9/11, 9/11 fifteen years on, latest
Comments 161

9/11: How it costs you friends

by Harvey Burgess


I recently had an upsetting exchange with a good friend, brought about by my assertion that: “The Americans did 9-11 to themselves.” My remark brought to an abrupt end a perfectly calm and rational discussion, over dinner, about Geo-Politics. I saw a side of my friend I had never seen before. If I had confessed to hacking into his bank account and stealing a thousand pounds he could not have been angrier. He was extremely hostile and refused to engage with me on the subject.

Let me admit straight away that this was not the first time that my opinion on 9-11 had landed me in deep water with friends and family. “Why not avoid the topic?” I hear you ask. Well, often I do but, on occasion, when the conversation moves in a certain direction, I feel compelled to express my views. What is extraordinary to me is that otherwise rational, discourse-loving people completely shut down when it comes to 9-11 and treat me as though I am some kind of leper.

In my experience, around one in every five or six people with whom one discusses this subject reacts very badly. What might explain their ire? I would suggest three reasons. Firstly, rather like the antipathy towards telephone sales people within society, there are those who have no truck with so-called conspiracy theorists. After all, both mainstream media and a whole array of well respected, liberal journalists have long painted them as socially dysfunctional losers who spend most of their time on-line in darkened rooms. The Guardian journalist, George Monbiot, has characterized those who, like myself, belong to what is known as the 9-11 Truth Movement, as being:

possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam,” who are “trying to infect me.”

Secondly, there is the strong human impulse to avoid taking on board information that conflicts with our innate belief system and preconceptions. The theory in social psychology underpinning such action is “Cognitive Dissonance.” Put another way, our a priori assumptions will inevitably exclude any amount of empirical evidence.

Thirdly, with regard to 9-11 itself, there is bound to be strong resistance to the possibility that any government could kill three thousand of its own citizens in cold blood. And yet, many of those who refuse to contemplate any wrongdoing on the part of George W Bush and his neo-con cronies in respect of 9-11, are more than happy to accept that the very same regime conducted an illegal war in Iraq which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. This contradiction is what I find so hard to accept. Surely, a government that is wicked enough to carry out mass murder in Iraq, on a false premis, would be more than capable of either planning, or at least being complicit in, the events of 9-11.

If I was seeking to downplay the catastrophe of 9-11 or even deny that it happened, despite the evidence of our own eyes, then by all means take me to task. But I do none of those things. I am just as upset and horrified by 9-11 as anyone else on this planet. I merely call into question who was responsible.

My friend, a thoroughgoing Atlanticist and a man of deep intellect, told me that the only other person who he had ever heard spout the same poison about 9-11 was a taxi driver in the Midlands. If he had been willing to listen to me I would have explained to him that opinion polls reveal that between thirty and forty percent of Americans – at least a hundred million people – do not accept the official account of the events of 9-11 and that the 9-11 Truth Movement contains hundreds of scientists, engineers and former US diplomats and civil servants. I informed my friend that during the six years I lived in the States I attended public meetings and read books on the subject. He was not swayed.

Conspiracy theories are said to be:

a) speculative hypotheses that treacherous and illegal acts were carried out by two or more people and were plotted covertly and

b) always perpetrated by non-State and non-Institutional actors.

I agree with a but not b. I would argue that a government position on such an event constitutes an official conspiracy theory and those who adopt a contrary stance are espousing the unofficial version of the conspiracy theory.

In any event, just because I happen to contest the official narrative on 9-11, that nineteen Saudi Arabians with box-cutters hijacked four airliners and defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history, does not render me an irrational crackpot. All I ask is for a reasoned discussion on the issue and for usually sensible people to stop blindly trusting Bush and the neo-cons on 9-11.

Harvey Burgess is a British writer. He is the author of two books: “Political Asylum From The Inside” (non-fiction) Worldview Publications, Oxford, UK, 2000; and : “Tucson Tales, Bohemians, Bolsheviks and Border Rats.” (Fiction) Sunstone Press, New Mexico, USA, 2013. He has also published short fiction and non-fiction (Sarasvati magazine (UK) and Inkapture (UK), and Tucson Citizen and Tucson Weekly (Tucson, AZ, USA))


  1. pavlovscat7 says

    STOP your fussing folks.. binra has said, “WHO CARES?”…nothing to see here!..move along!. And such an easy to tumble pissant he is too…. if I ca be permitted to say?

    • Smearing shit and assigning it to me makes a poorly executed false flag. Speak for yourself and have the courage to engage with me if you have anything to say. What you assign to me is YOURS.

      • pavlovscat7 says

        And in your much demonstrated philosophy, what you assign to me is MINE also ?? Why don’t you just say, “YEAH YOU ARE!” ? You disappear up your own eductions mate. It’s exisitential crap. When engaged in your rambling diatribes of the psychoanalysis of every ones’ psyche trapped in their subjective ‘reality bubbles’.. observable of course to only the enlightened blowing on their bubble pipes… It’s there that you are the master of two slaves.. When it comes to real contention, to real debate, it is you who resorts to ignoratio elenchi…delivered in the style of an illiterate schoolgirl. The look on Noam Chomskys’ face when the house of credibility that he had constructed over many years..bricked up with a billion words; came tumbling down on two little words, “WHO CARES?”. If you are a victim of anomic aphasia that you have contained in your ‘reality bubble’ of not to be questioned lectures of the professor..then my mistake and my apologies but, your M.O. is the M.O. of Chomsky. And your dissociation from that academic style of your lectures to the silly style of your defences…is also reminiscent of the mighty Chomskey. Here is your M.O. …Header stories of The Offguards’ pages are presented; good and informative and I think in good faith. Comments are invited; and for or against; comments are published under said headers. Then binra enters to deconstruct human credulity in an ocean of irrelevance and by the time the reader has come up for air the intent, the portent, and even the existence of the original story has been supplanted by binras’ genius of observation…also Chomskyesque. Once again, if circumlocution aphasia is the affliction..then it might be efficacious to treatment if you engage, contribute, or disagree with the intent of the articles instead of distracting readers from their intent with your analytical genius of everything but the bones of the story …And yes I do appreciate the irony of myself being lead down your sidetracks. For my sins I have been a tracker and a hunter for over fifty years…absit omen:

        • I am not assigning smear to you. I offer communication you can use or abuse, engage in or pretend to engage in – or of course ignore.

          If there was something in what you wrote that was not ‘AT’ me, or TELLING me (or everyone) that I am as you say – then I missed it.

          When I write, I don’t couch it into longhand personal terms and I don’t much feel it in personal terms, but as meanings which are given form in the sense of an impersonal love – rather than a transactional contract. But by your response you are taking what I say personally as if I am TELLING you (or everyone), that they are as I say – and if you believe that – I understand your response as a defiant refusal to be dishonourably treated. By your own recent comment you grow the art of tormenting your tormentors. What if these tormentors are in your past? Don’t we all tend to respond to events in terms of past association – unless truly present to make a new relationship?

          I write towards a universal appreciation – knowing that there is no universal language, mode of communication or system of thought. So I write from a willingness to join in what truly moves me with whatever is likewise willing and moved. That’s IT! If this irritates you – why do you give it such power to affect you? (I’m not saying you shouldn’t – but that it does not HAVE to).

          If you join with me in ‘battle’ – I cant join in because that is not where I feel life and worth – but I see you banging on my door and so I ask you again, what do you want?

          If what you want IS what you have said to be expressed then you’re done. But if you NEED a specific response and don’t get it – then perhaps you will feel to persist – would you like the last word – the final judgement?
          Is that not the mentality that so many here oppose, and seek to undo, correct, overcome or wall against?

          Outside any ‘personal’ differences – isn’t this interesting and relevant? I remain open to joining with you in dialogue and exchange of idea and perspective. But if my open door is your ‘insult’ – then let it seem closed against you, so that you don’t have to meet the closed door within yourself. Again is this not illuminating of the role of blame as ‘protector’ to a sense of inner conflict? Is this not where diversionary tactic such as 9/11 triggers a coup d’etat while no one notices.

          I’m not prosecuting you – but what you bring to me in this public forum is not only what you think – but example of the pattern of thinking that is in us all in some form or another – that is no less relevant and within the theme than the physics of demolition. Any conceptual construct can be demolished – but a true foundation is formless. I could call it Ground Zero – or the Zero Point. To the mind this may seem non-existence or void – but EVERYTHING that is… IS – the expression or embodiment of energy and information rising at once. This instant regardless of personal and collective definitions and beliefs, meanings and divisions, coherence or fragmentation.

          Reintegrating from the incoherence of a fragmented sense of torment, is a result of re-cognizing wholeness of being – and honouring rather than rejecting and overriding it in persistence of a vengefully wronged righteousness. False god; fake world; insane torment.

          Being moved is not coercive and directly felt – free of the ‘personal manufacture of fake news’. It takes one to know one, but you cannot be a total fake because even the illusion of control is experienced within something True – however cunningly hidden.

          True control is alignment of thought and desire in unified purpose – which will never truly unify AGAINST anything – but is already unified prior to engaging of focus in the idea and wish for conflicted difference. So within the moment of relational experience, intuit ‘upstream’, ‘stand under’ and be in receipt of the movement of being – unadulterated and recognisably free within the appearances of a world made of past associations that no longer serve you.

          And so embrace the new – with new eyes – regardless the baggage of resistance from old choice pattern habits that no longer embody you – and so choice is your freedom to leave what you don’t prefer without giving it negative charge – or else you don’t leave it unchosen at all – but only SEEM to while carrying the denial energetically to then meet its embodiments in your life, your relationships and endeavours, over and over again.

          I like the idea that Pavlov’s cat trained his or her ‘owner’ to provide his or her needs – but only as a reflection of what goes around comes around. Relationship truly is relatING and not a ‘thing’ or an exploiting of ‘otherself’.
          The illusion of power adulterates the true, but is that ok between consenting Soul agreements? – Lived out in SEEMING? And is the nature of energetic consent a vibrational match rather than a consciously accepted decision – that can arise from drifting in unmindful sidetracks of thought and focus?

          Guilt seeks to hide in fear – and false flag is its displacement strategy. It re-enacts its own separation trauma externally as evasion of a dissonance of self – and associated with power to deny and to do so in forms of plausibly justifiable assertions, endeavours, abilities and status. BUT all of that ‘evasion’ is a direct reflection of the inner dissonance – albeit coded to NOT be seen as such by the intent to hide, block and deny awareness.

          ‘Collateral damage’ is assigned definition to sacrifice of life to the necessity of war in the minds of those who identify war with survival. But of what – and for what? There will be a range of deeply invested and mutually reinforcing beliefs – and among them – the belief that those they tormented will rise to bring them torment – and the death and pain they dealt out will come back to target the guilt that is both frozen and burning and felt only as a power directive they take to be life? If that is what they fear and expect – how can they not ‘make war’ on everyone and everything – dressing it up in a show of personal gratifications. And is this not the pervasive absence of true culture that we imbibe from suckling the same sense of ‘life’.

          The mind becomes a deceiver when used to protect a wish or illusion – given status of true. It simply does what it is called upon to do. Don’t fight it – realign true function.

          • pavlovscat7 says

            No more questions your honour……the prosecution rests. and awaits the jury deliberations secret:

  2. pavlovscat7 says

    …al jebr…
    The patriot hasn’t sussed it yet..but embusques’ smirk on their tv sets..was the missing piece of the jigsaw jets:

  3. Mike says

    Anciently, when I was a younger man, i was in the habit of spending my Saturday afternoons at a local tavern with my friends. One such afternoon we were especially raucous and were asked to leave by the management. Dispite the lax drinking and driving laws in effect at the time, there was no question that we would leave the car in the parking lot, and walk several miles home. On the way we cut across a site where a building was in the process of being demolished, in that case by means of a swinging weight. My friends started to tell me about a new method of demolition using placed explosive charges. Even though they were all civil engineering students I did not believe this was possible and these guys were in the habit of pulling off elaborate hoaxes some of which I was taken in, and I suspected that this “controlled demolition” stuff was yet another set up. It was only years later when I was advised by my friends to watch the Seattle Kingdome demolition on TV, that I finally believed them.
    Then came 911. I claim no expertise in the area of structural engineering. A plane hits a building and it falls down, well, I can buy that. But if a plane does not hit a building and it falls into its own footprint then there are questions…. It took me a long time to believe that getting a building to fall down like WTC 7 was even possible
    even with expertly placed charges, now some folks want us to believe building 7 fell down like it did because nearby buildings also fell down….
    Funny thing is, my friends went on to sucessful careers as civil, structual, and mining engineers, but to a man adamantly refuse to discus 911. I must say I have wasted many a bottle of fine scotch trying to pry something from them to no avail. I can’t even determine which way they lean on the topic, it’s as if there is a vow of silence.
    I have no interest as to the opinions of pretty much everybody else, their heads are too full of Brad and Angelina, or the fortunes of thier favoured sports team.

    • Brian Harry, Australia says

      “Funny thing is, my friends went on to sucessful careers as civil, structual, and mining engineers, but to a man adamantly refuse to discus 911. I must say I have wasted many a bottle of fine scotch trying to pry something from them to no avail”.
      “Cognitive Dissonance” It doesn’t allow you to accept facts that don’t coincide with your own understanding….Too many people believe that their government is “good” and wouldn’t do anything “bad”…..which is quite clearly not so.

      • pavlovscat7 says

        Especially if tenured peer pressure is in the mental mix.

