There is a mystique around 9/11. We have magnified it out of proportion because it happened to us. We imagine that it is some unique cataclysmic event of epic importance. It is indeed an important event, and the number of real and fake people killed that day is impressive. It was traumatizing, but even in my lifetime it is trivial. A brief list of places that have endured tragedies exponentially larger includes Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam, The Congo, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and recently Libya. Of relatively similar proportion are events in Panama, Chile, Serbia, Lebanon, Palestine, Argentina and currently, though it is shrouded in a cloud, Syria. That country may soon join the exponential list. I only include episodes in barbarism that directly or peripherally involve the United States.
In other words, 9/11 was not that big a deal by itself. But what followed – a clash of civilizations, is epic in scale. Millions have been killed, regimes have toppled. 9/11 changed the world. That seemed the objective.
Domestically, Americans are insular and uninformed, geographic grade-schoolers. It’s all about us. The event, well-planned and carried out, also involved an extensive and ongoing cover-up.
This is 2013, and in November we will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the public slaying of John F. Kennedy. That event too is shrouded in mystery, but so much has been uncovered that a majority of the public does not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald “acted alone,” an odd phrase considering the large body of evidence that indicates that he didn’t even “act.” Later this year a movie, Legacy of Secrecy, will attempt to jujitsu this public disbelief in the official story onto a new official perpetrator, the “Mafia,” a loosely affiliated and barely organized group of low-level thugs. Like the similarly mythical “Al Qaeda,” these people could not possibly have pulled it off.
So, fifty years later, the U.S. Government is still conducting an active cover-up of the JFK assassination. Somewhere within the bowels of government there must be a Department of Public Mythology.
9/11 also involves an ongoing cover-up. There are many features to it, each well thought out.
- News blackout: I was very surprised to learn some time ago that a large percentage of the American public does not know that three buildings self-destructed on 9/11, not just two. The third, Building Seven, had no known cause. Perhaps less than one percent of us know that four other buildings went down that day, all with a WTC prefix, and an eighth, Bankers Trust (formerly Deutsche Bank), was razed in 2007 after repeated repairs from the 9/11 damage failed to stop structural deterioration.
We don’t know about this because the major news outlets, and I mean “all” of them, television radio, newspaper and Internet, do not allow any discussion of 9/11 that does not fit within the official narrative. If an event like the “killing” of the long-dead Osama bin Laden reinforces the official story, they zero in and are all over it. But all of the other matters, huge discrepancies and holes in the official narratives, are blacked out. It is verboten. And it is easy to understand why – just as with fifty years of poring over the events of 11/22/63, too much information is not a good thing for the American people. It is best to keep it simple.
- Ridicule and marginalization of skeptics: Anyone in this country who fails to believe the official story and says so publicly is immediately knocked down a few pegs. Intelligence and sanity are questioned. Ordinary skepticism becomes a “conspiracy theory,” and we all somehow know why that innocuous phrase entails a defective mental state. Wise and sincere people discuss that aspect of 9/11, casually tossing about such words as “nut jobs” and “lunatics.” Consequently, we have a phenomenon that I’ve encountered endlessly as I have allowed by own skepticism to go public here: refusal to even look at evidence. The public has been warned away. Over the last week there have been thousands of words written here, and three of us are familiar with not a few holes in the official story, but with the utter impossibility of all of it. It only takes a little dabbling to come way with eyebrows raised, and yet the believers will not do go that route. That is thought control. It’s an amazing psychological phenomenon. I cannot explain it other than that old and abused tale about the the emperor and his clothes. At least in that aspect I can take comfort knowing that there is nothing new under the sun.
- Debunking: Occasionally people are troubled by a bar conversation or by having stumbled on some article or person who offers seemingly honest skepticism about the events of that day. To remedy this, there are a wide variety of “debunking” sites and sources available. They are not publicized, but quickly pop up for anyone exposed to troubling thoughts about that day. This is the only “mainstream” discussion allowed of 9/11 – Popular Mechanics will discuss that day, but only to debunk critics. Like a pastoral counselor, debunking sites restore confidence that all is OK here in Camelot. Debunking also includes “expert” and “scientific” sources, so that lettered and learned people will offer us gems such as this, which officially explains how an aluminum plane can cut through steel without encountering resistance, in violation of Newton’s Third Law:
“The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.”
That is babble, more precisely, techno-babble. But to the average citizen it sounds professional, and tells us not to trust our lying eyes. Debunking is a refuge in a storm, a place to go when the eyes and brain are troubled. No matter the evidence someone might bring up, it is debunked. Forget that 19 Arabs, planes, Osama, phone calls, witnesses, victims, and physical evidence have all been debunked. Only debunking of the non-official story ever makes its way into the mainstream.
- False leads and “ops”: Everything prior is directed at keeping the mass of public opinion in line, but the cover-up also entails leading skeptics astray. Those of us who are genuinely curious about that day have been led down many a garden path. One of the hardest parts of this mystery for me was to understand that if we have no faith in our government, we can live in a Puzzle Palace. Consider, for example, three men among many:
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Gage is an early proponent of “controlled demolition” of the twin towers. He’s well-spoken and presents a formidable case for debunking the pancake collapse theory, and in its place substitutes an equally implausible theory, that the buildings were brought down by explosives. Both theories are easily debunked by seismic evidence, but Gage, when asked, says he’s not even aware of seismic data from that day. He’s either very ignorant, or deliberately misleading people. Those who are skeptical of his theory are not allowed membership in his group.
