer of Iraqi oil reserves to control of US companies
•The invalid association of Iraq with Afghanistan in terrorism
•The expanded US influence in the Middle East as a result of these wars
•The many other exposed dishonesties involved in initiating them
•UN opposition to them
•Their now obvious and widely acknowledged illegality
•The PNAC call for a “new Pearl Harbour”
•The ongoing racism, violence and savagery against the civilian populations,
and many other matters that are under discussion outside the realm of the corporate mainstream media, it seems all the more surprisingly inept that the establishment reflexes are resorting to tactics of silencing debate.

Given the vast amount of material now available outside the realm of the corporate mainstream media, which not only discredits the official account but also points strongly to the “inside job” conclusion, there is a lot for inquisitive minds to discover when motivated by conspicuously suspicious attempts to silence debate. It has to be conceded that some of this material is trite rubbish; one thread of discussion even asserted that the planes that struck the towers were holograms. But people understand that there will always be this diversionary element. Indeed, it’s an acknowledged tactic in the information wars to infuse such nonsense into the opponent’s camp.

However, returning to my original point as to why 9-11 Truth has won, there is irrefutable science underpinning the key facts that point to controlled demolition. Awareness of these facts will inevitably reach and capture public opinion.

No Honour Among Thieves

We are all compromised by capitalism; it’s only a matter of degree. We are born into a system based on ownership in which all the sources of all the things we need in order to live, love and raise children are already owned, were already owned generations before we were born. Most people don’t give much thought to this; they simply learn to comply with the mechanisms of control that this system applies to them in order to serve their needs and assume the context as given. Consequently, all the way from the corrupt politician who “knows” that playing politics is like wrestling a pig and thinks “the price is worth it”, the compliant journalist who avoids any consideration that if his opinions were different he would not have a job, the many professionals who think that professionalism necessarily involves moral compromise, the soldier who kills civilians for sport and dismisses it as “his job”, the interrogator who says “The Christian in me knows it’s wrong, but the corrections officer in me just loves to see a grown man piss himself”, all the way down to ordinary Joe who knows better than to discuss politics at work, there are degrees of cooperation with the system’s immorality and a general reluctance to see ourselves in the context of the bigger picture: an evasion of responsibility for what the capitalist system we all contribute to and depend on is doing to human beings, human destiny and the planet.

In this context the widespread acceptance of the idea that “Saddam Hussein had to be got rid of” and public concern to “liberate the people of Iraq”, despite universal indifference to their appalling suffering under 12 years of our cruel sanctions, can only be seen as wilful self deception. Similarly, the often heard argument about ‘our’ obligation to the people of Afghanistan due to the disaster that might befall them if we leave, despite the regular slaughter of Afghan civilians every day that we are there and the fact of history that in the late 1970s they had, of their own making, a more open, secular, moderate, tolerant and egalitarian society than ever they could hope for under the boot of western occupation and that it was destroyed by western meddling, is as perverse a notion as the “white man’s burden”. Australians generally understand, and with increasing stake in the nation’s economy according to their social strata, are generally committed to the idea that “if we keep in good with the US and the US gets its oil then our economy will be healthy and we will be able to pay the mortgage and upgrade the BMW next year and all will be well. – don’t rock the boat!”.

I had a very stark encounter with this one day in 2007 in a café in Bruges where I met a group of obviously affluent Australian tourists, all four of them grossly overweight and still gorging themselves on Belgian chocolates and cream-cakes. I was so disgusted with this and their self-congratulatory conversation that I was moved to take them to task over the fact of Australia’s disgraceful involvement in the war in Iraq, in consequence of which millions of Iraqis were without basic essentials, even clean water while they sat here stuffing their faces. One spluttering, red-faced, angry response that emerged obviously from some primordial, irrational, subconscious corner of this unexplored mind was “Every country has the right to defend its economy!”. I was awestruck at what this “Freudian slip” revealed.

Notwithstanding the widespread, vehement opposition to the wars that have arisen in consequence of 9-11 the equally widespread passive, silent coalescence and even support of the kind that parrots the obviously flawed arguments in support of them, is in fact complicity; people who are wilfully deceived or unwilling to voice contrary opinions because they are compromised by their share in the spoils – the paltry crumbs that fall from the table, however vile the crimes that brought the loaf to be cut.