    • Any who recognize an act of tyrannous power – may intuitively protect from giving ANY outward sign that may cause exposure to that power and attraction of penalty. 9/11 operates as a declaration of power at a level beneath the rational or surface mentality.

      Terror on such a scale triggers association with tyrannous power in our world and the narrative being shape-charged into the collective mind is a dictate – and not open to open discussion or open investigation. This indicates that tyranny operates a mind-framing upon many who otherwise would normally ask questions and discuss possibilities.

      The protective gesture is “just don’t go there”. This is reinforced by the nature of response in those who feel unjustly denied communication – but perhaps justified in defending against those who hate being lied to and become hateful in reaction. The latter can be infiltrated and inflamed.

      “Too big to fail” is the rationalisation masking the recognition of having been captured or owned by an evil or error whose addressing and correction is believed and felt to now cost too much. “Better the devil you know” leads to eventual recognition that one did not realize the nature and extent of loss of integrity until too late. Under such a dictate one looks to limit loss. Obedience and conformity become the means to gain privilege or position of lessening the loss – and even some show of power within the appearances of the world.

      If another pushes on self-knowledge of lack of integrity in this regard – they will be hated and excluded from their willingness or capacity to bring such communication again. This hatred and exclusion is the signature pattern of a private ‘mind’ under tyrannous will.

      I note that the mind under such attack generally concedes power and yields to an initial onslaught that shapes and frames its response – as the blitzkrieg idea. But in this case the normal channels of response were all significantly captured or set up to fail.

      The belief that such deceit is improbable is the ignorance that it is simply an exemplary display of business as normal – but in a way that dramatically breaks into and reshapes the mind of the surface or presentation reality.
      Being farmed and milked or manipulatively controlled via a false presentation with an underside usually kept hidden is the pattern of the human consciousness to significant degree and within different levels of moral inhibition. Freedom from moral inhibition is the unbridled will to power-gratification – in willingness to use deceit without inhibition to achieve such a goal. This means a denial of the feeling dimension – excepting an undercurrent rage of a sense of power or position denied that fuels such will to power – and is exposed as an immediate and vitriolic attack upon any open disclosure of the ruse or method being employed – often in the ruse of a justifiable victimhood. Recognizing this within ourselves is the key to releasing our part in attracting and feeding it into our world.

      Part of the realm of brazen audacity is pushing out further than would seem possible to see if in fact one can hide such an act in plain sight – with a fall back plan of limited sacrifice if finding there is still a residual capacity of being addressed and held to account. Who steals the mind of the ‘kings of this world’ does not care who is nominally called king.

      • What a complete load of BS. “All kinds of elaborate conspiracy theories”. For such an erudite person he sinks into the denigrative stereotyping language of the non-thinker. I also saw him refer disparagingly to the number (about 1,000 at the time) of architects and engineers within Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Yeah? So where are the 1,000 of architects and engineers defending the physics of the official story. He doesn’t actually deal with a single piece of evidence though. How interesting.

        • Anders Peterson says

          What’s wrong with the evidence that Al Qaeda did it ???

          • Well, Anders, are you at familiar with “Architects and Engineers of 9/11?” Perhaps you should start there. It’s a lot of information to digest. Give yourself some time to carefully assimilate it, to let it sink in. Then when your begin to realize that the buildings could not have come down but by ‘explosives,’ you also begin to twig to the enormity of the logistics that had to be involved in pulling off this operation. A rag-tag outfit like Al Qaeda could not possibly have pulled it off. Only an organization on the scale of some state’s military could have done that, and which military do you think might have been able to have covert access to the buildings?

            But all of this is too far away from you to even begin to contemplate. You first need to educate yourself about the very basis scientific issues.

            Perhaps this might be a good place for you to begin:


          • In addition to what’s wrong with evidence Al Quada ‘did it’ is the trail of evidences showing such ‘movements’ to be a proxy puppet of geopolitical agenda – including a way to induce one’s population to give up rights and powers to a police state that can hide anything under ‘national security’ – even from most political representatives and by a need to know basis, in different degrees at different levels.
            The shock is not that such things are possible and actual, but normal for humans – though I feel normal does not equate to natural.
            Deceit is part of the way the human personality works – exists even – until re-aligned with an honesty of being.
            Masking from power feared , masking of hateful power in terms of love or social acceptability.

            The breaking of ‘reality’ is simply waking to that what we believed true – is not. The choice then is whether to seek and find the true – or seek to get the mask back in place by which to regain such ‘normality’. Alas hating others is the strongest validation for a mask of self-righteousness – and also easily manipulated by clever people of such intent.

          • Where have you been looking, Anders? After posting my response to Chomsky’s video last night I had further thoughts and am posting a much more comprehensive response below. There are links in it that you can follow to learn about who really was responsible for 9/11. I’d start with the 911hardfacts.weebly.com.

            Analysis of Chomsky’s video.

            A 2 minute long straw-man piece stating that the US government benefited from 9/11 (as would many governments) but that doesn’t prove they did it. Identifying motives is always good for your case and truthers will point them out (for example, the Patriot Act came out immediately afterwards), however, no one is saying that’s where the real evidence lies, it just supports it. I would have thought a straw-man argument was beneath Chomsky. I think some people are too silly to even know they’re even using a straw-man argument but you’d think being a smart linguist and all he’d recognise it.
            He says he thinks that it would be extremely unlikely that they would plan it. Also very surprised that he would assert this with all his knowledge. The PNAC document “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” states that the transformation of American armed forces through “new technologies and operational concepts” was likely to be a long one “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbour.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century. Then there’s Operation Northwoods from the 60s and various other indications that they would indeed plan such an event. A good website for a coherent narrative on 9/11 is http://www.911hardfacts.weebly.com.
            His argument against the plan is that it’s certain that it would have leaked. This is a theory that I myself believed before I started looking at the evidence. Evidence trumps theory so even though the theory might seem perfectly reasonable, if the evidence does not support it it needs to be abandoned. 9/11 was actually a massive conspiracy but it simply wasn’t “leaked” as such. However, the truth is totally evident everywhere around it. WTC-7 came down in a controlled demolition – you can watch it over and over right in your face but many people simply don’t see it. There’s much evidence of people knowing the building was going to come before it did (BBC reporter saying it’s coming down 20 minutes before it actually did!) plus so much more on WTC-7 – see http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/#WTC71.

            9/11 was an example of the Hitlerian lie which is: when you tell a lie make sure it’s a whopper. People won’t believe small lies because they’re familiar but a big lie is so alien to them that they believe it … and although there will be traces of the lie people will simply explain them away. The audacity and inhumane criminality of the US government doing this to its own people is simply beyond their ken – as it was to a lot of truthers before they started to look at the evidence. You’ve got to understand the psychology of the neocons: ideologists always end up having an “ends justifies the means” attitude. It doesn’t matter how terrible an act is, if they think it will achieve their (ridiculous) ideological goal they’ll justify it.

            “You couldn’t predict that the planes would hit the World Trade Centre.” I agree with him that there’s no way you’d rely on pilots crashing into the buildings, especially as particular floors were targeted (see 911 Conspiracy Solved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uw_hPUieTo) but there’s remote control, there’s technologies we don’t know about. The evidence suggests it wasn’t the actual passenger planes but what happened to them? Who knows? This was the jewel in their conspiracy – that it’s very hard to know exactly what happened. Planes don’t melt into buildings – it looks like CGI but there was wreckage too. Who knows? It was monstrously clever but truthers don’t need to explain the whole operation, just point out the anomalies that prove it couldn’t be as the official story states.
            “Anyone who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount the evidence.” This is an unforgivably false statement. A significant number of scientists, engineers and architects have said that all three buildings came down by controlled demolition. Last month an article was published by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth in Europhysics News. http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf. Where are all the non-government scientists supporting the “science” of the government reports?
            In life there are plenty of coincidences that can’t be explained. Seriously – this is an argument? Four lumbering passenger airliners somehow managed to fly around the most restricted airspace in the world for a considerable period without being molested by a single fighter-interceptor because of a series of unfortunate coincidences. Yup. The evidence shows very clearly that all the people involved in the FAA and NORAD contradicted themselves and contradicted each other when explaining the lack of air defense on 9/11.
            “All kinds of elaborate conspiracy theories.” What kind of cheaply disparaging language from a linguist is that? On speaking about WTC-7, Lynn Margulis, the National Medal of Science winner in 1999, stated that scientific method demands that you investigate the most obvious hypothesis first. WTC-7 came down exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition so that’s the first hypothesis that should be tested. NIST did not test it first or at all. The elaborate theories have to come from the official story, not the truthers! How long did NIST take over the WTC-7 report and they kept changing their mind about it when there really is a very simple explananation, “controlled demolition”. How do you explain the AWOL chain of command? So on the one hand coincidences abound and on the other there are “elaborate conspiracy theories”. Gotta make up your mind, sir.
            Who cares? That really takes the cake. If you watch this video, The REAL cost of the war on terror, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cb8DPt274U look at how much defense spending has increased since 9/11 and … the state of the Middle East … and how everything has changed for the worse.

            • Anders Peterson says

              It’s evident that 9/11 has benefited the Military Industrial Complex,however,
              that doesn’t take away the fact that planes were hijacked and flown into the towers.

              • Brian Harry, Australia says

                ………While NORAD was asleep?…………and, not one scrap of airplane wreckage at the pentagon………………and NO dead bodies or airplane wreckage in the Pennsylvania field…….No matter how you look at it, 9/11 doesn’t add up under close examination.

                • Once hypnotic trance is complete, the subject will only experience in terms suggested – and simply not see anything else. The power of the mind is that of creating its experience of reality.

                • … and it seems that particular floors were targeted and not for any reasons the alleged hijackers would have … and that companies within the towers had technology that would facilitate remote-control of planes. Watch this video 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk. It’s just so damn obvious that 9/11 was an inside job.

                • Anders Peterson says

                  Yes, while Norad was asleep, before and during the Pearl Harbour attck by Japan,the whole fleet was in port and eveybody was enjoying their weekend.
                  If you affirm that not one scrap of plane was found at the Pentagon,then what happened, was it bombed? By who ?
                  No dead bodies at the Pennsylvania field,well did they dematerialize? If so,how?

                  • Pearl Harbour was pre-warned and those warnings ignored at the highest level. Those highest few willingly made sacrifice in order to enter the war. They did not self-sacrifice – indeed they denied a true account to be investigated or published. As they denied a fair trial to the officers in charge at Pearl Harbour by sacrificing them as scapegoats and silencing their testimony in court-martial when they in fact sought to . After facts come out without being given Media attention – Hollywood makes a movie remake of the original official storyline…

                    That an official theory is proved false or at least grossly inadequate to the facts is not a requirement for those who point to this to prove what did happen or how it did happen. The ‘onus of proof’ is on the Officialdom behind the asserted narrative. Surely millions have died and millions more in misery from the 9/11 switch – for that is what it felt like to me – a switching of reality into a post-truth society.

                    One thing is clear – and that is the USE to which the narrative has been and is being put. The ‘control of history’ is a form of mind-control. Indeed a form of mind erasure – for the undercurrent feelings are still alive but denied acceptance or expression and merely recycle through the generations as long as such denial is operating in the guise of true account.

              • The planes were probably hijacked but by whom? There’s no proof it was the 19 terrorists – no CCTV, no flight manifest, Mohammad Atta travelled from Boston to Portland the day before 9/11 and then caught an early morning flight from Portland to Boston before allegedly taking the alleged suicide flight from Boston. Why on earth would a terrorist risk flying an early morning flight before boarding a suicide flight due to leave only 30 mins after the early morning flight arrived? And even if planes went into the towers who put them there? They certainly didn’t have to be the passenger airliners which is, in fact, what the evidence suggests. Do some research – the evidence is spilling out of the internet.

              • pavlovscat7 says

                No planes….or no brains?…how does an alloy air frame, that birds in flight can tear pieces off.. slice into a steel and concrete building like a hot knife through butter? the great tragic comedy being played out by people who control the world..because they can! is manifestation of Kafkas’ expositions of instinct made artform…a’morality is their truth and the truth is anti-semetic.

            • pavlovscat7 says

              And if you can’t believe Noamey baby.. someone with a stipend from the CIA…who can you believe? We’ve got a few of his, “tell ’em the bleeding obvious but leave 9/11 out of it”.. types here in Oz as well…Phillip Adams not being the least….be lucky truthers..I mean pariahs.

            • pavlovscat7 says

              All damning evidence on the false phrophet Chomsky Flax Girl …..being inclined to poetry I would have just said of Chomskys 9/11 swerves……ignoratio elenchi!
              be lucky truthers.

          • pavlovscat7 says

            Nice bait Anders but..it caught a Thermite …throw it back and wait for a Judy wood.

            • If you realize that Al Qeada are essentially supported and used as a ‘black op’ proxy force – then you can get closer with that idea. But really you are not addressing the issues so much as presuming a ‘reality bubble’ to still be operating for you – in which serious questioning of the actions and intentions of key institutions of leadership, defence and media cannot be entertained. You are therefore unaware of the nature of transnational corporate cartel capture of its host.

              • pavlovscat7 says

                Stop trying to impress yourself binra and try and keep up.

                • Are you talking to me?
                  Or pretending to talk to a proxy of your own imagining?
                  Insofar as you addressed your comment as IF it was a communication rather than asserting a statement of your own world order, I share these reflections of the way a masked intent uses proxies to believe its own spin.