Stephen Jones: A BYU physicist, Jones created quite a stir when he advanced the theory of nano-thermites, or weapons-grade powder capable of cutting through steel very quickly. He analyzed dust samples of unknown origin (very unscientific) and found evidence that they were used. He joined “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” and like Gage above, will not back down from his theory even as others have calculated that tons and tons of the stuff would have to have been placed in the buildings on every floor over a long period of time.
John Lear: A pilot who worked for the CIA in Vietnam for the fabled Air America, Lear is a well-spoken man who has publicly questioned every aspect of the events of that day, giving long and very interesting interviews. His father pioneered small jet aircraft, yes, that Lear. He seems very nice and genuine, saying that the remainder of his life is for a higher calling, leading people to the truth and offering some meaning for our existence. Take a look at his website. You will see a self-depracating man in a tin foil hat. Further understand that he says the moon was colonized in 1951, that millions of people live on the dark side, and that millions more live in a civilization underground down here on terra firma. Go down his garden path, listen to his words, and rightly be branded a lunatic in its truest sense. He’s an op.
Richard Gage: Founder of
- Agents provocateur: One of the commenters on earlier threads mentioned that he had dabbled in the “9/11 Truth” movement years ago, and was repelled by the infighting and lack of common purpose among them. He was wise to move away as he did, as the movement is littered with other “ops” whose sole purpose is to divide and discredit. Among them: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, this guy seeks to bring everyone under his roof, seemingly as a unifying force. He then attacks them. He offered Dr. Judy Wood a forum when she first went public with her work, and now calls her names and has labeled people who are trusting of her work as a “cult.” Note that this word, “cult,” has the same intended effect as “conspiracy theorist.” It’s a psychological tool used to discredit a large group of people without confronting evidence. Alex Jones: Jones is worth following, but only from a distance. He’s angry, certain of everything, prone to yelling and losing his temper. Association with him is discomforting, and he is quick to discredit others who are skeptical of the events of that day. He is the one who coined the term “Beam Lady” for Dr. Judy Wood, ridicule intended to discredit her and her work. James Fetzer: Founder of
Taking all of this into account, it is no wonder that the American public, since skepticism peaked in 2006, has more and more fallen in line with the official story. It’s the only one allowed on TV, which is our reality. Skeptics have effectively been marginalized. So I think it safe to say that eleven years later, they got away with it. The public bought the TV show, the wars went forward, civil liberties are down the tube, and a mesmerizer and speechifier now leads. Millions have died, surely millions more will follow. Now it has been “leaked” that the executive as usurped the right to kill anyone who walks, anywhere for any reason. Fascism, thy name be 9/11.
Here’s a comment from one of the previous threads:
I think it’s sad how paranoid examining this stuff makes a person, myself included. I think it’s more important to emphasize the results of the post-9/11 era, like actual policy consequences of dismantling the constitution and building the security state.
Indeed. This is an honest evaluation of the situation. Why not just move forward, given that 9/11 was pulled off and has captured the public mind as a real attack by foreigners. The question is, if we buy the premise, how can we ever hope to change the resultant policies. Every act since that time, from anthrax to Afghanistan to today’s Syria and Mali, are premised on the idea that there is an evil force out there that we need to actively fight. How do we just say no when the majority of the public is frightened by the evil faces presented that day – Osama, Atta and the raging wild men of the Islamic world. They were branded that day as crazy people who will do anything and do not respect life. We somehow have to neutralize that false premise. I do not know how else to move forward.
People do indeed get caught up in details. I thought it would be useful to show “One True Thing” that could not be real, and found that ordinary and smart people will go to great lengths to preserve the mythology of 9/11 in their own minds, even discarding Isaac Newton when he contradicts official truth. I got some sane advice in this area from another skeptic who said it is pointless to approach the matter from that angle. I will not, he said, overcome the perceptions inserted in our traumatized brains that day, so don’t even try. Dr. Judy Wood had the right approach, he said, when she said “Since neither fake planes or real planes could bring down those buildings, I am not going to waste my time on it.”
But we never know. Dr. Judy Wood might be an “op.” There are no guarantees in this house of mirrors. If so, we’re screwed anyway, as there seems no other path to go other than that of assembly of data. Indeed. Dr. Wood has taken the right approach, it appears. She is that college professor for whom we had to take No-Doze, dry in her presentation, uncomfortable in front of groups of people. She has calmly assembled a body of evidence over the years, sued NIST for science fraud, avoided the “9/11 Truth” movement. She asks us to not be blind followers, to look at the evidence, weigh it against everything else, and use our brains. She is not out to bring down the government or hang the perpetrators, but to advance the dawn of a new era. What we saw that day was a demonstration of abundant and cheap energy. The new tool that day was used as a destructive force, just as atomic energy was first used to destroy cities. Now it is time to use it as a constructive one. And in that sense I regard Dr. Wood as proactive and positive. Indeed we need to forward, and only part of that is to reconstruct the past as it really happened, and not as we saw on TV.
Again, as suggested throughout the discussions of this past week, if you find yourself unable to confront evidence, you are subject to manipulation, aka “thought control.” You first have to break free of that regime, breathe some fresh air, and come out of the bubble and enter the real world. It’s safe. It’s a new era.