But the wealth gap has been widening for the past 30 years and the rate at which it widens is becoming extreme. The privatisation and increased charging for essential resources, the growth in regressive taxation, tax havens and concessions for the wealthy, the shift of government expenditure from health care, education and public services to infrastructure amenities for capital, corporate subsidies, football stadiums and other sweeteners to established wealth and capital are creating massive exclusion. The suburbs of cities have become people farms full of welfare dependants kept ill educated and ignorant by decrepit and decaying education systems whilst ill informed and diverted by television “news and entertainment”. Greed and corruption in both the government and private sectors has rendered impossible any hope or desire to correct the situation and people of wealth with any vestigial capacity for moral reflection sigh a “ho hum” at the depravity of their advantage. Meanwhile the global, economic ship is already faltering on the rocks of corruption, financial incompetence, outstripped energy resources and a declining, overheating biosphere.

The Effect of Emerging Truth

Kevin Bracken is a prominent person who has voiced key points in the public domain:

•The attacks only worked because the US Government was in some way involved
•It couldn’t have happened unless there was participation from key elements of the American military and government and security services
•The official story for September 11 doesn’t stack up
•The buildings were imploded
•Aviation fuel doesn’t get hot enough to melt steel and no high rise steel frame building before or after September 11 has ever collapsed due to fire
•If they want to stop terrorism they’ve got to look at who was really behind September 11,
These points are only a fragment and have all been said before but very little repeated in the mainstream media – by contrast with the opposite views. They are being met with demands to “shut up” based on hollow and illogical claims they are insulting and disrespectful and unfounded assertions they are stupid and wrong. The union movement, of which Kevin Bracken is an executive, is being chastened into “damage control” with officials being compelled to publicly distance themselves from Bracken’s remarks, which serves only to reinforce the sense of public figures being coerced by power into alignment with the accepted, official wisdom, a phenomenon that has been starkly evident since September 12th 2001.

But even as Bracken was speaking callers were phoning in to ask such things as “I think if you’ve seen the videos of [one tower] – nothing hit it and it fell down. I mean, what’s the story there?” or to assert “The investigation was a joke and most thinking people agree”. Similarly, despite the silence of mainstream media about the facts supporting views contrary to the official explanation, information is circulating and two (of some 500) comments on an Australian, online publication of the story (one of them incidentally from a reader in the US) made the following significant points:

a) World Trade Center 7, a 47-story skyscraper that would have been the tallest building in 35 states and was nearly a football field in length and 140 feet wide, came down in about 7 seconds at 5:20 pm on 9/11 at freefall acceleration for over 100 feet. The only way an object can fall at freefall acceleration is through air. WTC 7 had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns that would have had to [be] removed simultaneously on 8 floors in order for freefall to have occurred. WTC 7 had fires on only a few floors; fires that persisted in any given place for only 20-30 minutes. Ordinary office fires (and jet fuel fires, although WTC 7 was not hit by a plane) cannot exceed 1,000 ºC. Steel is an excellent heat sink and does not reach the same temperature as a fire except over a prolonged period of time. The fire proofing for WTC 7 was not compromised.

b) Even members of the US Govt’s own 9/11 Commission who wrote the official version of events have now labelled the official story a fabrication. The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was all based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. John Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities’ School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report. In his book released last year: The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version is almost entirely untrue… Farmer states clearly in his book… at some level of the government, at some point in time there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened…On that basis alone, even putting aside the compelling scientific evidence that the planes did not bring down the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings, Kevin Bracken is quite rightly calling for a proper investigation so that the truth be known.

Bracken is not alone. Intellectuals all over the world and even members of the Japanese and European parliament, not to mention the “unmentionable” Iranian President Ahmadinejad have publicly voiced doubts or urged debate about 9-11.

What this points to is that there is a widespread public debate going on, despite its invisibility in the mainstream media. It’s a highly informed and astute debate that is sorting the grain from the chaff and there are some substantial facts that this debate will inevitably bring to widespread acceptance with potent impact.

It points to the old saying that you can fool some of the people all the time and even all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. The time is fast approaching when very few of the people are fooled by all the adamant, hollow assertion of the official 9-11 conspiracy theory, or cowered into submission by the bullying coercion of its powerful adherents.

As one Australian trade union official said, regardless of the leadership compliance with demands to distance themselves from Bracken’s remarks, and even question his future in the movement, his comments have kindled renewed, intense debate within the movement and no doubt also among its rank and file membership.