                  Keep up with ???
                  Or abide AS the unfolding recognition of?
                  To human ‘race’ or human being?
                  Stop the mind that makes the world in its own image – and know the Inheritance it thought to run off with AND wasted. Such a ‘mind’ is a deceiver to a wish to BE deceived.

                  Are you invested in a counter 9/11 narrative or desiring to uncover the truth of your own relationship? – because without relationship – there is no real communication – but only assertion of ‘narrative control’.

                  9/11 illuminates narrative control writ large. Like turning a switch in the collective mind – but each of us elects whether to be switched into fear-minded reaction or to abide through fear awake. To acknowledge and enquire into the nature of current fears or to invest in delay as ongoing notional security.

                  I hold that no matter what ‘good and evil’ proxies or patsy’s or props are used, the purpose of a reintegrating consciousness is served by the revealing of the device – and the purpose you hold is your own ‘mind’ from which to live – be that freely accepted or terror imprinted.

              • pavlovscat7 says

                You are the king binra..Where did you learn that circumlocution aphasia?..it reads like something out of the new age gurus’ coaching course. You deconstruct your own depositions as you lay them down. You build an irrelevant prolix fence and then sit on it. And like an analogue event-horizon..your periphrasis returns from whence it came….where the sun don’t shine. Just for the nonce though.. and In a dialect we can accept..how do you think the WTC buildings were deconstructed. And then go back to your usual schtik. It’s a hoot!

                • You could just say that you don’t understand me, but it seems you think you understand what you ‘make’ of me – and that is your choice – not mine.
                  I have no doubt the buildings were controlled demolition – but so what?
                  I have no doubt that 9/11 was an inside job – but so what?
                  What is your rant in aid of or purposed to achieve?
                  What difference to you ‘what I think’? when according to you I am unworthy and invalid?
                  What is going on for you pavlovscat7?
                  I see you fighting shadows that are not there – but don’t take it from me. It is what you think that matters to you.

              • pavlovscat7 says

                I could just say I don’t understand you..as you presume to auto suggest to the audience..but there seems to be a reply veto on your current posts. You say 9/11 was a controlled demolition and then give the Chomsky defence, “WHO CARES?” I was hoping you were simply an intellectomaniac , instructing the students on their subjective ‘reality bubbles’ from your place in the ‘real reality,’.. but I see you are something additional. Your buisness is the buisness of Chomsky and your defence is the Chomsky defence. ………… Your turn Gatekeeper

      • fotovitamina says

        This is SOOO infuriating, coming from the “Doctor of Truth’, the ‘dissident activist in Chief’, the author of “Manufacturing Consent”, how can it be??? my best friend says he just simply is NOT the same person, somehow after 911, Dr. Chomsky has been substituted by some body snatcher, a double, a doppleganger of sorts. HOW, can he say the evidence is laughable? HOW can he claim we, the people who are genuinely interested in the truth, ‘are taking away attention from what is really important’? i wonder what is more important than finding out WHO is really responsible for all these past and present and continued innocent DEATHS??? HOW can he say “WHO CARES” about who is responsible for JFK’s death? He is maybe showing is age now. He has become irrelevant. Bye Dr Chomsky.

        • A NIST Scientist has just woken up to 9/11 and is very angry that he had his head in the sand for the past 15 years. Here is a rather brilliant film presenting his view of 911 reality:

          Stand for the Truth: A Government Researcher Speaks Out

  4. Georg Monbiot`s opinions are static and gather dust he fell in with the elite awhile back.

    “Winning the safety argument is crucial, she says, if the industry is to survive: “As more people understand the processes, and realise that most big accidents have been because of old technology, then nuclear has a future as part of any energy mix.” And with scientists such as Professor James Lovelock and critics such as the environmental activist George Monbiot coming on side, she is now even more confident.”

    • Jerome Fryer says

      It is worth keeping in mind that most of the Neo-con intelligentsia are ex-lefties. Most people are corruptible, and the few that aren’t can serve as exemplars of how diverse and free your political system is.

          • Brian Harry, Australia says

            “Fryer” is just a “shit- stirrer”……….

              • Brian Harry, Australia says

                I acknowledge you stinging knuckle rap, and offer my sincere apology for offending ‘said person’. I’ll try to do better in future…………..

        • “The Power of Nightmares” by Adam Curtis is a series of three freely online BBC documentaries tread a fine line by telling a story rather than the usual critique. Part of that story as was of the disaffection of many left-leaning liberals with the outcomes of their ideas and a switch to the neo-con or a more tightly managed and controlled society. However the premise of the story was that when the dream by which people were unified and incentivised (engineered) fell apart – the power of the nightmare was brought in to ‘control’ the dangerous forces that were seen to threaten society (at least as they define it).
          Carrot and stick? – or awakened responsibility?
          Left and right are polarities of relational and individual virtue and responsibility. As I see – we are both – and more! – but tend to be polarised in identity of fear or hatred of a polarised opposite – with no true range of flexibility of response. Centrism is a static positioning defence that neutralizes the middle range as a form of avoidance of extreme – yet is then open to being worked or manipulated by a masking of extremism in terms of an expanding centre that incorporates extremes of say corporate plunder with extremes of central social control within a technocracy that is run by the wielders of narrative and laws built upon it.

          I noted in Adam Curtis’s most recent documentary “Bitter Lake” – which is a compilation of film from archives with minimal narration and maximal immersion – there was no acknowledgement of the first secret use of ‘Wahhabi’ terrorism by the British Government. ( I paused to find a link but found a trail of disinfo regarding what looks very like to be a false narrative on the founding of Wahhabi by British intelligence). My current impression is that the Saud dynasty and its Wahhabist forces was secretly backed by the British Government to displace a non compliant regime with a puppet government. In using the term ‘British Government – I am not discounting elements of infiltration and subversion within it. Deceit is a weapon of the intent to dominate and prevail over. If we can observe it operating in our own mind, it should be no surprise to find it operating in our world. However the goal of dominating others can be found to cost more than it promises and lose our allegiance and support in favour of regaining undistorted communication – which also begins within our self.

  5. bevin says

    I’m not sure who was responsible for 9/11. There is no reason to suppose that “19 Saudis armed with boxcutters etc” could not have hi-jacked airliners. Or that, put to the test, the Air Defences would prove to be one of the most efficient means ever devised for transferring money from the pockets of the poor into the bank accounts of the filthy rich.
    But that leaves most of what happened, from the collapse of the buildings to the presence in one of the aircraft of a CNN reporter and Bush cabinet member’s wife, retailing the ‘official story’ by cell phone as it was happening.
    There comes a point when, even the most sincere desire to believe that a bunch of justifiably angry Arabs could cause such mayhem in the imperial epicentre, dissolves before that “Come on, now! There are some things (think WTC 7) that are incredible.

    As to the idea that the government (any government) would balk at killing 3000 of ‘its own people’, my guess is that that many Americans die every week for want of basic emergency dental care. And babies, as we know, have a higher mortality rate than in any of the moderately civilised lands. Killing ‘their own people’ was already the stock in trade of America before Plymouth Rock came by its name.
    So, while I’d really like to believe, as I did 15 years ago, that 9/11 was blowback and represented a potential watershed in the USA’s political education. And while I still don’t believe that the US government carried out or planned the attack (because that isn’t the way that government works in the USA, which is largely governed by other agents) there is no doubt at all, in my mind, that this was a job designed to benefit the hegemonists and warmongers (who are all insane.)

    • bevin says

      “But that leaves most of what happened, from the collapse of the buildings to the presence in one of the aircraft of a CNN reporter and Bush cabinet member’s wife, retailing the ‘official story’ by cell phone as it was happening, unexplained.”
      Some people complain that they don’t have an editing facility, for my own part, I admit that I’m just too lazy to re-read.

      • BigB says

        Of course the sinister twist of the ‘Olson cellphone call’ was that it never happened. The plane (UA 77) was at altitude and the technology to make the call didn’t even exist until 2004. That this was the main source of the hijacking and the sole reference to boxcutters, (not to mention the Pentagon) – what does this tell you about the official narrative?

        • Exactly so. The FBI has admitted that no calls were made from the planes that day i.e. they were all faked. Only the real perpetrators (like many, I prefer the spelling ‘perpetraitors’) could have done that. By itself it’s enough to knock the whole silly story of hijackers and hijacked planes on its head.

  6. Willem says

    Actually, I stole part of the following argument from the Saker (the part that relates to the Asch conformity experiment), and from the book ‘the mysterious stranger’ from Mark Twain (where ‘the mysterious stranger’ has a brilliant conversation with a young boy who went to a ‘stoning event’)

    Many of those who believe the official 911 story do so out of conformity. They know better, but do not dare to say so. People who do dare to oppose the official story are more brave. This is what explains ‘hateful’ looks and conversations that a 911 truther may have with someone who acts as ‘still brainwashed’. For the latter persons, it feels as if a 911 truther is saying to them that they are a bunch of cowards.

    I would not try to convince others, who still buy the official story about 911, that that story is fake. This is something they can find out for themselves, and they probably already know.

    But what you can do (and what I do when I am entering conversations like above) is shift the question from those who are responsible of 911 to those who are responsible for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Leads to the same conclusion, and your friends (who still believe the official story) will not feel as if you are accusing them of being a coward.

    It is a trick, but I also have a good reason, because I also do not know (as known=solid evidence) who is ultimately responsible for 911, while I do know who is ultimately responsible for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq…

  7. The human psyche tends to be polarized against perceived evil in desire of survival – and validation.
    When such narrative shifts occur as 9/11 occurring with insider support or connivance the experience is of mind-breaking disturbance whereby those associated with ‘protector’ become associated with terror threat. This is a reversal of forms but still operating the same polarisation against perceived and believed evil.
    With the official narrative operating as persistent blanket assertions – along with refusal to listen or engage in anything but a war of words – these also shift from protector to predator – along with various insider organisations and power lobbies. In this sense 9/11 is a more effective terror act than that of destroying buildings and 3000 people – along with setting off war and terror in various parts of the world.
    In Potter-myth-speak it could be translated as Voldemart is back and ‘He’ who cannot be named for fear of attracting and inviting terror is energetically operating as a tyranny of the mind regardless the postures and masks. Unless of course you care not to be terrorized into impotence.

    Terror is the splitting tool from which minds are raised in search of ‘identity’ – which can then be ‘guided’ or manipulated to conform – at least in terms of presentation. But the fact is; being forced to dance, cannot but mimic joy – being hollow. Hollow World of Soulless mechanism operates the anti-life belief that life is evil and must be either controlled, suppressed, denied or replaced with mechanism.

    Regardless of any overt Christian belief, some feel the denial of their truth a turning point from which they cannot hide or pretend it is ok to participate in – and so they have to break from their social identity and have to engage in a search for Meaning rather than provided narrative meanings in support of a meaninglessness.
    But fixation or fascination with evil under the guise of trying to force the truth on anyone else is neither truly helpful or focussing in the true – being negatively defined.

    Jesus taught love of truth. he also suggested discerning between the realm of worldly power and the realm if truly felt and shared Meaning – such as to withdraw the allegiance of the heart from that which is mere presentation over an aggressive assertion of power. I don’t write of him to promote Christianity – but his examples in relationship to deceits are – I find – more than instructive in illuminating inner recognitions that apply no less to anyone who recognizes truth as integrity and begins to live from it – rather than being negatively defined over and against perceived and believed disintegrity in others – as if the thereby gain a temporary existence without overtly breaking with or challenging the underlying beliefs that gave the mind its sense of separate sense of power and control – for this is what it is always about; deceit, power and control agenda – in association with survival instincts that override or operate from beneath any rational capacity.

    Perhaps friends were formed on the basis of mutually reinforcing identities – and what is shared and lived is not negated if one can no longer operate within them. I feel we have to make a new sense of other as well as of self – when transformative events call us out of the closet. The practice of staying on-purpose and being vigilant against the ad-hominem or indeed victim narratives is part of uncovering aspects of mind that were un conscious but are being un-done as a result of bringing into a conscious willingness for truth – which is first and foremost a matter of self-acceptance – else all manner of spanner clogs the works.

    Discernement as to when, who and how much to say to anyone else is part of listening and reading the willingness in them – through one’s own. if another asserts something that silence would be complicit endorsement of – then it may be enough simply to voice that that is not my view – and if I am then asked what my view is, I need to feel if that is ammunition seeking and defence restating or in fact a willingness to listen. If a loneliness sways me I may reach for a ‘friend’ and find an enmity or blanking. We cant use others for our needs just because they used to.

  8. rtj1211 says

    Actually, the most common reason people can’t engage in this manner is that they that their emotional framework has never faced up to pure evil and accepted that it exists. If your life’s path confronted you with it long before 9/11, the concept that absolute evil exists is just one of those nastry things you have to take as read. Not because you want to, not because you are evil, because experience teaches you that it is so.

    You get the same about ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ call it what you will. No-one can conceive that this is a $100bn scam used by the NWO as the replacement bogey man after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. George Monbiot is an adherent to dangerous global warming, so you’d expect him to buy into 9/11 too.

    Often you simply get very busy people who don’t have the time to investigate things properly who need to find something they can live with. Sometimes they delegate the thinking to their friends, who may be ‘experts’ or the like. Often they make political calculations i.e. don’t hold views that may damage your career. That’s very prominent amongst very ambitious people, who are often the Establishment.

    I wouldn’t worry about these people: it’s their loss.

    The strength of their emotional outburst means that they are not fully comfortable with the position they hold. Anyone who has truly investigated something and come to a conclusion is more tolerant usually than someone who hasn’t.

    Maybe you need to ask if you need friends who investigate things as deeply as you do??

  9. About three years ago, I had “9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB” printed above my name on my personal checks. Most of the time, the clerks/personnel cashing the check just go thru the routine, not even noticing the statement. Sometimes, the clerk will look up with a smile in her/his eyes and I know they know.

    The other times, the clerk will stop the transaction, and turn a look of hatred on me that is chilling. Their eyes are flashing hate, their neck veins bulging and a couple of times, thought I was going to get smacked in the kisser. And their voice, which was pleasant sounding, turns angry.

    All for exposing some truth about that day on which everything changed.

    Is truth so reviled and dangerous that we must keep it locked up?

    • I am either in a setting where I can discuss the truth about 9/11 (or Zionism, Israel etc) or I am not. If not I don’t say anything at all.Or at least, I don’t open the topic. But when ANYone says something unfounded, I have to offer something factual, not my opinion. I don’t parade my truth anymore. I don’t know, I have come to feel like some people are just unworthy of Truth.

    • pavlovscat7 says

      ‘Truth’, these days, is exponent-driven before it is subjective. It is a rank generalization of course but, there are basically three types of citizens. Those that have never known and never will know. And let’s admit we sometimes envy their bliss that abides with its eternal companion. Then there are those that know but, go along to get along ….the shareholder..the serpents’ teeth. Their silence is their complicity, but a sling to charity now and again has them sleeping the sleep of the just. Then companions…there is we. We who piss into the wind over these things. We who are the laughing stock of the people who did these deeds and will continue to do so. They want us to know what they have done and are flipping us the bird and saying to us..”in light of the other two demographics; “what are you going to do about it you numpties?”
      I presume that like Australian teachers, American history teachers taught a history of pre-columbian indians performing public, live sacrifices to entreat gods for good harvest and tribal prosperity? Wrong! The lesson to the lessor was, see what we are willing to do to your loved ones? see the puissance of the heirarchy? and see your collective loss of nerve?

  10. Jerome Fryer says

    “He was extremely hostile and refused to engage with me on the subject.”
    That’s a sad story. The author probably has other, more gullible, friends, though. Maybe he could convince them to join his cult?

    Can we also anticipate the editors finding or inviting some submissions of the terrible social consequences of discussing how the Apollo missions were all faked? There are a declining number of ‘truthers’, but I would think there are more than the ‘Moon landing hoax’ community. — [This thread is a discussion of 9/11 and social acceptance, generic ad hom and facile attempts to discredit by association are not part of this debate. Critique the writing, but DO NOT post this type of trolling. If anyone on either side persists the fact-free ad hom will be deleted – OffG ed.]

    • moriarty's Left Sock says

      Thank you OffG ed, this discussion is too important to be derailed whether by trolls or those with simply no argument left beside abuse.

      • Incognito says

        The only people whose opinions I care about these days who do not agree it was an inside job, simply go quiet when I ask them what their theory is. They simply have known. They know I can explain why any official version is debunked. They know that the official version is continually changing. They just do not want to believe they were brought down by explosives. In fact, their official version is akin to a religious belief. A theory of the gaps.

        • Jerome Fryer says

          You have that completely backward. Why is the ‘truther’ theory continually changing?

          (Or rather theories, plural. The “nano-thermite” assertion seems to be in vogue right now, but it is testable so is likely to eventually be conclusively debunked.)

          • Anybody can invent a “theory”. So it is totally unsurprising that there are many “truther” theories floated around regarding 9/11.

            There is only one “official narrative” regarding 9/11, however, and that changes only incrementally although it has been shown by many independent researchers to be largely a tissue of omissions, distortions and lies.

            I’m interested in why and how the official 9/11 narrative remains relatively impervious to falsification by the usual empirical and investigative means that are routinely used by detectives, auditors, courts of law and scientists to try to separate fact from fiction.

            A working hypothesis would be that the official 9/11 narrative was and still is elevated to the status of an unquestionable truth—surrounded by an “emperor’s new clothes”-like taboo, with the result that the ultimate orchestrators and perpetrators of 9/11 were and still are above the law. When they acted, they were confident that they would not be called to account for their actions. They must have felt confident in this because they had control of the relevant sections of the government, armed forces, police, courts and mass media as helpers to pave the way for their crimes and to prevent these crimes from being meaningfully investigated.

            Hence, the pool of main suspects is limited to people in very high positions of power, possibly including people who are so powerful that their names and faces are kept well away from the limelight.

            But in the absence of a full proper investigation by authorities with the power and the will to get to the truth, we are never going to wrap this case up definitively. Instead it is likely to remain a mystery and a parlor game in the same way as Who Killed JFK, the Lindbergh Baby, the Princes in the Tower, etc. And the perpetrators will be just fine with that outcome.

            • Well said. THAT power of such a nature operates our society – our minds – to distort and dictate the currency and framing of our thought… is marked or openly declared by its acts – not just of terror-hate, but of the replacement of any process of discovery, or accountability to truth with obvious deceit that presumes itself un-opposable and effectively untouchable – as ‘gods’ over a sub-humanity that is both seen and cultivated to be ‘programmable’ cattle – to be used and discarded at will. And of course the ‘programming’ is what we take to be our thought – or give allegiance to in place of our true will.
              The tares are part of the roots of the wheat. Pull them up and the harvest is lost. “Too big to fail”. Pay tribute for the right to exist. Truth is the first sacrifice to the god of the war-mind – which is another way of saying the split or war-mind is a deceit.
              If we have to ‘war within our self’ to become manipulatable, then being inflamed and fixated in the dynamic of conflict is the ‘device’ of deceit.
              However, the war-mind of ‘fight or flight’ does not allow release of such polarized and binary reaction – equating it with weakness, loss of control and indeed loss of self. And so nature of this deceit is self-replicating and re-enacting of what might be called ‘separation trauma’ that are effectively rendered unconscious or ‘shadow’ power from which the surface mind is ‘protected’ so as to live out from and within such concept as is held hidden by denials that are accorded some power of protection and some sense of survival from a pre-rational and compulsive sense of terror.
              This IS ‘Old Religion’ – in terms of loss or sacrifice of an INNER communication of true being, to an EXTERNAL sense of power in hope of appeasement or favour to a segregative and separate sense of self. Such external sense of power operates the ‘deceiver’ – or the willingness to join in deceit.

              And for deceit one may also use the term ‘as if’. Of running a focus within ‘what if’ with such intensity and force of desire that it is experienced ‘as if’ true.
              How to set up such focus without somewhere agreeing NOT to know – as a precondition for the experience within what we might call the human conditioning.

              Awakening to that ‘reality’ is not what it seemed or was believed and perhaps trusted to be is disturbing – but desire for truth uses such dissonance rather than being used by it – for whatever masking of strategy or role is enacted, running away from oneself gives power to the mask of false thinking – to the presentation of life in terms or forms of lovelessness, or masked non-acceptance asserting a corrupting spin on truly felt presence.

              A false harvest sought power and gains powerlessness. But a true harvest recognizes what is true and shares it as truly moved. Instead of seeking to make a weapon of truth against the feared and hated -which is the ‘back door’ to such influence to ‘use your mind’ lovelessly. Self-righteousness is a false friend. One cannot truly ‘join’ in hate. But the wish to draws upon the power of Mind for witness of support and reinforcement. It operates a vibrational resonance of a jamming signal to Communication, upon which false gods ‘lord it over’ Life in apparent reversal of the Law. As if what you give away is actually got rid off, rather than multiplied in returned receipt or ‘harvest’. As if what is gotten or taken for self is kept rather than lost to an evaporation that can never satisfy and so can only enrage a sense of denial that grows on a sense of being deprived its right.

              Special hate survives a sense of seeking special ‘love’ in conditional ‘contracts’ – but the nature of true worth is not separate self-seeking so much as the exploring and unfolding discovery of unique qualities of being – that are both gifted of and gifting into the whole – as who you truly are. Only self-honesty can restore what self-deceit thought to have thrown away and ESCAPED! Re-cognizing is to know again or indeed to know anew – what was falsely confused or mis-took for something else and identified AGAINST. Be willing then to question Everything in the light of a genuine desire for sanity of being – for such desire is the stirring of willingness that cannot be wholly eradicated – because it is part of who you could never escape being – however covered over and defended against.

  11. Kavy wrote below: “The libertarians say, leave everything to the market, but there’s nothing more profitable than war (and banking)”
    Indeed. Followed very closely of course by drug and human trafficking, exploitation of workers, trade of poisonous hydrocarbons, etc. When confronted with the fact that the people that thrive the most in the current system are the ones engaging in the most abject forms of business (legal or illegal), libertarians will point out that those are only a few rotten apples that found their way around the law. When one argues then that, at the very least, the system should be enhanced and regulated to avoid the upcoming of those few rotten apples that murder millions every year, then they will say that that would kill business instead (mind you that 100% of the times they are of course not central bankers or owners of transnational corporations but (quite) small business owners or employees). One would ask them then if the lives, livelihoods and prosperity of the overwhelming majority is not worth a few concessions from the tiny group of people that possess half of the wealth in the planet. And then the common libertarian would start a rant about Stalin. It never fails.

    Modern Western societies are much more supersticious and dogmatic than our very first ancestors, but with the radical difference that, while ancient men worshipped the sun or the nature that gave them their livelihood, many modern humans hold wildly irrational believes, faith, in the very forces that oppress them. So the “free market capitalist” abstract deity is a force of good and events like 9/11 are its foundational/sacrificial myths. For them, suggesting that the governments (which they supposedly hold in contempt) that keep this idyllic system running and making the world almost an earthly paradise, is capable of murdering 3000 of their own, is like telling a Christian that Jesus choked puppies in between sermons . One should be very very careful when questioning the veracity of this “sacred truths”. In my own experience, it is more likely to have an open and cordial discussion about religion and the church with a, lets say, “light catholic” than with the average “free market capitalist” (a group into which I tend include people like Monbiot that, even when critical of the system, holds magical believes like that “the Iraq war was a mistake” or “the people that starve and murder millions every year would not kill 3000 of their own and you are a blasphemous idiot for suggesting it”). These ideas are so ingrained in modern Western thought that are the ideological core of people that believe they are positioned in the most distant opposite. A person in such dissonant position not only shuts the debate, but have many times decided to make of our friendship a thing of the past, and even of my person an object of genuine hate.

  12. mog says

    I can certainly empathise with most of the sentiments in this article.
    It is one aspect that has fascinated me : the role of taboo in modern society. A political scientists Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann developed a thesis about it : ‘the spiral of silence’-
    It is an often heard counter claim, that if the allegations of 911 research had any veracity that more people would speak out in support of it, however this ignores the fact that there is a lot of social psychology entwined with political discourse.
    Those who have studied Machiavelli and the like realise that Big Lies keep themselves.
    There is an obvious pragmatic reason for exposing the truths about 911 : to try to stop the bloodshed, but there is a further reason, that we might develop a deeper understanding the psychological mechanisms employed in the exercising of power.
    The net, of course has enabled a challenge to this taboo.

    • Indeed, there is a lot of social psychology entwined with any set of orthodoxies.

      Nietzsche, I think, eloquently also makes the point, albeit on an other issue, and if only because I’ve had his ‘Parable’ bouncing around inside my head these last few days in connection with the resistance I encounter in people I know to the “facts” of 9/11:

      “Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars — and yet they have done it themselves.” (Nietzsche, 1882, “The Parable of the Madman”)

      We do it to ourselves to the degree that we are naively complicit in maintaining our “beliefs” by not engaging them critically and rationally. Yes, exactly, as you put it: “Big Lies keep themselves.”

      • I assume you have also read Noam Chomsky who has written on the subject of cognitive dissonance. We in the UK are fortunate in having a blogger by the name of Kitty Sue Jones of Politics and Insights who explains, in lay man terms what Nietzsche would go round the houses with. I feel sorry for the authour of this article because he has only just realized how dumbed down we are, constantly bombarded with propagandist falsehoods, being spoon fed alternative reality as though it were the truth.
        Veterans Today and especially Gordon Duff are often laughed out of the building by people who choose not to accept a painful truth but his articles are so well researched they are irresistible. One such article on 9/11 was eye watering but well worth looking at:
        P.S. Noam Chomsky has recently had a serious senior moment denouncing all 9/11 truthers which is a bit unfortunate as he has served truth well over the years.

        • I wholeheartedly agree with you. I do hope, however, that this is not too shaming, but I’ve never heard of Gordon Duff. Thank you for the link. I will most certainly follow it up later this evening as time permits.

        • Gordon Duff’s writing at VT should be read and enjoyed in the knowledge that about 40% of what he writes is disinformation. Gordon has said so himself, so there’s a 60% chance he’s being honest about it.

          By the way, Gordon is a purveyor of the “mini nukes brought down the Twin Towers” theory and a critic of the “nano-thermite” theory.

  13. Husq says

    I think the real question is what do we do? A lot of people go “yeah, alright, but I have to still earn a living.”
    So, *What do we do!?”

    • Incognito says

      That is the crux. I think for people who still hold onto the official version, what they are really doing is trying to hold onto the belief that they are good people. And good people wouldn’t live in a country where their government does bad things. For those of us who know it was an inside job, we have simply accepted that we are weak and refuse to do anything about it, and as such, our complicit role in 911 is revealed.