Airing the Linen

The Bush era and the consequent ten years of war have fomented intense international disenchantment with the US. In Australia, the once widespread enchantment with all things America has shrunk to the confines of the entrepreneurial and affluent middle class. The inevitable debate about 9-11 will occur in this context and there is a lot of unclean linen associated with US involvement in Australian domestic political and economic affairs, past and present, which may be dragged out for airing.

Bracken’s comments are just one significant breach of the dam. There will be others, many others, because the world is full of people who will dare to ask for more than a world run by psychopathic criminals; people who can inflict pain suffering, injury, even death without empathy, compassion or remorse. As the debate goes on outside the compliant mainstream media it will intensify because it comes from a human spirit full of imagination and creative energy that lives outside the artificial confines of a bogus social system dominated by people who manipulate it to their own designs and indulgence, people who, by their very lack of scruple, circumspect or conviction for anything other than the accumulation of wealth, rise to dominate it and, having done so, corrupt and coerce others to their own image.

The change is coming. The flood will come.

In Australia, as in other places, there will be wider ramifications.

Read more on the Explosive Truth about the WTC Destruction

By Catherine Herridge
Published October 20, 2010

Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA’s kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned.

Documents exclusively obtained by Fox News, including an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, state that Awlaki was taken to the Pentagon as part of the military’s outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

The incident was flagged by a current Defense Department employee who came forward and told investigators she helped arrange the meeting after she saw Awlaki speak in Alexandria, Va.

The employee “attended this talk and while she arrived late she recalls being impressed by this imam. He condemned Al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks. During his talk he was ‘harassed’ by members of the audience and suffered it well,” reads one document.

According to the documents, obtained as part of an ongoing investigation by the specials unit “Fox News Reporting,” there was a push within the Defense Department to reach out to the Muslim community.

Terrorist dined with military brass?

At that period in time, the secretary of the Army (redacted) was eager to have a presentation from a moderate Muslim.”

Click on link for the rest of the article Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11

Physicist Jeff Farrer – one of the scientists who found thermite in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method.

Read more on the Explosive Truth about the WTC Destruction

In an interview on the Fox Business Network, a retired U.S. intelligence officer accused the official in charge of the 9/11 Commission of a cover-up of intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Appearing on the political talk show Freedom Watch, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer and the author of Operation Dark Heart, a much-hyped new book on the war in Afghanistan, spoke about his mid-October 2003 encounter with Dr. Philip Zelikow, then executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States.

During a fact-finding mission to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, Zelikow’s team was briefed by Shaffer on Able Danger, a DIA data mining project that had allegedly identified Mohammed Atta as a threat to the U.S. a year before 9/11.

Parenthetically, the “Mohammed Atta” identified by Able Danger may have been an imposter operating under a stolen identity, as occurred in the assassination of a senior Hamas official in Dubai. In an interview with a German newspaper, reported by the Guardian, Mohammed Atta’s father claimed that his son had nothing to do with the attacks and was still alive a year after 9/11.

For the rest of the article click here Pentagon Author Exposes Zelikow’s Key Role in 9/11 Cover-Up


By Kevin Ryan
Oct. 16, 2010

There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice.

1.Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?[1]

2.How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?

3.Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?[2]

4.Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).[3],[4]

5.Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.

6.Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?[5]

7.Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?[6]

8.Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?

9.Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?[7]

10.Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?[8]

11.How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?[9]

12.Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?[10]

Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.

A great example was when 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara and I exchanged messages a few months ago. He had written to my local group in an inquiry seeking support for his positions. My response was apparently not to his liking, and he therefore sought something in my own work that could be criticized. Despite the fact that the vast majority of my 9/11 work has centered on the World Trade Center, Army intelligence officer Kara searched through my articles and presentations over the last seven years and chose one minor statement I made about the Pentagon, in March 2006. He then enlarged this into his own emotional statement, suggesting that those who question what hit the Pentagon do “a disservice to the men, women and children who died there that day. Visit the Pentagon Memorial and sit on the bench of the youngest victim.“[11] Kara was most interested in discussing what hit the Pentagon only so that he could turn the issue into an emotional question about the victims. That is usually the case with mainstream media hit pieces, and with intentional disruptors as well.

The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.

“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.”

“How did they really die?”

“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”

“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”[12]

Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? Obviously not.

Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.

People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.

Source A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t

Better Tag Cloud