  14. bill says

    i knew a man online who literally gave up his entire life to understand the JFK assassination.He then wrote numerous books of brilliant detailed analysis on until then puzzling aspects of the case,finally settling some.Yes he upset some,including some who believe they have a monopoly of JFK truth.In his last book he even outlined how,thanks to his training, he was able to sidestep a sophisticated CIA sting the purpose of which was to destroy his credibility as an author; this man attended some of the 9 11 Commission hearings and was as meticulous a gatherer of evidence and as fair-minded a person as one could hope to meet. Yet he would not,simply refused to look at any critique of any of the “evidence”,a state of mind similar to that of Georges Monbiot,that he wouldnt examine alternative points of view even if his mothers life depended on it. How to understand such people?

    In the case of the JFK writer who certainly believes that the CIA murdered both Kennedies and has proved the ist, i believe his need to believe that there is enough integrity in the process of government that whilst they might stumble into ” bad” wars they- the politicians that is- wouldnt deliberately countenance or cover-up the killing of 3000 mainly Americans in the USA( where it happened somehow makes a difference) is somehow so overriding in his belief system in that if he were proven wrong about this he would have served Governments potentially so corrupt that everything he believes about the Military and about ” service” would have been futile, a thought or realisation so damaging to his own sense of worth and place that despite being able to go to the dark places within the Kennedy murders he simply cant go there over 9/11 nor even entertain that the politicians may somehow have been bounced into the cover-up. Like so many his refusal to even look is total.Their belief system has very strong walls, so strong that many would prefer to forfeit “friendships”( of course not real friendships). and prefer to think that folk they once liked must have unacceptable fatal flaws of character they only just discovered.

    Certainly its true that the TV version of 9/11 looks plausible and to the non-scientific eye and the eyes of those who never deal with fires ( most of us) and who watch Hollywood ( most US citizens) seems entirely visually plausible which is the wicked brilliance of the operation and may well hugely persuade folk like Monbiot ( who in fact has been very rude indeed,reflecting an additional defence mechanism we can only guess at,maybe something very deep in his childhood) but when friends announce reservations or concerns it behoves people who value the ideal of friendship to remain open-minded and not hostile even if we at that time cant agree,or dont know enough……

    Many of us are still casting about or come across new evidence which we need to evaluate in our analysis- this is an entirely respectable place to be and its entirely honest to reexamine in the light of new evidence,even new interpretation of that evidence.We have the right to be wrong but not to be deliberately offensive as once we are, we are defending something we take as sacred or integral rather than reexamining its real value and its authenticity;we are in fact blinded by pride…..

    Recently i came across the view of a former fire-fighter that the smoke and fire he was looking at on one of the Towers was ” unlike anything he had ever seen” and from his interest in digital photography he determined that a section of the video was therefore CGI. His belief in the official narrative overrode that what he was seeing could have in fact been real and disallowed him from asking why bother with CG1 at all,or for what conceivable reason would anyone wish to fake a portion of the film which only he of all the commentators on the film had noticed and then make absolutley nothing of it before any audience?

    But he had in fact seen that what happened on 9/11 in NY was a first,the very first time a new technology had been used in this way – and one hopes the last- but preferred understandably the comfort zone of CGI for his interpretation. The brilliance of 9/11 was that Hollywood could be so easily merged with this new technology in this scenario which can only be broken down by the rigorous application of physical principles and by pure logic without prejudice and through looking hard at all of the evidence and following this precisely where it leads( no stopping off or detour when ones own feelings begin to protest) …… an accurate deduction can then be reached and it becomes clear that this new technology not only has a nuclear signature fully and convincingly explained by those who argue for the use of a number of low yield mini neutron bombs in Ts 1 and 2 but also has a relationship with the chemistry of Niels Harrit as well as a number of other obvious anomalies which in effect are symptoms of the technologys use.

  15. For many people, telling them “9/11 was an inside job” translates as:
    It crosses a line of egoic self-regard and other base assumptions into territory that the particular audience will (their behaviour demonstrates) often fight to the very death to avoid exploring.

    For Jewish people, raised on legends of gentile loathing and genocide of their people, honest investigation of 9/11 issues is particularly difficult. — [this is a baseless and racist assumption – OffG ed.] First research always throws up an unusually large number of Israeli/US citizens close to the centre of events. — [citation needed- OffG ed.]

    This is nightmare from which we cannot condemn intensively brainwashed individuals from running.

    Maybe it’s best to assume that the kind of gentiles who exhibit the reactions described in the article have equally valid alibis excusing their fear of facing uncomfortable facts. We can only keep recommending people look at all the evidence.

    I have to admit that the moment I was forced to realise the facts around 9/11 (by recognising the WTC7 collapse as a demolition) I kicked my floor-mounted computer so hard it was a miracle it still worked afterwards.

    That was one very uncomfortable pill to swallow.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      “For Jewish people, raised on legends of gentile loathing and genocide of their people, honest investigation of 9/11 issues is particularly difficult. First research always throws up an unusually large number of Israeli/US citizens close to the centre of events.”
      That’s because anti-semitism is a serious problem.

      • @JeromeFryer
        @physicsand mathsrevision

        Anti-semitism is not the topic. DO NOT be diverted into any such discussion here.

        • Jerome Fryer says

          Thanks. It looked like you nuked the post, so my later comment has been addressed. (Delete that part of you prefer.)

        • Peter says

          Anti-semitism, as you pointed out yourselves, was the issue in the post Fryer was replying to.

      • I may loathe what Net is doing but I know that millions of Jews are decent and any comments on any posts regarding the dancing Israelis, although unfortunate, are not indicative of how people feel about Jews. It is time we stopped conflating the actions of a few as being representative of the many. I’m sure I am not alone in my thinking?

        • It would also be useful if we stopped conflating Jews with Zionism. We may not have much choice about our genetic packaging, but we always have a choice about our geopolitics.

      • Racist am I? That’s a charge usually levelled by the worst racists out there. Maybe you’re a racist? If the following reports below are fact am I still a racist? Be very careful with that charge. You might be addressing someone who is trying to stop racists killing your children.
        Citation 1)
        Ex- U.S. Army War College Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research, Alan Sabrosky:
        U.S. Military Knows Israel did 9/11

        Citation 2)
        Chris Bollyn … israel did 9/11(loads of undeniable and damning evidence here:

        Citation 3)

        • Jen says

          @ Physicsandmathsrevision: please leave Jewish people out of the discussion regarding the 9/11 attacks if only because by mentioning them (as some sort of faceless mass), you open up the opportunities for trolls like Louis Proyect and Jerome Fryer to derail the discussion and turn Off-Guardian comments forums into escalating race-baiting tit-4-tat fights that come to the attention of governments who then want to shut down Off-Guardian. Which would fulfill the aims of the original trolls in the first place.

          If you want to mention particular agencies like Mossad or the Israeli government or its various lobby groups who might have had a hand in the attacks, then fine, but do not treat them as though they are representative of all Jewish people.

          • OK. I will. But it is a dilemma. The safety of these murdering plutocrats is delivered by the almost universal support they enjoy from their brainwashed shield. If the shield falls away they will not only expose the criminals and become kind of heroes but they will avoid taking the blame for the crimes of the international oligarchy. Again.

    • deschutes says

      Regarding the moderator’s ‘citation needed’: really? A preponderance of Jewish people were in key government or corporate positions during 9-11. This isn’t an unusual claim that would need documentation. To the contrary it’s quite obvious. For example: Philip Zelikow, Larry Silverstein, Dov Zakheim, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Chertoff, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, etc. The list is quite long. Not to mention the ‘5 dancing Israelis’ arrested by the NYPD who were seen filming the towers and cheering and hi-fiving each other, posing in front of the burning towers and taking snaps–who all turned out to be Mossad agents. They worked for ‘Urban Moving Systems, a false front Mossad operation. After 9-11 the company’s ‘owner’ Dominik Otto Suter fled the country back to Israel, and the company hurriedly shut down. Or how about Odigo (had 2 hours’ advance notice of the 9-11 attacks from their Israeli offices), and Comverse Infosys (Israeli spy ring doing reverse wiretaps on U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies). Don’t conflate pointing out noteworthy facts such as these with anti-semitism.

      • Jen says

        It has to be said that the people mentioned in Deschutes’ comment would throw their fellow Jews as well as all of us gentiles under a bus. Their loyalty is to themselves first and then the Israeli government.

        The Israeli government for that matter acts in the interests of whatever deep state (native or foreign) controls it and finds it useful to exploit past Jewish history, especially those episodes of Jewish suffering at the hands of others, to brainwash Israeli citizens and Jewish people outside Israel, instill fear into them and encourage them to identify their interests with its own. It’s not anti-Semitic to call out the Israeli government (along with its allies in other countries, particularly organisations within those countries’ Jewish communities) on its manipulation or brow-beating of its public and the global Jewish community to agree and support its policies against Palestinians and others. As long as people are aware of how the Israeli government goes to great lengths to keep its people in the dark about its actions against Palestinians, its plans to destabilise its neighbours and grab their territory, and to continue leeching off the US taxpayer, all the while turning Israel into a fascist police state and Israelis facing greater poverty and the dismantling of a socialist state with with benefits for workers, they should be able to separate Israel’s interests and agenda from the interests of Jewish people generally.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      Do you understand that just because somebody throws their racist ideas up on YouTube or a website, it doesn’t follow that they’re credible?

      The same holds for anything.

      Some arguments rely on testable claims or alleged facts, while others don’t. The physical facts of the 9/11 events are testable, while what government agencies and other actors did (or failed to do, more to the point, since we had the 9/11 catastrophe — at least in this version of reality, not the alternate one with holograms and missiles) are much more difficult to pin down.

      If the ‘truther’ quest for the proof to their alternate theory of the physical events carries on for a bit longer then those culpable for the mistakes (and policies) that created the conditions for Al Queda to pull the attacks off will be dead and beyond being held to account.

      • There you go. A post predicated by name calling and content free (excepting for the supercilious posturing).
        Do you understand that calling people racist can only reasonably be a follow-up to inspection of their evidence and interpretation of that evidence.
        You obviously did not listen to Bollyn, nor Sabrosky nor did you read Boyle’s article.
        There is one group that specialise in using racist abuse as a precursor to engaging with any issue. These people demand submission to their agenda before debate has even begun. They refuse to look in the mirror and recognise their own part in anything, particularly that their world-view is a direct consequence of accepting propaganda and a refusal to even look at contrary FACTS.
        Are you such a racist?

    • I recall another version of this, from St. Jerome I believe. “If the truth should give offence, it is better that the offence be given than that the truth should be concealed” (quoting from memory).

      • Can truth give offence if truth simply is what is?
        But true messengers – can and often will be seen as a cause of offence when not supporting an investment of face or identity. And so we may CHOOSE to TAKE offence, because we feel threatened, attacked or slighted – and believe our interpretations true and act accordingly from a sense of self justification. At least, while wanting our face to be true rather than lose it to a self-honesty that reveals about us what they do not wish to be known.

        True or honest feelings are not often acceptable – but are seen as weakness. Controlled ‘feelings’ are generally ok because they support the mutually agreed script. Loss of control is considered shameful in a mutually agreed masquerade – but of course is an opening of space for an honesty of being to the desire to know and be known truly.

        A key I feel is the willingness to listen – because where there is none – truth can broadcast from the rooftops… in vain. No one listens who believes they already know.

        If one loves TRUE friendship then some face of mutually agreed identity cannot be accepted in place of it – and the relationship has to grow to align with and embrace what is revealed or BE revealed as something else. However, I feel gratitude for what I have lived and shared – whatever ‘came next’.

        When people are triggered into attack, we become temporarily taken over by a different personification – of a more primitive strategy adaptation. And when we mutually trigger each other – we tend to re-enact such core conditioning – and of course, reinforce it.

        Arguments about what truth is, are competing ideas and identities seeking validation. Is there any truth in that?

        Jesus said nothing when asked ‘what is truth?’ by Pilate – for how can another frame an answer to a question that reveals ignorance in presumption it can be conceptually defined AND be true? I feel Jesus answered fully by adding nothing and taking away nothing from the truth of their relationship – at least that resonates truly with me.

        Honest witness and indeed honest with-ness is felt first – because it is extended as a gift from the worthy to the worthy. To those who are certain they are not so worthy, such a one must be deceived and thus heretical or deceitful – for any liar knows that everyone lies – only some are too dishonest to admit it! Such is a reversal of consciousness that typifies a world we make as a mask over undercurrents of denied feeling and thought. Shadow power… or rather, power given to denied and un-faced fear.

        Fear of rejection for witnessing truly is part of the territory of reintegration in being, and not giving hate for hate is part of no longer needing the messengers of hate to remind you of un-forgiveness within yourself that may yet be protected or kept hidden.

        True self acceptance is a great blessing – or rather is open to joy in being, without demonizing other choices. For are you not your own best friend? – or your own worst enemy! It seems to me that our ‘world’ joins in the choice being made’. Lack of self-acceptance results in every kind of attempt to bend or escape the true under the fearful belief it IS truth. Birds of a feather flock together.

  16. Brian Harry, Australia says

    I recently showed a friend some You Tube videos from the Architects and Engineers, and he refused to accept that “The Government” would be involved in the total fraud of 9/11. He couldn’t accept that the ‘ruling elite’ would be involved in killing 3,000 people. Of course, not “everyone” in the ruling elite was privy to who/what actually happened.
    If you have ‘convincing video’ footage of planes hitting Twin Towers you automatically believe you saw it, despite “Hollywood” spending the last 60 years(that I’m aware of) convincingly getting people to believe their audio/visual trickery.
    “Cognitive Dissonance” simply won’t allow, in so many cases, for people to actually accept the “Bleeding Obvious”..

  17. kavy says

    This film had a big effect on me. Even if it is only 70% right it explains why there are so many wars in the world. War is big business. The libertarians say, leave everything to the market, but there’s nothing more profitable than war (and banking), so god help us of we go along with their ideas.

    JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick

    Everything Is A Rich Man’s Trick


    • Both my sister and the person I share a house with did not believe the official story, however, I simply labelled them as conspiracy theorists – I shy away from that term now although I still think they tend to think just about everything is a conspiracy based on only a little information. However, after watching this film I started to investigate 9/11 for myself and came to the conclusion that indeed it was an inside job.

      • The problem is that once you realise that it is possible for the establishment to inflict, impress and sustain such a breathtaking and colossal on the minds of the western public, it is impossible not to reflect on this question:

        “If they can get away with a lie regarding something as serious as this, is it not certain that there are many other big lies out there?”

        And there are.

        Here’s just one:

        • Oh yes and that’s why they have to be exposed otherwise false flags and similar will just keep going on. There’s strong evidence suggesting Charlie Hebdo is a fraud, too – google it. I know now that whenever the alleged perpetrator is identified by an ID card left behind (Charlie Hebdo) or a passport fluttering to the ground (9/11 – I mean, seriously) you can bet it’s some of kind of fraud.

          • I feel it important to learn to discern the true – at least by being able to tell when it is not being presented or communicated – but these kind of operations do not stop happening as a result of exposure OUTSIDE any mainstream acceptability. Whether the ‘Internet Reformation’ is occurring or a more pervasive psycho-bio technological control system is institutes is anyone’s choice. I embrace being me and don’t want to trade it for a compelled robot – but those who do not have acceptance for themselves can be and are necessarily programmed. I feel we are in the Time of Choice. But that if that choice were clear to us – there would be no real choice. Only in the dark does it seem to make sense – and conflict is the way to keep a condition of darkness – for there’s no free awareness to realise the default choices that are running (you).

        • We in Ireland endured a ‘low intensity’ conflict for 30 odd years. Unfortunately even to this day a lot of people simply don’t want to face up to the notion that the state(uk) may have carried out by their own hand or proxy, some of the worst atrocities in Ireland, allthewhile claiming it was merely there to keep the peace between two sectarian tribes.
          The evidence continues to mount but the state continues to stifle and suppress any investigations into it. Just like the 9/11 situation, if the state, be it Uk is US admitted they were involved in acts of terrorism on its own people it would rock the establishment to its core. Maybe even result in the entire establishment being removed. One thing is for sure the state would never have the trust of its people ever again and that is the be all and end all, because without the people playing along the establishment would be stripped of all control of society.
          State secrets will never be revealed, not to protect the feelings of victims or even state agents, but rather to protect the establishment full stop.

  18. Kavy says

    I’ve had the same problem, but to cover myself I wouldn’t go so far as to say the government did it. I just say it is a mystery and I’m open minded.

    If you are a liberal then your don’t entertain conspiracy theories at all, except the climate change denial scam.

    If you are slightly more left, then you know that the ruling class are capable of anything. Sadly, it’s the psychopaths that seem to get to the top of society. They’re the ones who don’t want to work but like to get as much money as possible.

    Two atom bombs on Japan, WW1 and WW2, wars by the ruling class over power and wealth. The ruling class are capable of any treacherous and diabolical thing.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      “The ruling class are capable of any treacherous and diabolical thing.”

      In principle, yes. It’s good to be King.

      Feeding disinformation to people in order to create crackpot conspiracy theories is a good way of providing cover for your actual misdeeds.

  19. kavey says

    I’m a conspiracy theorist, I believe that global warming denial is a hoax – a massive, well funded conspiracy against the general public.

    • This is the kind of totalitarian troll post with which many of us are very familiar. The Hasbara strategies are failing. You’ll have to be cleverer than that.

    • I’m not a conspiracy theorist as a rule but I do fervently believe in the threat of global warming and that the DENIERS are the hoaxers who will ultimately profit. Is this what you meant when you posted “I believe that global warming denial is a hoax – a massive, well funded conspiracy against the general public.”?
      If so, then the 8 people who have given you a thumbs down are at odds with both of us, if you meant global warming is a hoax, then you and I are on opposite sides of the argument and I would be giving you the thumbs down. I’m not sure whether they or I have understood exactly what you meant.

  20. I’m sorry to say this about your friend but honestly anyone who refuses to listen to another side of an argument is a fool and hurting himself more than he’s denying the person on the other side of the argument.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      Do you have to hear the same argument over and over, though? If you have heard it, could you just say “I’ve already heard that conspiracy theory, and I am not persuaded by it”?

      People aren’t completely rational, but that shouldn’t mean that you’re obligated to give the same stuff a re-hearing whenever someone wants to air their conspiracy theories.

      • If this is not the pot calling the kettle black…!

        You prove you are well aware of the strategy – though that does not prove you connect the dots to yourself.

        You do not have to hear anyone else over and over, unless you either give them your persistent attention or give them the power to force your attention. To claim otherwise reveals your desire to take offence as justification for attack – for your own reasons. They are your reasons which you might be curious about or may be asserting as your official narrative regardless evidences to the contrary. You are ‘here’ by choice – perhaps for as long as you can attract attention and present the appearance of an argument without actually engaging in anything but obfuscation, denial and evasion.

        If there was not ‘plausible deniability built into our mind – it would not be a mind – but a pure mechanism. Because you have a mind – or rather – are experiencing through a mind – you do not have to accept ANYTHING true that is not recognisably true for you. But as you DO accept, so do you limit or filter what then unfolds as a logical consequence until and unless you re-evaluate your core beliefs – perhaps as a result of dissonance and frustration that impinges on your capacity to live with yourself and therefore others.

        “Perhaps there is another way of looking at this?” Is the opening to creative shifts of perspective. To lock down into exclusive and fixed beliefs that lead only into further lockdowns and exclusivism or ‘elitism’ is a dead end and logically results in destruction and of course death.
        Perhaps one can listen to such a ‘program’ over and over again as a fixation in framing Life in terms of limiting its so as to seem power over it. Game over. New Game. Game over. New game…. what a thrill….?

        Perhaps Life is not inherently about limiting and division in conflict – unless of course you insist! It is not up to me where YOU choose to tune into and live from – but I reflect to you that the choices you make are not what they seem – whether you listen now – or choose delay.

        No one has a monopoly on deceit – unless the Deceiver is invoked as the thinking that gives rise to the believed need. But I observe that one cannot use it without being likewise USED – though perhaps initially with a sense of being empowered or validated. Don’t just watch out – keep watch within!

  21. Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:

    In US polling some 30% polled stated that they did not accept the government’s “story” and 30% believed they had been deliberately lied to and that the Government was involved. Thirty percent is a lot of people – representative of some 100 million people, that’s an awful lot of conspiracy nuts.

      • The source of the poll was an embed link leading directly to the published findings of one of the US biggest polling groups and the article was probably Veterans Today and the Picture at the top of the article was a busy street with people going to and fro. The article was about the perception of ordinary people on the way the government (US) depicted the justification for interventions – any, that cost money and military lives and whether they believed what they were told about amongst other things, 9/11. The poll was a series of questions and did not seem to be biased in favour of Dems or Reps – but then I’m not sure if I would have recognized if it were. The people who declared they did not trust the government was over 30%, the people who said they did not believe that they were told the truth was 30+% and the reason given for that particular figure was based on the 9/11 narrative. There was more but I only followed the link to check if the info was really there. It was a poll that even Brits would recognize. A, currently searching through sites for embed – there’s a lot of it.

      • Sorry Admin but I don’t think the original came from Veterans Today which is a shame because it looked the real McCoy. I have over 70 news feeds every day so chances are I won’t find the original post with embedded link to poll Q and A.
        Can’t and won’t retract earlier statement because I spoke the truth even though I can’t prove it now. If I kept everything that was interesting I would have filled terabite sticks many times over.

        • Yes agree – followed the link(thanks) but that is not the poll I viewed, am sure the embedded one I followed was by an American agency who poll for think tanks, government and either but not both at the same time Democrats and Republicans so they have a large database they can access. Haven’t been able to find the news feed article I was reading and have had to admit defeat – my “library” is scattered across several memory sticks as my computer and laptop have both been down and I lost a lot of information. The YouGov poll definitely was not the one I saw it looks small potatoes compared to the US poll.

  22. Nerevar says

    I am afraid 9/11 is not the main problem. Was someone here in very similar situation when a calm discussion went wrong when it came to any conspiracy? Some (more and more) topics as turning into unspeakable taboos decent people just do not talk about.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      Few people deny that there has never been any such thing as a conspiracy. There are plenty of historic examples.

      But if you’re going to spin a fantastic story to explain some event that doesn’t require the extra elements that you add, then you have to be able to make an argument in support of those extra elements.

      • moriarty's Left Sock says

        The theoretical physics of the tower collapses as proposed by NIST are a) incomplete and b) contradictory of known physical laws in certain particulars. It’s not necessary to believe in conspiracy theories to get behind the call for a new investigation.

        Like most public enquiries NIST fell short of full transparency. It refused to release its data sets so that its models cold be verified. Given how much credibility in the neocon establishment was vested in the outcome, and given how damaging could be any admissions the towers had been even partially sabotaged with explosives (talk about lax security!) there’s too much obvious motive for a whitewash for these problems to be brushed aside.

        The truly puzzling thing is why anyone with no vested interest in protecting NIST would bother to oppose this. We need full transparency, and a new and thorough investigation and the calls won’t stop until we get one. In fact more and more people are realising you don’t have to be a conspiracy nut job to see we and the victims of 9/11 have been badly served.

        • Jerome Fryer says

          “This thread is a discussion of 9/11 and social acceptance, generic ad hom and facile attempts to discredit by association are not part of this debate.”

          [the comment you are replying to contains no ad hom and no attempts to discredit by association, consider that the more trolling comments such as these you post the more you undermine your credibility and thereby your ability to influence your readers. – OffG ed.]

          • Jerome Fryer says

            There isn’t anything in the post about social acceptance issues, unless the part “The truly puzzling thing is why anyone with no vested interest in protecting NIST would bother to oppose this” concerns the people at NIST having to put up with ‘truthers’. This does work both ways, presumably.

            I’m not interested in “influencing readers”, I’m interested in putting forth a counterpoint to the woo and leaving a record that, contrary to what future detractors or your site will claim, not all of your readership are ‘truthers’. (Ref. the George Monbiot article referred to in the tale of woe you’ve put above.)

            • Then put forth a credible counterpoint. Generic denigration by invented association and employment of fact-free descriptors such as “woo” is trolling and conveys a want of genuine argument on your side.

              • Jerome Fryer says

                When one side is employing nonsense arguments and dishonest tactics it doesn’t make sense to spend a lot of effort to address it.

                Consider the ‘free fall’ fiasco, where despite repeated attempts to get a clear explanation of what was being asserted (the original claims were that entire buildings had collapsed at free fall speed, but the new truthers normal is that any part of the collapse occurring at free fall is now “the building fell at free fall”, apparently) I was unable to move past that ‘roadblock’. If you are not putting your point across clearly, and repeatedly refuse to clarify, then that is your fault.

                Dumping a link then running is pretty pointless, by the way (“backing up” your assertion with a link to something that is woo, or simply too complicated to be usable). Also remember that you can’t prove a negative — e.g. prove that there wasn’t thermite present.

                The ‘truthers’ — some consciously, some not, I think — are employing standard dishonest debating tactics.

                You are either unaware of, or don’t care about, any of this.

                (You can delete this post.)

                • moriarty's Left Sock says

                  What nonsense arguments? I for one have not made any arguments, nonsense or otherwise, I’ve confined myself to pointing up the known shortfall in NIST’s report and suggesting the need for a new enquiry.

                  About free fall –
                  NIST’s original summary for WTC7 in mid-200s claimed it fell at considerably under free fall speed. This was the official position for some while and would probably be so now had David Chandler not entered the picture.

                  Chandler’s measurements (can the admin link to the video on here about that? – [see it here – OffG ed.]) showed that the portion of WTC7 visible in collapse videos did not fall in 5.4s as NIST originally claimed, but at around 3.9, indistinguishable from free fall. Chandler was able by a fluke to have his measurements read out in public in front of NIST spokesperson Shyam-Sunder, who can be seen visibly flustered by this in the video I have asked admin to link to.

                  Initially NIST (and the debunking blogs) did their best to laugh it off and Chandler was called many “woo” type names. However, some years later, after repeated public demands from various sceptical science bodies, NIST finally and belatedly admitted Chandler’s calculations were completely correct and WTC7 was indeed measured at at free fall.

                  They added the claim that the free-fall was limited to what they called the “second stage” of collapse, though their data for doing so is not clear. Some agree with their claim, others say it’s a backstop to avoid admitting Chandler is completely right.

                  The first point is NIST only admitted that correction because Chandler forced them to do so. What does this say about their own internal rigour? How did did they manage to make such a mistake in the first place and how many more mistakes might still be lurking?

                  Once a body has been shown to be either incompetent or deceptive there’s no justification for taking anything they say in trust any more.

                  The second point is any amount of free fall is damning to the theory of progressive collapse due to fire that NIST has proposed, which is probably why they fudged the speed in their initial report. Eight floors, ten floors, twenty floors doesn’t matter. Free fall means instantaneous failure and physical removal of all support across the whole building in less than 2 seconds. NIST is now required to explain how this is possible due to fire. Currently their report talks round the issue and offers no data. Sooner or later they will have to produce the data or back down yet again.

                  The debunker blogs don’t admit this, but they didn’t admit Chandler was correct about free fall either until NIST did. These blogs see their role as defending whatever NIST says, including the errors.

                • On the eve of the 12th anniversary of 9/11, nearly half of the American people suspect their government is lying about what happened that day.

                  A recent scientific survey by YouGov, sponsored by ReThink911.org, found that only 40% of Americans are fully satisfied with the official account of 9/11, while 48% either doubt the official story or do not believe it at all.

                  Shockingly, only 23% of Americans believe the government’s story about World Trade Center 7 – a 47-story highrise that imploded for no apparent reason on the afternoon of 9/11. (What is truly shocking is that almost one in four Americans actually believes the government’s claim that WTC-7 imploded in 6 1/2 seconds due to office fires.)

                  The poll data shows that there is still no consensus among the American people about what really happened on 9/11, despite the government and mainstream media’s all-out efforts to reinforce the crumbing official story and black out the whole issue of WTC-7.

                  The anniversary of 9/11 this Wednesday will feature major events in New York City and Washington, DC sponsored by groups asking Americans to re-think 9/11.

                  In Washington DC, the United In Courage coalition will lead the Million American March Against Fear, beginning at noon in the National Mall between 12th and 14th Streets. The Million American March Against Fear will commemorate all of the victims of 9/11, and demand an end to the 9/11-triggered “politics of fear” that has shredded the Constitution, launched illegal wars of aggression, and bankrupted the nation. Dr. Cornel West, regarded by many as America’s leading public intellectual, is the keynote speaker.

                  In New York, Richard Gage AIA of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth will lead an all day tour culminating at 5:20 p.m. in a rally beneath the huge RE-THINK 9/11 billboard in Times Square. (The 5:20 p.m. rally time commemorates the implosion of WTC-7.)

                  Also in Washington DC, on the weekend after 9/11, is the DC 9/11 Conference whose motto is “advancing the truth.” Though sold out in advance, the conference will be broadcast live – just go to the USTREAM link at http://dc911conference.org/.

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  This isn’t on topic, but I’m responding to your off topic (?) post.

                  You write:
                  “NIST’s original summary for WTC7 in mid-200s claimed it fell at considerably under free fall speed. This was the official position for some while and would probably be so now had David Chandler not entered the picture.”

                  The NIST draft report gives the descent time for the 18 stories measured of the north face to be 5.4s. The final report has not altered that: it is still 5.4s. This brings up the semantic games with what “free fall” means when statements such as “WTC 7 collapsed at free fall”. It took — at least — forty percent longer to collapse than it would have if it had collapsed due to free fall. This means that the structural support did not fail as comprehensively as in a controlled demolition.

                  (It also didn’t fall particularly neatly, given that it partially fell on a building across the road and a large section of the northern facade was lying on top of the pile following collapse. The facade wouldn’t be sitting on top like that unless the building fell backward during the final part of the collapse. Really bad “controlled demolition”: slow and destructive of nearby buildings.)

                  What I failed to pick up on (but found discussed on the ISL forums) was that NIST are, of course, taking a measure from the top of the centre of the facade. The engineering penthouse started to fall first, so the actual collapse time would be longer than NIST are calculating. Internal supports had to fail, then the stress from the penthouse was propagated through the structure until the cascade occurred.

                  That may not be a huge point, but it is worth also noting when assessing the collapse against controlled demolition.

  23. James Carless says

    I too have lost friends of 30yrs standing,it is painful to have to choose, between what I consider so fundamental to any understanding of how the the neo-con deep state has taken over the historical narrative,and the apathetic dismissal of those who you have loved and respected.
    I cannot keep my silence,it has become part of my DNA,like challenging climate change denial.Some issues have to be raised again and again,I do so with neighbours,total strangers,the postman,chimney sweep,my GP, relatives that I only meet every few years at a funeral,even invite witless Jehova witness in for a chat under the pretext that I am interested in talking to them about my ‘religion’ (they sit politely for up to an hour before attempting to escape !)
    My 9/11 evangelism has cost me the witnesses of past years of shared laughter and tears, it bothers and hurts me like an unwanted divorce,but at the end of the day I have to be myself and true to my conscience .
    Millions of others have paid a far steeper and more finite price for the false flag lies that fathered the ‘war on terrorism’.
    To these and future victims we owe a minimal duty to speak out.

    • It’s fascinating to see that even those ‘awakened’ people who have had the passion for truth and courage to push through the official disinformation campaign about 9/11 – even when it means losing close friends who are unable to put aside their prejudices and fears and look at simple facts … fascinating then to find many a 9/11 truther still believing the human-caused climate change lie which has become as big a tabu subject as the Holocaust.

      If we as ‘truthers’ accept the evidence that planes and fire did not bring down the Twin Towers and that there is in reality no evidence for hijackers and hijackings, we should also be prepared to consider the evidence that there has been no appreciable rise in average global temperatures for some 18 years. The indisputable fact that there is less Arctic ice is balanced by the fact that there is significantly more Antarctic ice. Of course it is true that we are poisoning our planet in many different ways, but the amount of CO2 we produce is relatively so small that it cannot seriously affect global temperatures. It is simply a scientific fact – as valid as that kerosene fire cannot weaken steel – that there is no causal relation between historical CO2 levels and global temperatures. The correlation is the reverse of what we have been told. There were vastly higher CO2 concentrations in the past with lower temperatures than we have now.

      Earth’s temperatures are predominantly correlated with sun cycles. I suggest that anyone with an open mind reads what climate scientist Piers Corbyn has written about ‘global warming’. His website is at http://www.weatheraction.com. He is not alone among scientists in declaring Gore’s well-funded propaganda campaign to be a scam. As with 9/11, we need to be led by the facts.

        • Mind control unites all three – regardless of whether they are part or wholly contrived – why? Because of the use to which they are put – by whom? By those who look to their (conditioned) mind for control.
          9/11 is a mindbomb. Not unlike trojan code designed to infiltrate and usurp or undermine system integrity.
          One can assert or argue all kinds of points as if the event was n the past – but in terms of its payload it is ongoing.
          However, I appreciate your moderation with regard to ad hom in particular. Nip it in the bud.
          Fixed identity automatically disrupts and blocks communication deemed coercive or threatening – but can be itself disrupted and blocked or indeed manipulated.
          True identification rises as a result of communication – for we recognize ourself in Spirit or true purpose – just as we lose our self in defensive reaction to ‘other’ that then substitutes a thought system of fixed identity in place of communication.
          Thought systems do not and cannot listen – but those who use them as their guide and protector can.

        • Sorry! I wasn’t intending to open up a different subject. I merely wanted to make the simple point that most of us – maybe all of us – have beliefs that we find extremely difficult to give up even when solid evidence is provided against them.
          Maybe you can start a climate change thread sometime. I’d love to quote the letter 31,487 US scientists sent to the government.

      • Husq says

        Personally. I’m with James Lovelock who was originally an AGW fanatic but now says nobody really knows what is happening. The Earth itself is in an environment and will be affected by that.

        This I find quite interesting:

          • Just a suggestion, and not that I disagree with your admonition: it would be great if, in the future, OffG did with the topic of AGW what it is now doing with 9/11. The only thing that I would change is the amount of time allotted between requesting submissions and the days or weeks during which posting would focus on that topic: I’d call it at least a month or so ahead of time, to give people time to gather up and organize their material.

            Entirely agree: apart from the fact that it is almost impossible to avoid mention of the anti-Semitic slur that — like the accusation of being a “conspiracy theorist” — is used as a blanket indictment to discredit without distinction the entire spectrum of viewpoints of those who are 9/11 skeptics, people should make an effort to “stay on topic.” On the other hand, anyone who is persistently disruptive, should simply be banned from the forum. Not without due warning, of course, but there should be a limit.

    • Love the example of the Jehovah’s witnesses. It’s reassuring to know that other people are fanatical about 9/11 too. It’s funny – so many of my friends treat me as nutty and tend not to believe what I say but I got a big shock the other day. Because I anticipated extreme skepticism (and also I guess because the burden of such horrible truth is something to bear) I was reluctantly telling friends who are a couple about Linda Barnett, a woman raised in Engadine, Sydney, whose Lithuanian Nazi step-grandfather and local Lithuanian Nazi doctor, “hired” her out to VIP paedophiles/satanists, including extremely prominent politicians. I said that she said that the worst one was Antony Kidman, Nicole Kidman’s father, ironically, a highly-respected academic in the fields of psychology and bio-chemistry.

      The wife’s response was, “That doesn’t surprise me.” You could have knocked me over with a feather. My immediate thought was, “How would you know anything about it?” In fact, she knew nothing of it but she’d found the reporting of Kidman’s death in Singapore highly suspicious and had, in fact, discussed it with her husband. I remember myself reading of his death from “heart attack” and thinking somehow that he seemed the sort of person who would look after his health and that it seemed an unusual cause of death (although as I knew nothing about him really I wonder why I thought that) and I was also surprised his wife wasn’t with him (again, why should I find that so surprising) but I didn’t think there was anything suspicious about it. Now I know better.

  24. wj2 says

    Watch this recently published series om 9/11 suspects and then tell me how you could not at least believe that the US government let the attacks willfully happen.

    • Jerome Fryer says

      Do you mean “believe after proof has been supplied that appears to be convincing”, or just “believe” because the government / elites can and have done horrific things in the past?

      Just as you should never believe something important because it is officially sanctioned (Iraq’s WMDs), you should also not believe something because it fits in with your view on the nature of the system of power in place — particularly if it is not required to fill any gaps that require explanation.

      • moriarty's Left Sock says

        But the gaps that require explanation in NIST’s story have been shown you again and again.

        1) the assumption of zero TC for steel in NIST’s models makes the model physics completely unrepresentative of real-world physics. See here:

        2) There’s no explication of how the asymmetrical damage produced symmetrical collapse. In fact NIST does not model the collapse as such at all.

        3) NIST will not release their model data so no independent scientists can replicate their studies. This is a fundamental failure of basic scientific protocol.

        These are staring gaps the require to be filled. Guesswork – yours or anyone else’s – can’t fill those gaps. Only a new enquiry with open access to all data can hope to do that.

        • Jerome Fryer says

          “But the gaps that require explanation in NIST’s story have been shown you again and again.”
          No, the assertionthat there are gaps has been made, and I don’t find them credible.

          Try reading a debunking site such as ISF (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64) where people with some expertise swat down these ‘theories’.

          To keep this on topic, note that the ISF people are not being respectful and tolerant of the ‘truther’ posters, unless they stick to their point. (They treat liars as liars, honest rubes as honest rubes, etc.) This is, in my view, perfectly fair.

          (Also often very funny, because people resort to humour when faced with repeated stupidity.)

          • moriarty's Left Sock says

            Let’s try to draw a line between facts and opinions.

            That NIST refuses to release its models is a fact. Well-documented. I posted one source, you can find others easily.

            That NIST has declined to explicate the collapse process or how asymmetrical damage produced unique symmetrical collapse three times in one day is also a fact. I don’t link to it here, but I have elsewhere, and NIST explicitly affirms it

            That NIST assigned a thermal conductivity of 0 for all the steel in its model is also a fact which NIST acknowledges itself and which has also been linked to and is easy to verify.

            So, these things are facts, and you can’t brush them away as if they were not. And these facts are the basis for increasing numbers of scientists to support the call for another and more thorough investigation.

            It’s entirely separate from any theories or opinions put forward.

            I’m familiar with the debunking sites of course. When they debunk ridiculous ideas such as space beams or holograms they are doing a good job. But when they try to blur the issue and pretend any criticism of NIST on any basis is “woo” they are actively engaging in deception of their non-science audience, for reasons only they know.

            Don’t make the mistake of seeing all critics of NIST as a single entity of conspiracy nuts. The mainstream media conveys this idea, again for reasons only they know. The truth is most in the science community of sceptics are not conspiracy-oriented and prefer not to speculate about who did it or why or when. They are just professionals reviewing the data of the most important scientific enquiry of our age and finding it wanting.

            • Jerome Fryer says

              “That NIST refuses to release its models is a fact.”

              They have refused, so far as I know. The reason they gave, is, I think, BS. The real reason, in my opinion, is they saw what happens when every idiot can get their hands on specialised data, by way of the ‘climategate’ nonsense.

              “That NIST has declined to explicate the collapse process or how asymmetrical damage produced unique symmetrical collapse three times in one day is also a fact.”

              No, that isn’t factual at all.
              1) They have explained the collapse initiation for the towers — after the initiating event, gravity took over.

              2) Neither of the towers, nor WTC 7 collapsed symetrically. Part of WTC 1 gauged a huge hold down the side of the south face, and other debris took out one lower corner, in the case of WTC 7. That the towers didn’t fall over sideways (or whatever is ‘expected’ to happen according to the ‘truther’ version of how stuff works) does not imply an unusually symetrical collapse.

              “That NIST assigned a thermal conductivity of 0 for all the steel in its model is also a fact which NIST acknowledges itself and which has also been linked to and is easy to verify.”

              I spent considerable effort explaining why this is a red herring. Do you understand that the model is designed to replicate physical tests. The details of the physical tests are also given in the same document: they burnt a bunch of stuff, under different conditions, to simulate the typical office load-out in the towers, while taking measurements. They then built and tweaked the model until it produced the same results they obtained from the physical tests.

              If you don’t understand this basic point, then why do you believe that you understand more complicated processes? But, more importantly, why are the ‘truther’ technical experts bringing up something that is irrelevant? It is either a deliberate diversion — they’re lying on purpose, to confuse people — or they are totally out of their depth.

              Remember also that NIST worked alongside specialists from a myriad of other groups (mostly private sector) in order to produce their report. If NIST botched up or deliberately games their results, then either the entire construction industry is full of incompetent experts, or they had co-conspirators throughout that industry. If the ‘conspiracy’ starts to involve everyone, then it changes from conspiracy to ‘policy’ at some point.

              Then there is also the consideration of what subsequent investigation and modelling produced. In the case of ARUP, the same result (but NIST were being too conservative, because they apparently did not have some information on the construction of the flooring — it’s a bit complicated, but look into it). I can’t find the second modelling test, however according to the ISL forums it also corroborated the original NIST result.

              • Loop Garou says

                You believe NIST is keeping its data secret because it’s worried stupid people will get hold of it and do stupid stuff?

                You don’t think it just might be because it’s worried smart people will get hold of it and do smart stuff?

                Are you ok with this kind of censorship? Is it ok to suppress any amount of data about anything if the alternative is letting dumb people see it? Where’s the line to be drawn there?

                When you say the fact NIST set the thermal conductivity of the steel to zero is not a problem because NIST did physical tests prior to modeling, are you claiming NIST did actual real-world tests that found a thermal conductivity of zero for the steel it was testing?

                You are saying NIST found real steel in the real world that had NO ability to conduct heat?

                To quote the OffGuardian mods – “citation needed”!

                ROFL 😀

              • Loop Garou says

                And it’s already been pointed out the ARUP data didn’t confirm NIST, ARUP produced its own analysis prior to NIST and drew its own conclusions focused mainly on the fire-proofing on the steel. We won’t get confirmation of NIST’s claims until it releases its models for duplication.

                Regardless any amount of special pleading it’s a scientific disgrace they have yet to do so.

              • moriarty's Left Sock says

                @ JeromeFryer Loop Garu has already covered most of your frankly quite bizarre claims.

                1) censorship of scientific data is never justified

                2) “After that gravity took over”? I don’t know whether this claim is based on ill-informed but honest faith in NIST or an intent to troll [no ad hom – OffG ed]. What do you think this means? That there is literally nothing left to explain beyond “initiation”?

                In scientific protocol the fact no building has ever before or since collapsed due to fire means any theory that these three buildings – of two different designs – DID collapse due to fire needs explicit and careful explication – not just a summary of “initiation”.

                It’s a claim that an event heretofore considered improbable to the point of exclusion happened, not once but THREE TIMES, on one day in one place.

                This is by any stretch an extraordinary claim, in need of extraordinary evidence.

                *We need an explanation of how asymmetrical damage produced symmetrical collapse (and yes it as symmetrical – look at the videos, the fact some debris fell on surrounding buildings does not counter this. The buildings fell straight down in a measurable horizontal axis.)

                *We need examples through video of some other non-demolitin collapse that looks the way the WTC towers look, simply in order to prove that non-demolitions can resemble demolitions.. This has not been done. There is no such video yet produced.

                *We need a full explanation of the extraordinary free-fall of WTC7 for 2.25 seconds, which NIST has completely evaded by electing to describe only the “initiation” and not the collapse itself.

                • Jerome Fryer says

                  Please address my point about the model being calibrated to fit the physical tests. It appears that you ether can’t grasp that fact (and why it makes the quibbling about the design of the model irrelevant) or are deliberately avoiding answering the point because you do understand it. I want to know which it is.

                  As to your other rehashed points: look at ‘evidence’ provided by sceptics and the debunkers, or go look for yourself. I just posted in the latest article (with the “Steve Spak” video that the editors here seem to feel represents WTC 7 ablaze) a couple of videos and a map of the area that don’t fit the narrative that you’re using to create your “we need” points.

                  NOTE FROM ADMIN: OffG is notclaiming the Steve Spak film shows WTC7 ablaze. A commenter and proponent of the official theory posted the video here in a comment, alleging it as evidence that WTC7 was heavily damaged by fire before collapse. In view of this we published the video ATL in pursuit of fairness and accuracy

          • Dear Jerome,

            You play with the word “assertion.” No one can say anything without “asserting” what they say, eh. But there are different kinds of “assertions,” in quality and intent. There are “assertions” that are unwarranted and those that are. The kinds of assertions that you habitually make are unwarranted, as indeed you are here making.

            Here is an example of an “assertion” about “gaps” in somebody’s else’s work that is left completely unsubstantiated as it stands by itself and that is therefore unwarranted:

            Quote begins:
            The errors and omissions in the Harrit paper are so large and stunning to any materials scientist that there is no reason to repeat experiments because there is no credible evidence for nanothermite.”
            Quote ends.

            Denis Rancourt, November 15, 2010 at 9:38 AM,

            Furthermore, Rancourt draws the logically spurious conclusion from his “assertion” that because the Harrit paper is full of “gaps,” no one need ever examine the dust of the WTC crime scene for traces of explosives. His “assertion” is therefore unwarranted in at least two respects, and I have showed you why, so that my assertion that his assertion is bullshit is entirely warranted, both as sourced and in its illogicality.

            source of the quote:


            Moriarty does not merely assert that there are “gaps” in NIST’s story, he tells you what they are and even enumerates them for you to help you zero in on then.

            But as usual, you are the one who makes the unwarranted “assertions,” while accusing another of doing precisely what you are doing. On the one hand, you imply that nothing has time and again been clearly explained to you, as Moriarty correctly asserts. The comment sections under the 9/11 posts are replete with examples. On the other hand, you assert without any attempt at clarification that his examples of what are glaring gaps in NIST’s story are simply not credible. This is an assertion of the kind that is without warrant of any kind whatsoever.

            If all of the gaps to which Moriarty points are not, as you clearly imply, in any way problematic, tell us why. Don’t just “say,’ eh.

            Why, for example, is it not problematic to model an implosion of a steel framed building on the assumption that steel does not act as a heat sink when in reality all steel conducts and dissipates heat?

            It’s not enough to say, “it’s not a problem because I say so.” Otherwise you are just making an unsubstantiated assertion.

            But you understand all of this perfectly well and are just playing at being daft, to waste other people’s time and to confuse people who might not be up to speed on the issues. So again, I’m calling you out as a troll because that is what you are doing in effect. It is high time that you left the scene, in my opinion.

            • Jerome Fryer says

              “Why, for example, is it not problematic to model an implosion of a steel framed building on the assumption that steel does not act as a heat sink when in reality all steel conducts and dissipates heat?”

              I explained, at length, why that is a red herring.

              Perhaps you could explain why you believe that the model was defective, if it was able to reproduce the results obtained from the physical tests performed?

              [the alleged problems with the models have been extensively explained and sourced in direct reply to you, see here and here , no point in asking again and again for sources provided – OffG ed.]

              • Two Hasbara trolls disrupting the thread. How does it feel to knowingly serve the interests of mass murderers? Bit of luck for you that there is no God, eh?

                ….you’re wrong about that too.

                  • To Admin: Please delete this post if you wish.
                    The thing I find distressing about the presence of these people is the fact I know they are highly organised, probably sitting in offices being paid for their activities. I discovered this during heated exchanges on a YouTube Comments thread (not about 9/11 but after a video with about 1.5 million views wherein well-known British comedians attacked “stupid Christians” … it was a ‘War against God’ thing). I took on a bunch of the foul-mouthed atheist mockers and (though I say it myself) they were having a serious problem getting the upper hand. Next thing, about 6 of them were attacking a ‘Christian idiot’ they called Scott Zimmerman and the threads became filled with comments relating to this person’s foolishness.
                    There were many hundreds of comments posted and I went through them all to find what these people were on about. You guessed it. Scott Zimmerman did not exist.
                    This collective behaviour can ONLY be explained by the existence of covert networks organised to dominate important arenas of public discourse. Such networks must be working according to set templates and instructions directed from above. It is silly to think that the people behaving like this are not being paid. For the kind of co-ordination involved it is most likely that these trolls travel to work and sit in the same office. (Such co-ordination is technically possible by other means but Occam would opt for the simplest explanation of such complex and collectively deceptive propagandising).
                    Online activism is only of limited use, of course … so it wouldn’t worry to be banned from this site, like just about everywhere else. spending hours at this activity is not a healthy nor a particularly useful way to spend one’s time. We need to be happy and realise that establishment toads are taking more of a kicking as every day passes.

                    • I feel to USE the opportunity of baiting to develop discernment as to the ways conflicts are introduced, insinuations and invalidations slipped in, and all the trickery of intent to undermine, confound, confuse and disseminate disinfo – regardkless whether the instigator is paid of a volunteer – for anyone can for example become polarized against ‘truthers’ as if there is one thing under such a name and then they feel validated in opposition. Indeed that is something that many who identify with ‘truthers’ attract – if they try to force upon others without consent – which they may at times because the horror of the predicament of being killed, lied to and covered up on such a scale and in such a way, by those who were trusted to serve the common interest – taps into the rage undercurrent in the acts – and the lies – themselves.

                      I don’t see disinfo agents taking a bashing at all – nor would I frame it in battle terms. And if and as AI can take their jobs – there will be no possibility of seeding a different perspective than battle, threat and compulsion to protect (attack). So I invite you and others to grow in your conscious use of language as well as when and why to reply. And of course some of this is by trial and error – but amidst the willingness to learn, come shifts of perspective where one can feel where something is coming from and not be baited into reaction. That to me is a key discernment for cultural renewal – but we can only feel the true intent within others through our own – and just because we are not moved to join does not mean we have ‘proof’ they are paid as disinfo agencies.

                      Many tried to trick and bait Jesus – who often used it as a basis from which to illuminate something true to those who were listening – not excluding those sent to bait him.

                      I welcome the moderation reminders to desist from ‘attack on the person’ . Those who run or hold forums also need to wake up to a willingness to call out what is not acceptable (because it undermines a culture of exchange) in ways that educate rather than castigate. I haven’t taken non violent communication courses – but in effect that is what I am suggesting is on offer. I quite accept and understand we may feel outraged – and that offers its own ‘course’ for greater understanding and acceptance – but reclaiming an integrity of communication cannot co-exist with personal vendetta – and I feel that some here recognize that being baited into hate is the way to be ‘recruited’ so as to propagate hate in a polarized breakdown of communication.

                      Our world is embodying a communication breakdown that I feel calls for healing and not further inflammation. For re-establishing a core integrity from which trust can grow – in place of derivative deceits operating power struggle. The ‘mind of disconnected thinking’ cannot do this – for it runs on a sense of disconnect – that is the power struggle – however it is rebranded or cleverly concealed in ideological devices. Disconnected power runs unchecked and polarizes in reversal as an anti-life force. Connecting as the context of our communication is reclaiming our power instead of giving out thoughts and deeds charged with hate – that of course have effect. Why would narrative control be such an overwhelming aspect of the dictate of reality if thought had no power?

                      It has all the power you give it – or all the power hate cheats you out of…

                      One last thought.. if you could forcefully eradicate all irritant symptoms – would the indicators and messengers of a state of imbalance or dis-ease rising to your attention, be lost, with the disease operating even more in the dark? War against equals persistence of .

              • Jerome Fryer says

                OffG Ed:
                Repeatedly claiming that ‘the model is wrong because of [some simplifications noted by NIST]’ is not addressing my point that the model is correct — fit for purpose — because it is specifically calibrated to ensure that it reproduces physical testing. Unless reality (in the form of that testing) is ‘wrong’, the model can’t be wrong.

                The only way the model could be deficient is if it didn’t match the results from the physical testing. If you wanted to assert that the models were wrong then your best line of attack is the physical test processes — but, oddly, that is ignored.

                This shouldn’t be a difficult point to grasp: model matches reality, therefore model works.

                (NIST also noted several other simplifications in their models, but those don’t appear to have gripped the minds of the ‘truthers’ for some reason.)

                • Loop Garou says

                  Turning the thermal conductivity of steel to zero is a “simplification” ?

                  Denying a fundamental physical property of metals is a “simplification”?


                  Jerome, this is like saying “gee building this airplane is so hard, I know let’s simplify it and adjust gravity to zero”.

                  Steel conducts heat. It always has and it always will. If you turn that property off in your model, your model will be wrong.

                  Regarding these physical tests you keep talking about- what do you think they involved? Do you think NIST made a scale model of the towers, burned them, produced collapses just like the ones seen on 9/11 and built their computer model on that?

                  Holy Hell, I think you actually might think that.

                  Oookay….When I have more time I’ll talk about the “physical tests” NIST actually did.

            • “So again, I’m calling you out as a troll because that is what you are doing in effect. It is high time that you left the scene, in my opinion.”

              I wish to retract that statement, or at least a part of it: I still think that Jerome is a troll, but he is actually very useful to the cause of unraveling the ‘official narrative about 9/11’ and for elucidating and making the actual “case” for the need to formally and legally re-investigate the crime of 9/11. In his persistence, he certainly brings up a lot of issues that would otherwise not get aired, discussed and rebutted.

              My exasperation, then, with Jerome has less to do with the “points” he thinks he’s making than with the “repetitiveness” with which he makes them. Please, for the love of Gautama Buddha, say it once, maybe twice, and then get on to the next thing if you can’t formulate it better than you already have . . .

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole