DisInfoWars with Tom Secker- No Easy Day: A Piece of Officially-Sanctioned Propaganda?

In this episode I do a critical review of No Easy Day, the real-life story written by a former Navy SEAL who was on the Abbottabad raid. I look at the controversy around the book, which is still going on, and ask whether it is all either a smokescreen or a promotional technique. Then I analyze the content of No Easy Day, asking the big questions: (1) Was it really Bin Laden that they killed? (2) Does this book support the official lie about the Abbottabad raid? (3) Is this a piece of officially-sanctioned propaganda? The answers in each case might surprise you, as this is a more complex and fascinating book than many people give it credit for being.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. Arnar Steinsson says:

    Thanks Tom, very interesting.

  2. Yes!!! Just For Men! Every aspect of this myth is just too funny.

    This will make for some great product placements…
    [Seal Team Soldier #1 reaches across sink to cabinet. Cut to a closeup of the Just For Men package]
    Seal Team Soldier #1: “Well, this explains it. The beard colour was so convincing it made Bin Laden look about twenty years younger.”

    [Cut to shot of Seal Team Soldier #2 being handed the package]
    Seal Team Soldier #2: “Tell me about it. Just For Men is far more authentic and natural looking than the other leading brands.”

    • 344thBrother says:

      @Benny. Hahaha you have a promising career as a marketing professional.

      “If we can make this guy who’s been dead for 10 years look 20 years younger, just think what Just for Men can do for you!”

      I’d like to see Stephen King do some return from the dead movie about the secret ingredients in a mans hair dye results in undead people who get all the babes.

      I’d like to hear a little follow up on the Seal Team Six chopper crash that killed 22 members in a National Guard Chopper shortly after “They got Bin Laden”. That entire thing is hinkey as hell.

      Mean while I’m padding my stock portfolio with Just for Men stocks.
      p
      d

      • I will say this – Owen makes numerous references to members of the group being in helicopter crashes prior to the Abbottabad raid. And one of the blackhawks crashed on the approach to the house. It does seem that the SEALs have a lot of trouble with their helicopters. Not that I’m saying that’s the explanation for the crash(crashes?) you mention, just that it is referred to in the book.

        • 344thBrother says:

          The crash that killed 22 seals in one shot was very different from the usual and broke a lot of their policies. It was an old National Guard helicopter (unheard of for seals). Flying low over a known stronghold (stupid). With more than the maximum # of seals on board (6 I think). For no good purpose. … The whole thing sounds like a hit to me.

      • Right on. Can I interest you in our Just For Men/Ambien “Better Living ™” bundle? If you act now I can see about offering you a great put option on Blackhawk helicopter parts 😉

    • There are indeed many funny aspects to this story, it is quite laughable that they tried to get us to believe this crap, and even more laughable that despite everything, the majority of people sorta believe the basic story, that we got Bin Laden.

      I do wonder about who was in that house, because the privacy, the isolation despite being in a city, the limited contact with visitors – it all says to me ‘witness protection’. But a witness to what?

      It is interesting that the CIA agent who was 100% sure that it was Bin Laden (the one played by Jessica Chastain in ZD30) was happy just to drop a bomb on the house, and didn’t give a damn about being ‘sure’ of being able to recover a body. It seems she was pathologically driven to find Bin Laden, and found him, whether or not it was really him. That didn’t seem to matter to her.

      And yes, the advert would be great. ‘Are you an aging jihadi looking to reinvent yourself as a Miami playboy? Then try Just for Men – you’ll be unrecognisable!’

      • Coming soon… “Bin Laden’s Leviathan: Buried At Sea”

        Seriously though…
        I enjoyed this podcast. Aside from the comedic value there’s certainly some food for thought. The Ambien details and lack of clarity on Bin Laden are certainly noteworthy.

        I’m absolutely with you on the idea that the finger wagging over classified information is part of a propaganda/publicity campaign.

    • dancingbrave says:

      Very funny Just for men advert Benny but remember Bin Laden uses just for men ‘because he’s worth it’.

  3. Gary Binmore says:

    Since mostly sophisticates read books now the propaganda therein has to be more sophisticated.
    Is the goal of such open-ended propaganda to vitiate the truth movement? Rather than encouraging truthers, making some concessions to the truth – ie that it wasn’t OBL who was killed in Abbotabad – tends to have a deflating and baffling effect.

    Truther: So you didn’t kill Osama?
    Owen: I’m not sure.
    Truther: How can you not be sure?
    Owen: How can anyone be sure? It was late, we were drugged, Afghanistan is a long way from home etc.

    Perplexed, the truther manages to put this question to the Director of the CIA.
    Truther: Seal Owen says he isn’t certain the bearded man Seal Team Six shot in Abbottabad was Osama.
    Brennan: According to our information he was.
    Truther: Seal Owen was there.
    Brennan: So were several other seals.
    Truther: Do they say this guy looked like Osama?
    Brennan: (Yawns) We based our conclusion on reliable sources.
    Truther: You’re saying Seal Owen isn’t reliable?
    Brennan: No. I’m saying he has his determination, and we have ours.

    Where can the inquiry go after this? Instead of bald lies, which can always be disputed, enough vagueness has been added to the official account to completely derail any investigation. By admitting, however implicitly, that truthers might be right, the powers that be effectively neutralize them as opposition. For them, this subtle middle path is infinitely preferable to outright confirmation or denial.

    Possible goal: to have everyone thinking nobody knows what really happened, but believing in the official version anyway as the most likely explanation because it was based on the best intelligence. A balance of judgement determination, rather than a black and white one.

    Is there a name for this technique? Neutralization by partial validation?

    • I can’t think of a name for that technique but I totally agree that’s what they’ve done with this operation. I admit, I am not at all sure what to make of what happened in Abbottabad. They have smudged it all so very well.

      Owen’s book is very odd – it left the same impression on me as E Howard Hunt’s book American Spy, and was similar in some ways to George Crile’s book Charlie Wilson’s War. Both treat key events – Watergate and Operation Cyclone – in a similar way to No Easy Day. Perhaps they are all three using the same technique.

      • Gary Binmore says:

        As a veteran spy and pretty accomplished novelist, EHH was about the best qualified liar who ever lived. As he went from one fascinating subject to the next in American Spy, his mood kept changing as well: hubristic, remorseful, detached. If you knew nothing of the deep state you could dismiss all of it, or accept all of it. Obviously, you should only accept part of it, but which part? And would EHH know which part (ignoring the fact of his age when he wrote it)? He’d been living in a liar’s milieu his whole adult life – the spectrum of truth and falsehood in his mind could well have dissolved into an indistinguishable mess.

        I suspect the deep state wants everybody reduced to this same undiscerning state – a state beyond the robotic product of traditional stimulus-response propaganda. Strange how it happened to one of their own soldiers – it almost has to happen to their soldiers, and perhaps to them.

        • Well, there are some bits where Hunt’s writing voice is conspicuously absent, like the bit on the JFK assassination. They have obviously been rewritten, I would assume by the CIA.

          I think this psychological state we’re talking about is extremely common within state institutions. A lot of people within these offices will know that 9/11, the Bin Laden raid and a whole load of other stuff is fundamentally untrue, but without any evidence or a media willing to take them seriously, why say anything? Why even think it?

          • Gary Binmore says:

            EHH spoke about the JFK assassination near his death, under the cover that LBJ was behind it! His acting ability comes to the fore here, but some of what he says makes sense, implicating David Morales, “Pear” Harvey and an unnamed Corsican assassin – no doubt QJ/WIN. To me, he’s as likely to have fired the fatal shot as anyone. If not him then a Trafficante or Giancana hitman. Of course, EHH is probably covering himself as well, and George Bush – will that individual ever be outed?

          • I find it hard to blame a lot of the people who don’t speak up about certain things. If not for themselves, then for their families. People can have “accidents” at any point in time and it will be no more than a blip on the evening news. Justice in these matters never comes retroactively. It’s a matter of figuring out how to learn how to put a wrench in the engine before someone gets run down. At least that’s my opinion. I know that’s a bit of a stray here, but that’s what came to mind.

          • There are elements to EHH’s JFK confession that make sense, but a lot more that don’t (to me). Especially blaming LBJ. That would be like Obama getting assassinated and people blaming Hillary Clinton, or even more laughable, Joe Biden.

            As to blaming people who don’t speak up – it depends what they are speaking up about. For example, Jimmy Savile was a predatory, psychopathic pedophile who was protected by the BBC, the government, Thatcher, the Royal family and others. A lot of these people must have known what he was doing, and said nothing. I do hold some of them responsible because someone who is raping young adolescents and disabled people is hardly a difficult thing to speak up about. That’s the sort of thing where people will naturally by on your side.

            Whereas a lot of other things you wouldn’t have people on your side, so I have more sympathy for those turning a blind eye in those cases.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            LBJ had to be an integral part of the assassination – that does not necessarily make him a “mastermind,” but at the same time, it could not have happened without his complicity. Take it from someone who is familiar with both Texas politics and the CIA (though the assassination itself was before his time)…

            http://intloperator.blogspot.com/2014/02/kennedy-assassination-in-mein-kampf.html

            “Living in Texas, there was much suspicion here that Lyndon Johnson arranged for Kennedy to be killed, and time and evidence has demonstrated that to be accurate. Johnson was in fact the linchpin of the conspiracy. Others who conducted it would never have done so without the participation of the next President. With his cooperation though there was no risk that anyone would be accused or punished. With the next President in the loop the plan was guaranteed success. That’s the sole reason why it happened.”

            Linchpin may seem too a strong term, but not so if we distinguish it from the notion of LBJ being a “mastermind” – in other words, he was a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the assassination to take place.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            You might want to take a look at some of the C.I.A. operator’s other posts (aka “MIT Michael” who also comments profusely at Steve Pieczenik’s blog)…. If there were ever a case for the second generation of Operation Paperclip, this is it… This time, however, people like Walt Rostow weren’t recruiting nazis from overseas, but domestically.

          • Are you being serious? Just because one guy on a blog who claims to live in Texas claims that lots of people suspected LBJ’s involvement doesn’t in any way add evidence to the idea that LBJ was involved.

            As to ‘they never would have done it without the consent of the next President’ – the President is a puppet. What is much, much, much, much more likely, sane, evidenced and logical is that they never would have done it without certain people in place in the DOJ and the CIA to help cover it up. Like Dulles, who ended up on the Warren Commission. But no, let’s ignore the likes of Allen Dulles, a man who had clearly worked within the deep state for over 2 decades by that point, and instead point the finger at LBJ, who is a minor footnote in US history.

            And what’s our source for pointing the finger at LBJ – a blog by a guy who claims to be working for the CIA, who you say comments a lot on another blog run by a guy who works for the CIA, and a book written by an ex CIA agent who is a notorious liar, and whose book was edited by the CIA prior to publication.

            I ask again – are you being serious?

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Testy, aren’t we?

            It’s not just this one guy on a blog… There is a wealth of evidence, innumerable books which I can’t begin to list (though I mentioned Final Judgement in the other thread, which though focusing on the Lansky/Mossad/Angleton angle does implicate LBJ as integral to the project). I cited “this one guy” however because he brings it down to a tight logical point, namely that in order to insure success, the successor had to have his hands dirtied with it as well. To pull off something of this scale, there is no room for uncertainty, particularly when other logistics can go awry – as they apparently did with Oswald. LBJ’s call to the operating room demanding a ‘”death bed confession” after Oswald’s shooting is quite telling in this light.

            I would remind that JFK himself was the CIA’s favorite for the ’60 election, as he championed an aggressive Directorate of Operations. After the Bay of Pigs, however, that all soured, and when he started with this ‘smash it into a thousand pieces’ talk, he had to go. For his successor, then, the deep state gang wanted someone who would not only talk the talk, but walk the walk, and what better way to insure that then to bring him in on the coup plot, if in fact he wasn’t part of it from the beginning.

            As for this ‘one guy on a blog,’ I thought he’d be a case that you’d find interesting, as an instance of a nazi sympathizer within the agency (in the Casey era). As far as I can determine, he is a real person, with valuable insight, though I would disagree with many of his rather extreme views, particularly on the subject of race.

            And, what book are you referring to?

          • I’m not testy, just amazed anyone takes this seriously.

            This one guy on this blog doesn’t bring it down to a tight logical point – he makes the point very hazily, with no substantiating evidence beyond a claim to the popular opinion of Texans.

            I think you’re overstating the significance of this – the CIA overthrows governments all the time. Did they wait to get the permission of Castillo Armas before overthrowing Jacobo Arbenz? Did they wait to get Pinochet’s agreement before overthrowing Salvador Allende? Did they sit around, waiting for the Shah to get back to them before they carried out black operations against Mossadeq?

            What better way to ensure LBJ toed the line? The same way they make all presidents toe the line, by only selecting them from a pool of people who toe the line. Or, as in JFK’s case, are so horribly compromised by their sex lives that they can be controlled. I can think of all kinds of ways for them to control LBJ that don’t involve bringing him in on the murder plot.

            You are making these arguments as though they had no choice, as though LBJ is above the CIA in the pecking order. I ask again – are you being serious?

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Well, apparently I’ve struck some kind of nerve…

            But, yes, seriously, and to your point, you could’ve mentioned Castro, who came to power with the assistance of some of the same deep state players who ended up being involved in the JFK assassination. They very quickly came to regret Castro, however, simultaneous with their regret of support for JFK in ’60. All the scandalous dirt they had nevertheless didn’t prevent him from wandering far off the reservation. These two “lessons learned” then taught them that next time, the successor would be firmly in their pocket.

            I rest my case – which is by no means exhaustive. I’m focusing on the motivational big picture here. The evidentiary corpus implicating LBJ is quite voluminous, and your feigning ignorance of it is rather perplexing.

          • Ronald,

            I don’t think it’s a matter of striking a nerve. In my opinion, Tom isn’t feigning ignorance, maybe just mild disbelief that you’re taking the information, from wherever it is you’re getting it from seriously. I’ve stayed out of it until now, but I’m sorry, I’m with Tom on this one, the argument you’ve presented seems a bit ridiculous. Maybe hearing it from more than one person here will give you pause to take into consideration how credible the source you’re referring to on this theory is. I’ll leave it at that.

          • Ronald,

            You haven’t struck a nerve – stop trying to make this personal.

            I don’t buy this idea that Kennedy was wandering off the reservation. What did he do that was so radical? Have a lot of affairs? Take LSD with pop stars?

            As to Castro coming to power with the assistance of ‘the same deep state players who killed JFK’ – do you have any evidence for that? I mean, beyond some guy on a blog who claims to be a neo-nazi recruited by the CIA?

          • “I don’t buy this idea that Kennedy was wandering off the reservation.” — TomS

            The author James W. Douglas wrote an entire book, “JFK And The Unspeakable,” strongly documented and footnoted, in support of the thesis that Kennedy had indeed undergone real changes in his Cold War thinking. If it matters, Paul Craig Roberts strongly endorsed the book, though with some reservations unrelated to the main thesis.

          • I am aware of this book, published by the son of the original CIA fake whistleblower. Like I say, I don’t buy it. This notion of Kennedy being a hero just doesn’t square with everything else I know about the man, and his brother.

            For example, their role in the murder of Marilyn Monroe, which very few in the ‘assassination investigation’ community will touch, precisely because it undermines this notion that the Kennedy clan were heroes who were taken down by the establishment. In my opinion they were misogynistic, murdering liars who got what they deserved. Just because the CIA kills you doesn’t mean you were a good guy.

          • Tom, I don’t see where I characterize JFK as a “hero,” only that he had experienced a major shift in his cold war view (visions of nuclear holocaust after Oct ’62, etc.). It seems inconsistent to me that the CIA would parent Douglas’s book which heavily implicates the CIA, as your working thesis apparently implies, instead of misleading the public to the Warren Commission, ‘a mob hit’, ‘LBJ did it’, or some such. Turn it around, Tom, and entertain the thought that Margolis’s book slandering the Kennedy name (perhaps rightly) comes out a few years AFTER Douglas’s CIA indictment. That could make sense as a plausible scenario too, no?

            Also, to say that Kennedy “deserved” to be killed really begs the question at hand and answers nothing (what of the Bush clan, Obama, Clinton? What do these murderers deserve?).

            Douglas is a serious Catholic and so apparently is Ellsberg’s son working at the Orbis publishing house. Maybe that’s the connection, or maybe there’s more, but to simply state that as proof is interesting, but not enough. I find it interesting that I can’t find a single photo of the author, Margolis online. That’s interesting, too, but not enough to prove he’s invisible (though it is odd, no promotion photo). And co-author of the Marilyn book, Burkin, works at the New York Times, no possible CIA connection there, right? That would be the NYT that had the A&E’s 50′ billboard about WTC7 across the street, but didn’t seem to notice.

          • I wasn’t saying you were characterising him as a hero. Apologies if it came across like that – but a lot of people do make out that JFK and RFK were some kind of peaceniks who got murdered because they were such a threat to the establishment. It is that narrative that I don’t really buy, and find to be a distraction. The whole thing strikes me more like a couple of boys who got caught up with the wrong crowd and wound up dead.

            I wasn’t really suggesting that the CIA were behind this book, simply that it’s playing into this legend about the Kennedy clan that I find most unhelpful. People can get very emotive about the Kennedy brothers, I find, and try to turn them into icons.

            As such, my statement that they deserved what they got is simply my opinion – they weren’t heroes, they were scum, I am not even all that bothered about who killed them and why, at this point. No argument from me that Bushes, Clintons etc. deserve the same if not worse.

            Buskin and Margolis are hardly the only people to have written a book on Marilyn Monroe. Their work seems to simply confirm what Donald Wolfe laid out some time ago. I don’t really see an angle for the CIA in that story, whereas I can certainly see a reason why they’d play into this Kennedy legend – it keeps people looking backwards, harkening back to some golden era that never existed. From studying their role in Hollywood I can say that they are certainly willing to propagate conspiracy theories about themselves, if they can see an advantage to doing so.

        • Oh, and I’ve just noticed from Wikipedia that the book is endorsed by Ray McGovern. No surprises there given his ongoing relationship with both generations of CIA fake whistleblowers (Ellsberg and Snowden)…

          • Arnar Steinsson says:

            I have been a bit frustrated while reading this book. I do have problems concentrating these days so that might be a factor. I didn´t know that Ellsberg´s son published it so thanks for the info on that Tom. A note to myself to always check that sort of information in the future. I do agree that you don´t have to be a good person to be killed by the CIA. What are your thoughts on why he was killed?

          • I think he pissed off enough people in the black ops establishment that they killed him. I don’t see it as a wider conspiracy than that, to be honest. Of course, I could be wrong. Part of me agrees with Chomsky when he said ‘who cares?’ about JFK…

          • Arnar Steinsson says:

            Wouldn´t be surprised if that was the case. And looking at the bigger picture the CIA might be quite content if people are bogged down in trying to pin the JFK assassination on them instead of focusing on all the other atrocities that they have been involved in and continue to be involved in.

          • Pearse and myself are planning a review of Executive Action, probably for his Porkins Policy Radio show – it’s a very curious 1970s thriller about the JFK assassination. Hopefully we’ll get into some of this.

          • Arnar Steinsson says:

            Look forward to it Tom. I´m actually just about to watch Seven days in may right now and then I´m going to listen to the pod you guys made about it.

          • Check out the CIA and Hollywood series if you haven’t already…

          • Arnar Steinsson says:

            Excellent series, really enjoyed them. Some of those movies I wouldn´t usually enjoy but found it very interesting when I started to look at them from this angle.

          • Ribbit-Mark says:

            I think he pissed off enough people in the black ops establishment that they killed him. I don’t see it as a wider conspiracy than that, to be honest. Of course, I could be wrong. Part of me agrees with Chomsky when he said ‘who cares?’ about JFK…

            Are you serious?
            The same Chomsky who said ‘who cares’ when referring to 9/11?
            Who cares about Chomsky?

          • Yes, I am being serious. I don’t really see that JFK matters that much anymore. A fascinating case to study, no doubt, but the political relevance is minimal (to me).

            To a certain extent I agree about 9/11 too – who does care about 9/11 anymore? Indeed, I’m pretty sure most of the people talking about it never really cared. That’s why when the mainstream media stopped talking about 9/11 and using it as an excuse for – almost everything – the alt media pretty much stopped talking about it as well. If they really cared then they would have persisted, but then again 95% of the alt media is just about leeching off the mainstream and putting a conspiratorial spin on it.

            Who cares about Chomsky? A lot more people than care about the alt media. And for what it is worth, I agree with a lot more of what Chomsky has to say than, for example, what Alex Jones or G Edward Griffin or any of the other big alt media figures with ties to the Council on National Policy and the John Birch Society have to say. Chomsky is often derided as a ‘left wing gatekeeper’, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone use the phrase ‘right wing gatekeeper’. I can’t think why…

          • Arnar Steinsson says:

            This is something I find interesting Tom. Jones and Griffin ties to the CNP and JBS. You mentioned other big alt media figures. Who are the other ones?

  4. dancingbrave says:

    ‘For them, this subtle middle path is infinitely preferable to outright confirmation or denial.’

    I agree the ambiguity (it may or may not be Bin Laden but it was definitely Bin Laden) in their talk is normal for people to experience now, it doesn’t register as bullshit.

  5. “The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    Good breakdown, Tom. Binmore likely nailed the motive, IMHO, wherein confusion is considered a win.

    • Right, it’s getting so murky that the fiction on which today’s fiction is being extrapolated will become yesterday’s reality a week from tomorrow…

    • Was that Karl Rove, that quote? And yes, absolutely, that is the strategy, the ‘information dynamic’ that best suits semi-covert power at this time.

    • I havent listened to this podcast and I probably will not.

      I actually hope this fact does anger you as you are reading this comment.

      This crap gets OLD! It is always like this. Why are the smart pelple sitting about blathering away on garbage like this, and yes, I’m a bum and I am calling your hard effort, and I will not justify it by calling it actual work, and this same type of hard effort by so many others, with possible exception of the MLK case which actually went to court, worhtless nonsense in every way except if it is used to motivate a real solution.

      I mean, we have you smart people prattling on about all this stuff in such a way that it is like watching senile old men talk about back in the day.

      You have a problem. YOU KNOW THE EFFING PROBELM! And instead of thinking of ways to fix it, what do you do? You sit around prattling on in this deranged fashion about this book and that book and this CIA idiot, or is he a CIA idiot, or that idiot, is he CIA too? OMFG! WHAT WILL WE DO?! LIKE, THESE FOLKS COULD ALL BE CIA IDIOTS! OMFG! FOR REALZ!

      I havent been here long and I am lazy and have not read all that there is to read. But the big trend I have noticed is you keep pandering to this probelm. I may be wrong, but I get a very strong feeling that I am not.

      So, please, please oh pretty please start putting more effort into fixing this issue. You are already expending effort. You have the mental faculties to properly direct that effort. So please, please effing please pull your heads out of the deep state’s distractionary butt and actually use these wonderful resources of high IQ and willful drive to actually devise a way to unhinge this paradigm and create a new one in which the great pile devil s— is not what drags your attention about with its hooks of foul smelling distraction and confusion, but instead you are seeking actual solutions. There must be some way to dislodge this pile of garbage from its leading position.

      It has been difficult for me to describe in words what I am thinking. I am trying to make abhorent in your mind the concept of continuing down this path of misleading deep state bread crumbs.

      There must be some way to tilt this around so that your efforts actually go somewhere instead of a
      spinning about in this mud of confusion and ignorance. Please concentrate your resources on finding this path. This theorizing crap needs to be second fiddle at most, as opposed to the first fiddle position it currently holds.

      I would contribute to this effort, but I am not one with any of the resources, except for this hopefully motivating effort to jab you in the ribs and get you going, to do so. You might be able to tell that with my previous attempts at conniving a change in paradigm.

      • “Once you’ve allowed your opponent to frame the debate, you’ve lost.”

        Peter posted that below and it is brilliant. This would be a good spot to attack. How do you destroy their ability to frame the situation, even after they have created that situation?

      • Who is this directed towards?

        • Good question. I do agree with some of it.

          • And i did see that the conversation did start to go differently toward the the bottom of this thread, but at the time i hadnt read that and also it is still not enough to burn down the forest. Maybe a tree or two.

        • To those of you who could take this in a less redundant more evolutionary direction. I think at least some people here are capable of that. Some arent just helpless watchers but instead just distracted ramblers. Or so I hope. I may have the wrong impression on some of you though. But that only narrows the pool. It does not eliminate the potential to drive this toward a less typical more evolutionary direction.

          • Oh, and those who could do so are the ones who can think of ways to do so.

            I’m stuck at stripping the proud facade, so to speak, from the framers of this conversation (the PTB for now). My proposed method has been blocked obviously.

            Perhaps there should be a brain storming session on how to approach this. The favored ideas will be attempted first, if possible. Then work down the list of acceptable ideas from that point.

            It is better than doing nothing, and maybe a positive direction can be found?

          • A Name,
            I kind of get some of what you’ve said here in some places and even think you’ve made some good points, but I’m not even sure, as I honestly find it almost impossible to understand your points most of the time when they’re floating around in this abstract nebulous of stream of consciousness, often pompous rhetoric. If you’re so hell bent on moving beyond the sort of abstraction that’s pissing you off, make an effort to ease off on the self righteous prose and articulate what you’re trying to say more clearly. Ultimately, I think it will probably help minimize some of the frustration you seem to be feelling on account of your comments being lost on people. I think they are being “lost on people”, but you probably have more control over the matter than your frustration would lead you to believe. Just a suggestion =]

          • Wouldnt call it self righteous, just annoyed and tired of the same old thing.

            So…Alright. I’ll attempt to clarify by startin the brain storm.

            Subject: We have a problem. We have a social system in which the extremely crooked control the narrative, frame the discussion, and form the future whose wake we must follow in. I am refernecing that Carl Rove quote when I say this. Which parts of this paradigm can be picked apart and how?

            I will propose that since they are in a leadership position that we should make apparant and undeniable to the public that they cannot be tolerated in that position any longer.

            One way I had proposed to deal with this, this way being inaccessible, was to reveal to the public all the black mail treasure chests that they use to control each other. If the public were to be forced to watch, via a hijacking of the air waves for example, every few days a video of one of their leaders doing something similar to the video in chapter 3 of the lone gladio this may cause a severe enough reaction that they make start to take significant offense to these people leading them about. One way i proposed to get this done was to take all these jihadi types and other people who are willing to risk their lives and turn them away from violence and turn them toward fidning these treasure chests and forcing them to be watched by the millions of TV viewers out there.

            Another thing that could be done… Since the momentum toward mass surveillance is insurmountable, why not just push it all the way forward? We are already being surveilled. That will not change. What we could do is push if forward to the point where everyone is surveilling everyone else. Then the logical question of why those in power are not being surveilled could be brought up. The previous idea would be helpful in executing this as well as would anything linking those in power to terrorism. And even if you didnt get the the everyone surveilling everything result you might at least get a backlash against mass surveillance.

          • A Name,
            Not that you need my approval (obviously), but that was a lot more clear. I understand your frustration and I appreciate the fact that you’re interested in brainstorming with the goals of trying to be proactive. That said, I don’t understand what the need to fly off the handle at other BFP members here is about. Particularly when it isn’t clear at all who or what specifically you are referring to. If you’re vexed about things, lay them out on the table and engage people, don’t just vent and bang your fist on the table. You have some good ideas, but there are already some good ideas being discussed here right now and while this may not strike you personally as being proactive, it’s not your business or anybody elses to come in and get pissed off because you don’t see it that way.

            Like I said, it’s a lot easier for me to follow what you were saying this time around but I still feel in some ways like you’re coming to the conversation with a bullet point list, banging the gavel, and trying to push people towards a consensus without even engaging people by laying out some sort of proposals and asking people what they think. I’m not under the impression that you’re trying to be overly self indulgent or confrontational, but I’m trying to be clear about how it is that I think you’re coming across. This is just my opinion though.

          • I am not sure if there was a need or not. I was just tired of seeing this go around and around with the whole conspiracy theory stuff and did that in hopes of changing direction. From what I vaguely recall after reading the posts up to this point was that the discussion was about who is this and who is that and who are they with and what did they do. I mean, it is good to know these things but many times you cant, no matter how many times you go over it. And some things you already know. Like bin laden being dead by early 2001. I think that was confirmed in some other podcast on this site.

            It would be nice to see things turn around so that people arent following in the wake of the deep state. A wake should be created in which they must follow.

            I wasnt searching necessarily for a consesus on anything. I was trying to get people out of the forest so they could burn it down. They are too distracted by the trees.

            Actually, after re reading that post it looks pretty clear to me. Maybe i am biased though.

          • This was supposed to be posted here. Not up there.

            “And i did see that the conversation did start to go differently toward the the bottom of this thread, but at the time i hadnt read that and also it is still not enough to burn down the forest. Maybe a tree or two.”

  6. Andrei Tudor says:

    Tom,

    There is some information about CIA arming Castro in Hopsicker’s “Barry and the Boys”. I’m by no means knowledgeable about this, and I have no opinion one way or the other – I’m just mentioning the book because I happen to be reading it at the moment, and the information is fresh in my mind.

    • I am not denying the CIA support for Castro in the pre-revolution days, there is a reasonably strong evidence trail for that. What it means, however, is a matter of some dispute.

  7. 344thBrother says:

    Shallowly here I admit.
    In my opinion, the primary suspect for the plan to kill JFK would be GHWB. He was the prime mover behind the Bay of Pigs that Kennedy refused to support. JFK rejected Operation Northwoods out of hand and wanted to break the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the four winds. There’s evidence that GHWB was highest level CIA long before he admitted it and if anyone has been successful at ignoring “The truth” when it comes out and threatens him, it’s that perverted bastard. He’s made an art form out of ignoring things that point directly at him time and again. So much more.

    My opinion. Not looking for a debate.
    p
    d

    • That makes a lot more sense to me than LBJ, in any case. I honestly don’t know who was pulling the strings with JFK, but Bush has to have been CIA for much longer than is publicly admitted.

    • I agree that looking behind the Bush(es) is probably the most likely place to find the real clues.

      I think people like to lionize Kennedy and treat some of the statements he said before he was assassinated as proof that he was taken out because he had intentions to take US foreign policy, particularly with respects to the CIA, on some sort of righteous and enlightened new direction. This, to me, is nonsense, for reasons which have already been discussed here and I don’t feel the need to restate with this being the case. My opinion is that statements such as wanting to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces” certainly reflects a genuine frustration with being jerked around and made to look stupid. Still, I think an appropriate analogy would be a kid slamming his bedroom door and yelling at his parents “I hate you!”, than packing a suitcase, stealing the family car (no pun intended), and driving to Mexico. (Maybe Florida’s more appropriate…)

      While Kennedy’s playboy lifestyle certainly worked as a pretty impressive bargaining chip, it’s quite possible that eventually in the eyes of the deep state, having a show dog who you can have perform tricks and impress your guests, but when nobody’s looking, chews on the furniture, drinks out of the toilet, and pees on the rug just wasn’t worth it. LBJ couldn’t catch a frisbee, but he was easy enough to control.

      As I stated earlier, similar to Tom, I reject the idea that LBJ was “in” on anything, beyond cooperating to the best of his abilities and doing whatever was necessary to bury the details in the back yard and wag his tail, not his tongue. Under the circumstances this certainly draws suspicion, but I imagine that degree that this was left open or closed to debate was entirely on purpose. Chasing plots where LBJ was some sort of key co-conspirator, in my mind, is like pretending to throw a tennis ball into the woods, but keeping it in your hand, then letting the dog traipse back and forth through the woods looking until it gets exhausted and gives up. That’s just my opinion though…

      • BennyB, I suggest you should read James Douglas’s book before you jump to conclusions about JFK’s foreign policy intentions and the documentation that supports the thesis of a shift.

        And getting back to you about Gilad Atzmon, I trust the Palestinians to make there own conclusions about the trials and tribulations about the occupation, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they fully understand ‘why’ it’s happening. I’ve nearly finished Gilad’s book “The Wandering Who?” and I recommend it. Not as a last word, but as a point of reference in the discussion. Here is a very recent discussion between Gilad and Rabbinical Scholar Shapiro in NY that I found very enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=43&v=OXBuUqPndqg

        • Peter,

          I’ll keep the comment on JFK in mind and, with respects to Atzmon, you make some good points that confirm my understanding of where you’re coming from. =]

          My primary concern with Atzmon has to do with the fact that, as someone from a Jewish background, at times it seems that his relative indifference to the political significance of the interpretation of his views borders on a level of intellectual selfishness where he doesn’t seem to care whether he has a negative influence on the nature of the discourse related to issues such as the Zionist pro-Israel lobby, the Holocaust, and the Israel/Palestine conflict in particular, which have real world consequences. People ought to be able to say whatever they want, but being in a position of influence academically, intellectually, or politically means that you have a certain responsibility to think before you speak and take the time to quantify your positions, particularly if you represent a set of views which are already marginalized to begin with.

          With this in mind, I felt compelled to mention this in the context of the discussion by pointing to a link which outlines some of the basis for this concern. Based on what I know, I don’t have a problem with Atzmon’s views per se, but based on a lot of what I encounter in discussions that relate to Zionism and Israel I’m skeptical about the benefit of a postmodern critique in what often seems like an unenlightened environment. I’m not referring to what you’ve said personally as being “unenlightened”, but hopefully in some sort of a broad sense, you’ll get what I mean though.

          Thanks for posting the link though, I’ll check it out and perhaps come back with some additional thoughts, since I’m not sure this fully gets to what I’d wanted to express. I’ll see if he has anything to say about “The Wandering Who?”. By the title alone, I think it may have some similarities to one, if not two of the books I’ve recently read: “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “The Invention of the Land of Israel”, both written by Shlomo Sand, a professor of history at Tel Aviv University (at least he was at the time the books were published). I’d recommend both, however I’d add again that, by title alone (at least for the first of the two mentioned), in the abstract the title holds the capacity both to attract and alienate two different viewpoints before either opens the book, when both stand to benefit from what’s discussed. Hopefully my previous statements pre qualify my recommendation as coming from an “enlightened” view on the subject matter.

          Okay, If at least, let’s say 25 percent of that made sense, I’ll settle for that… 😉

          • BennyB, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Mr. Sand’s work is probably next on my list of books to read in this line of thinking and genre. Will be interested to hear from you once you’ve had a chance to watch the link of Shapiro and Atzmon. All the best.

          • Peter,

            I found the video interesting and the nature of the discussion worthwhile. Addressing the ambiguous nature of how one goes about defining what being Jewish actually means is a useful reference point when it comes to having a discussion about Zionism, both ideological and political, and how these relate to Israel. It was noteworthy to juxtapose statements made by figures Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky with Hitler to illustrate the self-loathing reactionary nature of the views of such key historical Zionist figures involved in the establishment of the “Jewish State”. The frequent accusation directed at Jews who criticize Israel and Zionism as “self-hating Jews” only becomes more preposterous when you examine them in this light.

            That said, while I thought both Atzmon and Shapiro asked some important questions and covered a significant amount of ground conceptually, their own positions on the spectrum of Judaism rendered much of what they had to offer in response to these questions was often inadequate and at times, in my opinion, problematic. Atzmon’s opinion on the subject matter is coming from a rejectionist view of Judaism, while Shapiro, as an Ultra Orthodox Jew, defines Judaism narrowly enough that most Jews, even just plain Orthodox, don’t relate to. While both of them reject Zionism for good reason, neither of them seem to be invested in a form of Jewish identity with any real goal of finding a common denominator, which wouldn’t matter except for the fact that they’re positioning themselves as speaking on behalf of Jews in certain respects. (I’m not sure whether that makes a ton of sense, but you probably get the gist of it…)

            Shapiro’s remark that what the Zionists have done in numerous ways is similar to someone taking his credit card and using it to purchase things that he finds repulsive is a good analogy. However, his response that essentially, since he has no control over this, he shouldn’t take it upon himself to feel that he’s somehow responsible for what’s being purchased, is just as foolish in reality as it is in the abstract. If someone steals your credit card, even if you have fraud protection, you have to be an idiot not to be concerned about how this might come back and bite you in the ass. Besides that if they’re buying things that are harmful, not just to you, but to the world at large, if the card’s in your name it does put a certain level of responsibility on your shoulders whether you like it or not.

            Similarly, Atzmon’s critique of the Jewish left, while it’s not entirely without its merits, puts forth a similar argument with respects to groups like Jewish Voices For Peace, in some ways saying that, because Israel shouldn’t exist in the first place, for Jews outside of Israel to be putting themselves at the center of the movement to try to advocate for steps towards improving the situation for the Palestinians, this is just another example of Jews inflating their own sense of self importance. It’s not surprising with this in mind that Palestinian activists are quick to point out that, beyond being overly simplistic and often unreasonable, Atzmon’s views tend to be divisive, harmful, and counterproductive to the struggle for justice in Palestine.

            On another point, both Atzmon and Shapiro basically ask why they should be any less concerned about human rights abuses taking place in China as they are with those taking place in Israel/Palestine. To me, this is a pretty dumb argument. First, because what concerns any individual with different injustices going on throughout the world doesn’t work like a multiple choice question. Second, it shouldn’t seem unreasonable to either Atzmon or Shapiro to find themselves in a position where they’re fielding questions about Israel/Palestine as they’ve both chosen to put themselves at the center of arguments dealing with Jewish identity and Zionism. Both men are acting similar to Noam Chomsky when he suggests that researching 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination is a waste of time.

            I wouldn’t discourage anybody from exploring what Atzmon has to say. As I mentioned at the top, I think having a critical discussion about what “being Jewish” actually means is an important step in understanding Zionism. However, I’d be reluctant to cite him for similar reasons I’d be reluctant to cite Chomsky.

            While this may sound overly negative, as I mentioned at the top I found the conversation worthwhile and thought provoking. On top of that, the angle that they’re taking on trying to get a grip on the subject matter is a discussion people could learn a lot from. I came away with some different ideas myself. So thanks for sharing it. =]

          • BennyB, My father was an engineer and to broaden his skill set he attended law school for a few years. A number of things he said have stuck with me, of course, and one in particular: “Once you’ve allowed your opponent to frame the debate, you’ve lost.” None of this is shared with the intent of being the end-all-be-all of the discussion, but rather to note how these issues have been framed previously and how thoroughly the framing of an issue controls the outcome. It’s a big issue and one of the keys for understanding our current predicament, IMHO. All the best.

          • Peter,

            “Once you’ve allowed your opponent to frame the debate, you’ve lost.”

            I don’t understand why what I said leaves you feeling as though I’m an opponent. Or, if you’re referring to my response to the video why this would apply.

            None of this is shared with the intent of being the end-all-be-all of the discussion, but rather to note how these issues have been framed previously and how thoroughly the framing of an issue controls the outcome.

            Again, I’m not sure why you feel that I’m trying to win a debate with you or confine the parameters of the discussion. I told you that I appreciated your sharing the video. You said you’d be interested to hear from me once I watched the video, so I was telling you what I thought about it.

            Your response sounds defensive and the only reason I can think of as to why you would feel this way is because I said that I wouldn’t cite Atzmon. To be clear, all I’m saying is that I, personally wouldn’t cite him in most instances and attempted to explain why.

            As I tried to communicate previously is that, from what I gather, you, specifically are exploring the subject matter discussed in the video (and elsewhere) on, what I might refer to as, a “high level”. What’s discussed in the video you had me check out is very sophisticated (I’m not sure how else to define it). I think people could benefit a great deal from watching that video and to listening to what both Atzmon and Shapiro have to say. However, I’m skeptical as to how many people here (or most places) would find the conversation as noteworthy or intriguing as you and I did, let alone whether they would even be willing to watch it in the first place.

            My feeling, generally speaking, with respect to Atzmon, is that without a relatively sophisticated understanding of the “Jewish” elements of Zionism and how this relates to Israel in particular, his views could just as easily support an argument which leans in an anti-Semitic direction, as one which seeks to push a conversation in a more enlightened, well thought out direction.

            One of my primary concerns or goals when I’m discussing this subject matter here and elsewhere is to make some sort of concerted effort to distill the language used when we discuss Zionism and Israel to a level where we can get at the root of the issues by breaking down some of the toxicity that I constantly see poison the debate. I constantly hear people saying stuff which I know that someone else listening to the same thing could easily hear it as sounding anti-Semitic, even if I don’t think it is. One of the most powerful “get out of jail free” cards the Zionists have at their disposal which they use relentlessly is the fallback of labelling criticism as anti-Semitism. Usually this isn’t true, but sometimes it does sound that way. As you mentioned: “Once you’ve allowed your opponent to frame the debate, you’ve lost.” This is what I see happen over and over again when people try to criticize Israel or Zionism. Language matters. I’m trying to provide some insight as I see it on how to discuss these topics without losing the debate time after time by letting the Zionists frame the debate.

            I compared Atzmon to Chomsky because I see both as high level intellectuals who are knowledgeable and quote worthy on numerous levels. Many here would argue on my assertion that Chomsky is quote worthy, but that’s just my opinion. While this is the case, I can understand why people would argue this and would probably agree in most cases, thus why I probably wouldn’t cite him here.

            In the most general language possible: A good number, if not most, people here have a sophisticated enough understanding on what Chomsky has said with respect to certain conspiracy theories (i.e. why bother focusing on 9/11 truth/the Kennedy Assassination), while at the same time, I’d say the same level of sophistication, doesn’t carry over comparably with Atzmon.

            I see your comments here as pushing the discussion forward with respect to the role of Zionism and Israel in geopolitical matters, particularly conspiracies and covert ops. I appreciate what you’ve brought to the table and I’m sorry if it seems otherwise. I’ve mentioned my thoughts on Atzmon, not because I don’t think what anything you’ve said in that respect isn’t relevant or shouldn’t be part of the conversation. I’ve just made an effort to communicate what my reservations are and I’ve directed them to you, specifically, because I’m not under the impression that who Atzmon is and what his views are is particularly well known here.

            Hopefully that clears some things up. If not, I’ve still enjoyed the discussion. =]

        • BennyB, I was simply making the point that the premise — the frame — plays a crucial role in how debates on various issues are controlled and/or resolved. I didn’t communicate that very well; you’re not an “opponent” and I’m not trying to ‘win’. I shared some of what I think is important to the discussion (and which is typically missing) which you and others may find beneficial or not. Now it’s carrying into Chomsky who though his compassion seems genuine is someone who I have little respect for due to his ludicrous opinions about 9/11, JFK, etc.. My point originally was just that Atzmon is a serious figure at this time on these issues and his ideas should be considered. All the best.

  8. Ribbit-Mark says:

    TomS says:
    To a certain extent I agree about 9/11 too – who does care about 9/11 anymore? Indeed, I’m pretty sure most of the people talking about it never really cared

    You might find your ratings at BFP plummet after this comment.

    • OK, but I’d much rather that people pointed me to something that’s actually going on with 9/11 in the here and now because (and I’m just being honest here) I look around and see nothing. I see a bunch of people who a few years ago were out on the streets waving identikit placards and wearing identical t-shirts, who have now moved onto something else.

      I’m not saying it is right, I’m not saying it is good, I’m not saying I’m in any way glad it is so, but for most intents and purposes 9/11 is a dead issue. If people disagree with that then fine, but like I say it’d be far more interesting to point me to some meaningful 9/11 activism that’s going on today to refute what I’m saying than to decide I’m an asshole for saying something people don’t want to hear. I guess people can make their own choice on that score.

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        OK, but I’d much rather that people pointed me to something that’s actually going on with 9/11 in the here and now because (and I’m just being honest here) I look around and see nothing.
        … for most intents and purposes 9/11 is a dead issue.

        Caring about an issue and acting/doing something about it are two different issues.
        Just because you don’t see anything tangible happening now by citizens does not mean that people don’t care about it anymore.

        It also depends on what you consider “meaningful 9/11 activism” .

        Surely you must know that virtually all U.S.’s military action and domestic ‘security’ initiatives this century are deeply rooted in ‘caring’ about 9/11.

        • Agreed. Failure to quantify what you see as problematic and make some sort of meaningful attempt to address it, in my opinion, is a cop-out. When you’re agreeing with or at least implicitly supporting some of the most outrageous statements Chomsky’s made, as Mark has said, Tom, you’re approval rating here is bound to take a major hit. If that doesn’t matter to you, I’m not sure what to tell you…

          • BennyB – I am honestly expressing my opinion. I refuse to censor my opinions due to fear of losing ‘approval ratings’.

            As to Chomsky – the outrageous part of his ‘anti-9/11’ argument is the bit where he claimed that it would have leaked, because everything leaks. While at the time that he said ‘who cares?’ quite a lot of people cared, that number has dwindled since then. That’s the bit I’m somewhat agreeing with, not his outright rejection of there being anything wrong with 9/11.

            I’m not sure what you mean about ‘Failure to quantify what you see as problematic and make some sort of meaningful attempt to address it, in my opinion, is a cop-out.’ I honestly don’t know what you’re referring to here.

          • Tom,

            Of course you should be honest and not censor what you have to say maintain approval among the BFP community, but knowing 9/11 is a central issue to most members here, it’s worth being specific about why and in what ways it seems that people no longer care, so we can make some sort of effort to discuss how we might be able to respond proactively. You did provide that specificity in your response here to me and to others. My comment wasn’t about trying to give you advice to boost or maintain your ‘ratings’ here; that would be pretty dumb. My point was that being more specific about the rationale behind pessimism, generally speaking, is a worthwhile consideration for you to take into account if you want to avoid turning away BFP members who are interested in hearing what you have to say, but don’t want to come away feeling more pessimistic, based on a general sense of resignation coming from you. If you’re more specific about where you’re coming from, as you’ve been in these follow up comments, it becomes food for thought instead of trans-fat. Hope that clarifies things a bit. =]

          • Benny,

            Absolutely it clarifies things, but I have never been one to give people false cause for optimism. It was precisely this optimistic delusion – that the 9/11 movement was all leading to a specific moment where we would somehow emerge triumphant – that so many of the disaster capitalists encouraged and exploited and fed off for years. All the while, the opportunity to actually bring about anything even approximating that moment was steadily slipping away.

            I am resigned to the criminals behind 9/11 getting away with it. They have, and to pretend otherwise is not something I’m prepared to do. Prosecuting them is a hopeless cause. There are other things people can do – I actually felt The Lone Gladio was the most provocative and important book about 9/11 (etc.) in ages. But that’s the task for the likes of us now – coming to terms with the event psychologically and culturally. Legally and politically, there is no chance, or rather the chance has gone while people were busy crowding round Alex Jones and shouting ‘9/11 was an inside job’ in unison, like a cult.

            So the opportunity open to us now is trying to explain 9/11 not as a crime that we know the truth about (we don’t, however much we might like to think we do) but as a psychological, cultural event that had an enormous impact. All the other debates have been going on for a decade or more and haven’t accomplished an awful lot, if anything. So let’s try a different approach, with different aims. No?

          • Andrei Tudor says:

            While this or that event related to 9/11 can be explained away as inconclusive (maybe Cheney just lost his head when he ordered the military planes to stand down, we have no definite proof that the towers were demolished, Atta could have been drinking and doing drugs just as a cover for his real Muslim fanatic identity, etc.) the totality of them, in my mind, cannot. And every single one of them has been covered up / ignored by the official inquiry. The investigation into the tower collapse was a sham, the people who witnessed Atta’s behavior have been silenced or “disappeared” with FBI involvement, Cheney, to my knowledge, has not been asked to explain his stand-down order by anyone – and we all know this is just a small subset of the unexplained facts / behaviors related to 9/11. To me, the lack of any effort on the part of government agencies to investigate properly, in fact the actual obstruction of the investigation by some of them, can only mean that whoever has done this, whether they are part of the formal government or not, has the power to control the behavior of these agencies. I would very much like to see people prosecuted and put in jail for this, and I agree with Tom that it will most likely never happen. However, I don’t see the investigative work of those who have looked into different aspects of 9/11 (A&E, Hopsicker, Kevin Ryan) as useless. It has proved, beyond reasonable doubt to me at least, the existence of a very powerful criminal network that has infiltrated the government from the highest to the lowest levels – one that has the power to pull off 9/11 and cover up any real investigation into it. It may not lead to prosecutions, but it is still very valuable knowledge, in my opinion.

        • Mark – to be clear, I’m was not talking about the members here at BFP when I said that a lot of the people talking about 9/11 don’t really care about it. I imagine most of the BFP members falling into the ‘I do still care but am frustrated in trying to find something to do about it’ category.

          You’re right, just because people aren’t doing much doesn’t mean they don’t care. But by the same token, a significant chunk of those former 9/11 activists don’t give a toss anymore. There are plenty of people out there who are basically hobby protestors who will jump on anything, protest about it and then drop it in just the same way that people jump on fads and fashion trends. The notion that politics is any different is absurd to me.

          Likewise a lot of alt media hosts, who exploited 9/11 with masses of ‘truth’ merchandise, but ultimately dropped the issue when it ceased to make money for them. I’m sure you know the sorts of people I’m talking about.

          As to ‘Surely you must know that virtually all U.S.’s military action and domestic ‘security’ initiatives this century are deeply rooted in ‘caring’ about 9/11.’ – No, I don’t know that. No one mentioned 9/11 as the excuse for Libya, Syria or Iraq (again). It has been dropped from the mainstream political agenda, time has moved on. 9/11 is no longer the be-all and end-all event it once seemed like it was.

          • Katie Stewart says:

            I think that in the minds of the general US population, 9/11 is always the reason, whether stated or not. “We don’t want that to happen again…” It makes a useful justification for people to just ignore the horrible things the US is doing to other countries. Its really the only thing most Americans have experienced “first hand” that is horrible and while so many people have stopped talking about it, it’s still hanging over this nation like Monty Python’s 6,000 pound weight. The minute we begin to question our continued involvement in various conflicts, we are reminded of 9/11, and the threat of another attack. So, people can quietly just accept that our military and politicians know best because, of course, we don’t want another 9/11.

  9. No no…Please take A deep Breath…
    I Will not have this kind of outcry…
    I close my eyes, and read back in times,
    gone bye.
    Well, little George Orwell, are some one
    who did take part in the spanish civil War.
    Looking Back.
    On the spanish war.
    A Essay.
    http://www.george-orwell.org/looking_back_on_the_spanish_war/0.html
    Best Regards
    Jens.

  10. Hey Tom,
    The only thing I usually reveal about myself online is my profession, which is that I am a pharmacologist (pretty new at it too, only 13k to pay back my loans, so to make it fast I live in a tiny apartment on top of a convenience store, yeah, it’s nice to be able to make as much noise as you want past 11pm when it closes and all night but I ain’t living large despise the pretty good salary.

    Sublinox (what Ambien is called in Canada) causes the major psychiatric effects extremely rarely and more often that not by people forcing themselves not to fall asleep and if the dose is weak (I know american zolpidem(the chemical name of Sublinox/Ambien w/e is dosed at 5mg and they are not capsules but scored tablets so some people mostly end up using a low dose or I think they came up with Ambien XR in the US (because its a medication made for people who have trouble falling asleep. I guess the XR was invented for those who wake up at night a lot, despite being a lot of medication in the “downer” class (i won’t bore you all with the technical sides of things, other than there is the z-drugs and the classic anti-anxiety/anti-insomnia pills where Valium, Xanax and Rivotril/Klonopin(the US always like to have their stuff named different don’t they). Here in Canada when they finally approved it, they had approved two of its sister drugs in the z-drugs zopiclone which is IImovane for both you and me Tom and zaleplon (which I used for a while before really stressful exams I’d have in the morning at 8am-10 am and not sleeping at least 10 hours reduces my chances of succeeding exams at the level I was, but they ended up taking it out of the market after only 3 years, I think it still exists in the US as Sonata, and I imagine Health Canada removed it because they came in tiny capsules with powder in it than some would abuse, as in snort it for an even faster effect. I didn’t need that, but there was major psychedelia like the times i had LSD or magic mushrooms in my foolish young adult years 😉 then *poof* I woke up 2h30-3h later.

    Also made for people who have trouble falling asleep but not those who have trouble staying asleep, I used to have only the first problem, now it’s a bit of both, knowing all the things “I shouldn’t know” makes it hard to sleep without using sleep medication, even the best ones which are obviously addictive, but I’m willing to buy my generic 10mg valiums all my life if it means not having to go through the hell that was my last 2 years of high school, where Iwas one of the first person I knew who had an internet connection…

    Alright enough background. It is very strange what you’re saying here and I got you on pause right now after you described how could they give zolpidem (Ambien) to people who have to be prepared for something in 10 minutes suddenly. I know the air force uses “Go pills” which are good old Dexedrines for missions lasting over 24 hours and “no-go” pills which were Ambien, it might still be the case, i don’t see a better drug short of outright meth to keep somebody alert for 36 hours, and it’s not like legal meth in tablets isn’t available in the US, check out Desoxyn, it’s used for last resort ADD and morbide obesity (kills appetite like nothing I imagine, the few years I was on Dexedrine 4 days a week or so for all that brain cramming that is college and they go so fast (the teachers) we barely have time to write in notes then you tell your GP that and suddenly you got a Dexedrine or Adderall script (once past 18 year old, ritalin and delayed ritalin formulations aren’t used as much, and I won’t explain why here, but yeah dexamphetamine, what is in Dexedrine is several times less toxic to the body than methylphenidate (ritalin).

    So Tom, the one thiing i can assure you is that, even if they might be groggy and such if waken up after taking ambien only an hour before, which is contraindicated….well, shame on US Navy medics. But I don’t think it could make them hallucinate their surroundings and on who or what they are shooting at, if they are shooting after all. But it makes for some lame…y’know how when you only slept 3 to 4 hours before going to school or work, where noises in the streets push your stress levels to the limit, everything is horribly difficult to do, from getting dressed, taking a shower if you’re the kind that does that in the morning, which is what makes the most sense to me but nevermind that. Now I’m gonna resume this podcast and press post before these last words : it doesnt make sense to give Ambien to people who are supposed to be sharp physically and mentally 3 hours later. It makes zero sense, if they didn’t want them to see some stuff as they got there, they should have used good old Halcion (triazolam), which is also a sleeping pill for people who have trouble falling asleep but the chemical is out of your body (by that I mean fully processed by your liver and kidneys into inactive compounds so if you’re waken up 1 hour after taking your Halcion tablet, you won’t have the rather bad list of side effects associated to the z-drugs or nonbenzodiazepines….which is such a BS name, they act at the exact same site on the gaba-A benzo subcomplex receptors, and when the first z-drug (named so because the 3 of them available (and so many promising ones that they just ignore and won’t commercialize for some reason…oh wait yeah, because their goal isn’t helping you with the least side effect laden product, so they can sell you a product that removes those non desirable side effects. etc.

    Anyway, you get my point, a navy seal being given triazolam 2h or 3h before that kind of raid would have made more sense, there’s no hallucinogen-like qualities to classic sleeping pills, and Triazolam is out of one’s blood, effects-wise in about 30 minutes (thats why its rarely scripted anymore, people would eat them like candy because of the too short relaxing effect. I’m really wondering what the hell they were thinking using Ambien which is made for a full nights sleep 2-3 hours before a supposedly very dangerous, almost Hell’s Angels-like compound? (in Canada and Scandinavia…the Hell’s arent a joke like in other countries, my town has a compound owned by them with 4 watch towers on all 4 coroners),.

    Something doesn’t compute here. Now back to listening,.

    • Marty – I was not really suggesting that the SEALs hallucinated their surroundings, more that it is an odd drug (to my mind) to be feeding to special forces soldiers in the run up to a major operation, and that it might partly explain how the SEALs were fooled into thinking they’d killed the real Osama Bin Laden. I accept that my pharma knowledge is way below yours, and that the stronger side effects I mentioned are pretty rare.

  11. Peter, thanks for clarifying. I actually think the quote about framing the argument is a relevant one, which is a good way to get at what I find problematic on this subject. I feel that the Zionist pro-Israel lobby has mastered ways to frame the parameters of the debate so that people end up stepping in the trap where they can come under attack as being anti-Semites and so forth. As I’ve stated numerous times, I think the language we use matters, so I tend to put a lot of emphasis on this here and elsewhere. This is not some sort of politically correct BS either, it’s a matter of tactics.

    Where I compare Atzmon and Shapiro’s remarks to Chomsky relates to what they said in the video with respects to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Shaprio asks why he, as an Ultra Orthodox Jew, living in the United States, should be expected to care any more about the Israeli occupation than human rights abuses in China. Similarly, Atzmon criticizes Jewish activists who advocate on behalf of Palestinians, mainly it seems, because he feels that Israel is an illegitimate construct (which I won’t argue with) that can’t be modified, only dismantled. Both of these attitudes, in my mind, are comparable to Chomsky’s “who cares” remarks with respects to Kennedy’s assassination and 9/11.

    Atzmon has a lot to contribute to the topic we’ve been discussing, but it’s difficult for me to respect someone who deals with issues of Jewish identity, Zionism, and Israel, who basically tells activists that participating in the struggle for justice for the Palestinians is a waste of time. In my mind, it’s not a whole lot different than Chomsky’s critiquing American empire, but telling people that focusing on JKF and 9/11 are a waste of time.

    • Ribbit-Mark says:

      it’s not a whole lot different than Chomsky’s critiquing American empire, but telling people that focusing on JKF and 9/11 are a waste of time.

      The reason I have dismissed Chomsky entirely is not just because of his flippant “Who cares?” attitude re: JFK and 9/11 but also, and much more importantly, because he denies they were inside jobs.

      I can’t relate to people whose brains are wired so dramatically differently to mine.

  12. Tom, I’m curious, what exactly do you “not buy” about the motive for the JFK assassination? Do you not accept, for example, that NSAM 263 established his intention to withdraw all American personnel from Vietnam, or do you just not accept that this decision played any role in his assassination? It’s not just James Douglass who has espoused this theory, of course, it’s also notably Fletcher Prouty, who is the one who kind of “outed” the Pentagon Papers as cover for the CIA — he may even be the source of your contention that Ellsberg is a fake whistleblower. Not that you have to agree with everything he says, but he makes a pretty good case that the intention of ending the Cold War was what got JFK killed.

    It’s also not necessary to canonize JFK in general while acknowledging that he was bucking the Military-Industrial Complex. People are complicated.

    • John,

      My feeling is that NSAM 263 and Kennedy’s less-than-total commitment to the Cold War were reasons why people who glad to see him gone and just got on with things without asking questions. I don’t accept that they were motives for killing him.

      And yes, one can say that Kennedy was killed for bucking the prevailing trends without feeling the need to canonise him. Absolutely. My problem is that most people don’t. Almost everyone I hear talk about the JFK assassination makes out he was some sort of golden boy pacifist. It’s like when a rock star dies young, people always make out they were more talented than they really were. Same with sports stars. Same with politicians.

      As to Prouty – I would not trust that man as far as I could throw him, and I was unaware of his views on Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, so that has had no influence on my views on all that.

      • Prouty is an odd bird, I must agree. I personally find him persuasive in his areas of direct experience, less so when it comes to things like claiming that oil is not a fossil fuel.

        This thread is so long now it’s hard to find your original comments on JFK assassination motive, but as I recall it had something to do with the CIA being pissed off at him for Bay of Pigs and so forth and/or finding him generally inconvenient. I must say I’m surprised to hear that this motive seems sufficient and plausible to you, but you dismiss that plus threat-to-the-whole-Cold-War-money-machine as not very compelling! But we each of us must use our own judgement in these matters…

  13. As for the relevance of 9/11 today, I kind of agree with Tom that it’s basically quite dead. Not to me, mind you: I’m still unreasonably obsessed. But in objective terms, let’s face it…the fire has cooled in the wider society. It’s JFK all over again. It’s been 14 years, it’ll be 20, it’ll be 30 and 40 and 50 and there will still be cranky corners of the 3D holographic Interweb where the diehards are still analyzing the meaning of thermitically active red-gray chips and the actions of Ben Sliney on the fateful morning. But change? Activism? Results? Confessions? Public acknowledgement of the truth? Well let’s just say I hope to be surprised.

    Having said that, the guys over at AE911 do keep pounding away at this thing in interesting ways, albeit with generally disappointing results. They got crushed on a recent attempt to have the big American association of architects adopt their resolution. Niels Harrit lost his libel case in court. So, while we can’t really say 9/11 activism is dead, it does pretty much get its ass kicked on a regular basis.

    • Ribbit-Mark says:

      John I take exception to your comments re: relevance of 9/11 today.

      Change/activism/results/confession and relevance are two different things completely.

      Police state procedures/mentality are well-entrenched now within the U.S. and
      foreign policy/aggression is running exactly as prescribed in PNAC’s plan.

      Until such time (if ever) the deep state loses its stranglehold on American society,
      9/11 will always remain relevant.
      The general public might not be cognizant of why it is relevant, but that’s another story.

      • Agreed, a poor choice of words on my part. It is profoundly relevant to history and to current events. I merely meant that 9/11 activism is slipping away into JFK territory, to the point where possibly revealing the truth about either event matters to fewer and fewer people and is arguably less important than dealing directly with more recent events and issues. Which doesn’t mean that I’m personally giving up. I still think it’s hugely important to do what we can to pull back the curtain. But increasingly I feel more isolated and Don Quixote-like as time goes by.

        • John,

          Thanks for clarifying. I can certainly relate to where you’re coming from when it comes to the sense that 9/11 feels like it’s just slipping away unceremoniously into the pages of history. For what feels like a long time, I’ve been pretty resigned about the idea that we’ll ever see some form of justice or accountability. If there’s something I’d like to see happen as a result from exposing people to the truth either with 9/11 or other events, it would be to get people to recognize and acknowledge what the powers that shouldn’t be are capable of and willing to do to achieve their objectives.

          I never bought the “official” 9/11 narrative. The day it happened I was too stunned to put any of the pieces together as they were unfolding, but my feeling was that whatever it was I was seeing had been allowed to happen. I knew about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but I hadn’t even heard the term “false flag” at that point. It just seemed impossible to me that what happened could’ve taken place without certain major players standing down at the very least.

          All this said, it took me a long time of looking into information to process the extent that everything that had happened had been orchestrated as an inside job. I think we have to try to come up with some strategies to respond differently when these sorts of false flag events happen if we want to resist the agendas the real masterminds of these ‘attacks’ are intended to push when they happen.

    • John,

      And this is my point – inasmuch as 9/11 has continued relevance even though it is hardly ever mentioned anymore, it is because of the ongoing march of the security state that Mark is talking about.

      AE911 have never done anything to oppose that, as far as I can see. They, like so many in the 9/11 movement, have been almost entirely focused on ‘what brought down the towers?’ i.e. the day itself. Just like with those people who tried to figure out exactly how the bus/trains on 7/7 were bombed, when they never had and never will have the evidence necessary to solve that question. None of this helps oppose new anti-terror laws, new security departments, ever widening surveillance, ever-growing definitions of ‘terrorism’. It just loses people in a technical debate which only has about 15% of the data it would need to ever be settled.

      Meanwhile, books like Kevin Fenton’s excellent recounting on what the Bin Laden unit were up to and how they were deliberately ‘stovepiping’ information were largely ignored. Like you say, the continued relevance of 9/11 is the continued advancement of the security state. But instead of attacking the security state the 9/11 movement allowed itself to be distracted by the Hollywood-style shock and awe elements of the attacks. Much easier to argue about whether they were the same planes or had been switched, or what kind of explosive might have been used to blow up the towers, rather than retrace the steps of a bunch of guys and show that in all likelihood they were intelligence assets on some kind of mission.

      Perhaps I should do a show on this, because I can imagine some of my comments here have not come across as I intend…

      • I think the Architects and Engineers, as a professional organization, made exactly the correct tactical decision to focus almost exclusively within their expertise on the forensics of the “collapse” of the 3 towers. This should be obvious when one considers the extreme psychological barriers that people confront when considering alternative narratives to the 9/11-anthrax attacks. The truth movement is basically telling people that ‘their favorite uncle’ is, in fact, ‘Chester the Molester’. People don’t want to hear that. Tom, I believe your throw away – and frankly, weak – opinions on these matters do a real disservice to this aspect of the discussion. When Corbett kicked of his Gladio series of interviews beginning with you I thought that was great. I had some knowledge of Gladio and you were able, due to your more extensive reading, to fill in important factual gaps in my understanding. I’ll try to restrain my hyperbole here, but add that if the possession of your home depended on your reading of the physics of the tower’s demise, you would be homeless. Those towers were demolished – that’s a HARD physical fact – which means inescapably that 9/11-anthrax was a fraudulent, constructed event. THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORK OF THE A&Es. To say that only “15%” of what is needed to know, is known to draw that conclusion, is just flat wrong. What are called ‘category errors’ in evidence are among the most common type of errors people make. I thank Canadian professor Keefer for making the important point that evidence involving ‘human contingencies’ (“How would they get the bombs in there? Someone would have noticed,”, etc.) do NOT trump the HARD sciences. The formula, say, F=ma, is not my opinion. Newton derived it from data, experiment and experience and it holds true on a human scale today as when he wrote it hundreds of years ago.

        Tom, these other points you mention are important and I made a point to THANK YOU for filling some gaps in my knowledge base in those areas, but please consider carefully before you strongly opine on areas where your premise is unsupported. All the best.

        • Peter,

          I agree with you 100% on the value of a group like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. To me, the destruction of the towers by controlled demolition was the most clear and straightforward element of the ‘attack’ which exposed the fact that what had taken place was literally an inside job. Having a group of professionals who could speak authoritatively to prove this down to a scientific forensic level was something that was either difficult or impossible to prove with respects to other aspects of 9/11. The alt-media stepped up in the place of the mainstream and quasi-alternatives, however often with a lack of professionalism which overshadowed those like AE9/11 Truth, who chose to tackle first and foremost analysis within the purview of their expertise.

          There were a ton of different aspects of what happened to investigate. Certainly this was done on purpose and it seems to have worked well, since once the truth movement got through with the obvious elements, splinters broke off into a sort of cannibalistic fringe conspiracy one upmanship. Once again, nobody’s got a monopoly on “the truth” but our stock in credibility plummets when we allow the loudest and most aggressive day traders to bundle our investments with junk bonds and risky speculation. (note to self: I kind of like that way of putting it 😉 )

          I think dealing with this lack of professionalism is important, but it seems quite difficult to tackle without running the risk of becoming a version of the mainstream media which dismisses conspiracy theories for sounding too ridiculous. If there are lessons to be learned from how the truth movement (for lack of a better term) failed to reach the consciousness of the general public, I certainly think brainstorming to see if we can come up with some strategies to overcome this stumbling block ought to be at the top of our “to do” list.

          • BennyB,

            “To me, the destruction of the towers by controlled demolition was the most clear and straightforward element of the ‘attack’ which exposed the fact that what had taken place was literally an inside job. Having a group of professionals who could speak authoritatively to prove this down to a scientific forensic level was something that was either difficult or impossible to prove with respects to other aspects of 9/11.”

            Do you sincerely believe this is what A&E have done? Because from my experience they spent an awful lot of time trying to prove that thermite was used, on the basis of a few scraps and flakes of metal. That isn’t hard, forensic, authoritative proof. That’s a bunch of scientists with an agenda, trying to convince other people of it.

            I guess a lot of my opposition comes from this notion that we need authoritative experts to tell us that 9/11 was an inside job. As soon as you go down that route it becomes like the ‘climate change’ debate where you’ve got people trying to gazump each others’ experts and the actual evidence and logic of the thing gets lost. And for all you might say about how ‘we need scientific experts because that’s who the public listen to’ the reality is that they don’t, they listen to the experts the TV tells them to listen to.

            We saw this with the BBC ‘debunking’ shows on 9/11, where you had ‘scientific experts’ getting teenagers to drop stones into piles of flour to try to prove something about United 93 and that field in Shanksville. When you have the combination of ‘authority’ AND orthodoxy, foolish people will be convinced. When you have so-called authority going up against orthodoxy, the first thing to be sacrificed is the authority of the heretic.

            In sum, I’m not sure A&E have accomplished a damn thing. I’ve met Niels Harritt, he’s a nice guy and his wife is lovely. I have nothing personal against him or Richard Gage or any of them. But they do inspire this sort of authority-worshipping mentality that I think is extremely dangerous and often counter-productive. This thread has thrown up a couple of rather obvious examples of that.

          • Tom,

            PeterM Said:
            I think the Architects and Engineers, as a professional organization, made exactly the correct tactical decision to focus almost exclusively within their expertise on the forensics of the “collapse” of the 3 towers.

            As I stated before, I strongly agree with this. I suggest you watch this video produced by A&E: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcd6PQAKmj4
            They do cover evidence of the use of thermite towards the end, but the bulk of what’s discussed deals with clear evidence of traditional forms of controlled demolition. We don’t ‘need authoritative experts to tell us that 9/11 was an inside job’, but if you ask me it’s quite foolish to dismiss the value of individuals who have the relevant professional expertise to confirm aspects of our theories and are willing to put their credit on the line to do so.

            One of the things we’ve discussed here is the fact that we need to be mindful about the way baseless or flimsy conspiracy theories (theorists) have the effect of marginalizing legitimate truth tellers. That said, we ought to be paying comparable attention to being mindful that we don’t become a mirror image of those who dismiss our theories out of hand. I appreciate your perspective, Tom, but I feel that you’re often overly cavalier in your assessments to your own discredit. Just a bit of constructive criticism… =]

          • Tom,
            I left a comment addressed to the BFP community, or at least those participating in this conversation specifically, which hopefully more clearly gets at my main point. I’d direct you to check this first. However, since I placed a bit of “constructive criticism” in my previous response to you, having thought about it, I feel I owe you a bit more specificity if it’s to qualify more sufficiently as ‘constructive’.

            What I find bothersome is the sense that you frequently seem to be conclusively rejecting a theory or concept being presented for discussion in an authoritative, ‘case closed’ manner after what often feels like a only a cursory examination. Like with the A&E comment, it just felt like you weren’t being clear about separating your conclusion on the grounds of the idea of the value of the pursuit of the evidence, versus the evidence itself, when your comment about the basis of value of the forensic nature of their investigation that they’ve presented thus far seems to be based on an incomplete examination, or at least familiarization of their work as a whole. I realize though that having spoken with them in person needs to be taken account on my part.

            I’m still not sure whether this quite captures what I want to communicate, but I am sincere about my desire to be constructive with my criticism. I appreciate the fact that you’ve followed up, not just in conversations with me, but with others, but it seems to me there’s something that goes on in a lot of your initial responses to other people’s comments, where it feels like (I’m not sure…) maybe a lack of objectivity.

            I’m not sure whether this is any more ‘constructive’, but I guess I feel a bit more reasonable having put in the effort…

        • I’m not certain this is what Tom meant, but I think the problem with the scientific evidence, no matter HOW compelling, is that it never settles anything, it only spawns endless circular arguments that go nowhere, because you’ll always have people who don’t or won’t get it. Benny, Peter, I completely agree that the evidence for controlled demolition is absolutely overwhelming and that AE911 is doing exactly the right thing. If they could puncture the veil and force a scientific acknowledgement within the architecture community, indeed it could help bring down the whole house of cards and yes, be relevant to the police state.

          But I won’t hold my breath while I’m wishing them luck. I’ll give them money, but I won’t hold my breath. I recall what Mike Ruppert said about JFK, something along the lines of “hey, physical evidence doesn’t matter — we’ve got video of JFK being shot from the front and it made NO difference.” What he advocated is, I think, similar to what Tom is seemingly advocating (in part?), which is more along the lines of identifying procedural anomalies, patterns of demonstrable misconduct, etc. Behaviors that people can be busted for. Correct me if I’m getting this wrong.

          I don’t know, I say bring it all on, pursue it all.

          • Again, I don’t think it’s a matter of people getting ‘busted’. Unfortunately, nobody that commits massive crimes gets busted unless they’ve been designated to do so; to take a fall, for political purposes. Like you, I’m not holding my breath for any form of justice. My point is that if we can get people to be more open minded and to have their radar more finely tuned, we might get more traction when we point out the faulty logic behind the rationale for whatever it is that the deep state is trying to get out of exploiting the next manufactured crisis. Whether or not we can improve things I’m not sure about, but we ought to be thinking about how we can be better prepared to push back to prevent things from getting worse (further erosion of civil liberties and ramping up of the police state etc…).

          • Traction is exactly the point though, Benny. Ruppert’s argument was that physical evidence just puts you on a merry-go-round (“Controlled demolition? Well I’m no scientist so I can’t judge, but I hear those buildings were designed to implode…”), whereas pursuing strictly legal angles (“X was required to do Y and failed, and there are necessary legal implications”) might be better able to compel a response.

            Ruppert could be wrong of course, and those of us who have found the science compelling have a hard time accepting it. But I’ve certainly been on that merry-go-round plenty of times and been astounded at how even trained scientists can avert their eyes from obvious conclusions when a belief system is at stake.

            Again, I reckon there are all types and I personally welcome all approaches. But I visit ctka.net sometimes, the Kennedy research site, and I love those guys, I find their work fascinating and valuable, but it’s somewhat chilling to see people still picking apart the story of Oswald’s Mexico City trip 52 years later while the world at large yawns.

          • Obviously it’s just my opinion, but I don’t see much point in further pursuing the Kennedy assassination for the sake of convincing people that the “official narrative” doesn’t make any sense. This is not to say that the work of those who’ve refused to give up on exposing the truth has gone to waste. There’s been enough information put out there to at least convince, maybe even a majority, that there was a conspiracy of some sort. The more difficult question which I think a consensus is shaky at best on is specifically; why was the assassination carried out? Who and what agenda was Kennedy becoming an obstacle to? I’m not even positive on this note. So one might argue that the forensic nature of the research has in some way failed here.

            For the record: my opinion is that Kennedy, in response to his experience with the CIA, had become less pliable on matters of letting them go off the ranch with pet projects like Operation Northwoods and taking him out was a good way to see that someone more cooperative could step in and perhaps send a gangster esque message about what happens to those who don’t cooperate in the process. With this in mind, with respect to a comment I left here previously on this, as I just stated, I don’t reject the idea that Kennedy intended to reign in the CIA to some extent, I’m just not convinced that the transformation in his attitude would be reflected in much, if any, of a shift in foreign policy – that Vietnam wouldn’t have gone in the direction it did or that, generally speaking, his assassination prevented the United States from shifting towards some sort of righteous path. I’m getting sidetracked here though, which perhaps is a point that shouldn’t be lost.

            With 9/11 I think there’s very little doubt in the minds of most people how the attack was used – as a justification for wars. But the fact that the event was an inside job hasn’t yet reached the general level of consciousness to the point where people understand the part about how the deep state is the primary source responsible for terrorism. 9/11 was a lot different than JFK because the way it was used was more abstract. In my opinion, the most important thing for people to understand about 9/11 is the fact that nothing is sacred to the people responsible for carrying out these false flag events. In my opinion, getting people to wrap their heads around the concept of controlled demolition is one of the best first steps at making that argument.

        • PeterM,

          “I’ll try to restrain my hyperbole here, but add that if the possession of your home depended on your reading of the physics of the tower’s demise, you would be homeless. Those towers were demolished – that’s a HARD physical fact – which means inescapably that 9/11-anthrax was a fraudulent, constructed event. THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORK OF THE A&Es. To say that only “15%” of what is needed to know, is known to draw that conclusion, is just flat wrong.”

          What is silly here is that you’re getting angry and being a bit insulting, all on the basis of a straw man. I am not arguing against the notion that the towers were demolished. I’m saying that from my experience that conversation just engages people in a fruitless technical debate that we lack the data to resolve. Most people will not accept that the towers were demolished unless you give them the mechanism by which it was done, and we do not have the data to answer that question. So you end up in a position where you’re asserting that the towers were demolished, but you don’t have the evidence to satisfy others that it is the case.

          What you do or don’t take to be ‘hard facts’ and ‘matters of physics’ are irrelevant to persuading others. Indeed, by using such language you’ve actually turned me off this exchange, because I have no desire to be spoken to aggressively by someone who is completely unwilling to question their own beliefs. By adopting the same sort of rhetoric and mentality as A&E you’ve actually made me less likely to agree with your conclusion, even though I already agreed with it…

          • Ribbit-Mark says:

            I am not arguing against the notion that the towers were demolished. I’m saying that from my experience that conversation just engages people in a fruitless technical debate that we lack the data to resolve.

            Most people will not accept that the towers were demolished unless you give them the mechanism by which it was done, and we do not have the data to answer that question.

            … Because from my experience they spent an awful lot of time trying to prove that thermite was used, on the basis of a few scraps and flakes of metal. That isn’t hard, forensic, authoritative proof.

            Well I don’t know where to begin here.
            In the last week or so it has been established that you view 9/11 as irrelevant today.

            Now you declare you are not sure that the towers were demolished.
            That we lack data to resolve this debate (towers).

            You also express doubt that finding thermite in four independent dust samples from ground zero can be viewed as hard forensic proof explosives were used.

            Perhaps you lack the scientific background to assess the evidence?

          • Mark,
            It’s difficult to tell where you’re quoting and where you’re speaking for yourself. It looks like some of what you have in italics is meant to reference what Tom said. Maybe you’re not quoting Tom at all, but it’s pretty confusing if that’s not the case. I think it’s generally easier for people to read if you put the other person’s comments in “quotes” =]

          • It’s always frustrating when you find a piece of evidence to be absolutely and clearly dispositive, and others just shrug their shoulders and move on — but that’s what is bound to happen. The simple disconnect between the undisputed fact that steel melted and the utter failure of official theories to account for it screams very loudly that we’ve been sold a bill of goods. It’s as clear as day — to me. But the blank looks and changed subjects I regularly get from people testify eloquently in support of Tom’s argument.

            People don’t often build their worlds from facts. They build their worlds from beliefs. And they defend them with every weird trick their brains can conjure.

          • Well, I’d just add the fact that the “official narrative” for the collapse of the towers was explained by junk science: that the fuel from the plane spilled down the elevator shaft and caused the steel to sag, which led to some sort of implosion…

            There were probably tons of people who are familiar with controlled demolition who watched the buildings collapse and thought; “that’s what this looked like on 9/11”. There was even a clip on one of the MSM stations covering what was going on live who pointed this out on air (woops!). I’ve talked with people who said they were satisfied with the official explanation provided Popular Mechanics and whatever other BS explanations were on television.

            The myth, like the towers, collapses at freefall speed under basic scrutiny. Having people from A&E explain this though is a lot more convincing than having somebody like you or me do it, because they have the appropriate credentials. What I like particularly about the work I’ve seen from them; like the documentary I posted the link for, is that they’re clear about keeping the critique within the boundaries of their expertise. They don’t explicitly say it was “an inside job”, they more or less say the fact that the buildings appear to have been brought down by controlled demolition is troubling and reason enough to be concerned about why there was never a proper investigation done. They don’t talk about all the other suspicious aspects that relate to the towers, like the insurance policy taken out beforehand, or the sensitive nature of what legal documents were housed in building 7. We can and should be angry about the general public’s ignorance and willingness to buy into the myth, but we should also be angry at people in the alt-media who failed to separate evidence from speculation and generally failed to present information in a professional manner.

          • BennyB, I’ve followed AE911 closely, bought all the DVDs, I’m on a monthly donation plan with them, and I agree with you completely about their value. And if science and rationality prevailed in the real world, everyone would have been convinced by their efforts by now that the official 9/11 story is an obvious fraud.

            But it hasn’t happened, has it? Niels Harrit loses his libel case. The AE911 referendum is crushed in epic proportions at the association meeting of architects. The world continues as before, laughing at conspiracy theorists. Just last week I was unable to get a man with a PhD in physics to agree that a structure comprising hundreds of tons of steel and concrete ought to offer greater-than-zero resistance to objects trying to fall through it.

            And I strongly agree with those who say you don’t need experts and authorities to see such basic physical realities. What you need is the ability to think independently and critically.

            The conclusion is inescapable. The people to whom science and rationality matter are a small minority without influence. Critical thinking skills are f*cking rare. And that’s why the official narrative of 9/11 remains standing today, in all its absurd and flimsy glory.

          • Tom

            I’m not angry and I didn’t intentionally set out to insult you. I do hold a strong opinion and feel that besides the rapid destruction of the steel evidence — the cover up, yet another of the many strong arguments in support of, not only CD, but other elements of the crime — that enough pieces of verifiable information remain to share in that bold claim. It just so happens that I spent yesterday in Salem, OR at the state capital where A&E held a “WTC 7 Awareness Day” at the entrance followed by yet another presentation of the evidence that evening by Richard Gage.

            “…I have no desire to be spoken to aggressively by someone who is completely unwilling to question their own beliefs.”

            Neither do I. I was being assertive, yes, not ‘aggressive’ as suggested, and where is your basis for me being “unwilling to question their own beliefs”? I have been studying this for 10 years and have worked through my understanding and beliefs in these matters countless times. The real push back I get from people is psychological in nature, not technical, because their points don’t address the evidence, but rather their own reticence in discussing alternative theories for 9/11.

            The evidence (I don’t know how much of this you know, so I list):

            *Over 150 documented and verifiable witnesses to explosions as compiled by Dr. Graeme MacQueen which are completely omitted by NIST.

            *Numerous photos/videos and witnesses to molten metal/iron/steel in the rubble pile (including a witness account from Les Robertson, a lead structural engineer in the design of the towers) for which there is no causal mechanism in the official narrative, are omitted by NIST.

            *Iron microspheres were found in the dust by both the USGS and by the RJ Lee company and which comprised nearly 6% of the dust, by volume, which has no causal mechanism in the official narrative, omitted by NIST.

            *Unreacted red/gray, nano-thermitic particles found in the dust, as yet uncontested in the scientific literature, and which could very well be a causal mechanism for the iron microspheres and molten metal.

            *David Chandler’s, et al, work in proving that WTC 7 went into immediate free fall for over 2 seconds after NIST tried to claim that 7 came down “40% slower than free fall,” though NIST eventually acknowledged 2.25 seconds of absolute free fall acceleration in their Final Report. Steel simply doesn’t go from 300% holding capacity to 0% (free fall) within the normal design parameters. NIST refuses to release their computer modeling data — renditions of which were used to propagandize the public into believing their ‘fire induced collapse hypothesis’ — claiming that release of their data would “jeopardize public safety.”

            *David Chandler’s, et al, demonstration that WTC 1, during the visible portion of its collapse, came down at 64% of free fall acceleration, and which never decelerated, though a full 8 floors of collision had been fully engaged. A dynamic (moving) load cannot be transferred from one object to another unless there is a deceleration, meaning that the top cannot be destroying the bottom else it would have slowed down. The clear implication is that something else (explosives) are removing materials ahead of the collapse front allowing the top to continue accelerating.

            *NIST itself acknowledges with WTC 7 that, “this is the first known instance of a steel framed high rise structure totally collapsing primarily due to fires.” But the case is even stronger. Engineer Tony Szamboti has noted that no steel framed high rise has ever totally collapsed into pieces for any reason other than controlled demolition. Earthquakes, etc., have brought down buildings, but they fall over and the structure remains largely intact though it’s laying on its side.

            After our event in Salem yesterday a dozen of us went for beers and to discuss the day’s events. I suggested to Richard that we should ‘up the ante’ to the naysayer’s of the CD hypothesis. My suggestion was along the lines that if the 20,000+ petition signers at A&E each pledged just $50 that we would have over a of $1 million — on a bet — that no one can build a steel framed high rise style structure, consistent with high rise building standards, that they could then simply set on fire and which would totally collapse at free fall acceleration for 1/3 of its total collapse time, across the entire structure, and end up with a neat pile essentially in its own footprint. I further suggested that if a guy could do that, that we should put up another million dollars and ask him to build us a ‘perpetual motion machine,’ because I think it would be really neat to have one of those, too. ‘Cause I think the chances of the demise of the towers, as they unfolded on 9/11 in the official narrative, have about the same long odds as building the mythologized ‘perpetual motion machine’.

            Yes, Tom, I have a very strong opinion on this that I’ve worked out over many years of study. My intent is not to be dismissive nor insulting, but I keep encountering those who are dismissive of mine and others views on this matter without offering hard evidence as to why Newton’s formulations on motion should be set aside.

            All the best.

          • Peter,

            OK, fair enough, I apologise if I cast any aspersions. To be clear – I am very familiar with this evidence, I followed this work for some years. But I could see with my own eyes as I watched it on TV that the towers were blown up. You just watch it, and they are being blown up. They blow up. Like they are being blown up. If someone cannot see that then no amount of Newtonian mechanics or calculations or buckets of dust is going to convince them otherwise.

            Because everyone knows that structures don’t behave like that. It’s like crashing a car into a tree and then an hour later the tree spontaneously turns into wood chippings for no obvious reason (nano termites?). So anyone who didn’t get it the first or second time, or at least the third time with someone pointing them to a few key things to help them along, then all this other stuff is not going to help.

            Admittedly, it took me 5 years or so to figure that out, so I’m not really trying to bitch out Richard Gage or Niels Harrit or anyone else for banging their heads against a brick wall. But like you say, the pushback is psychological, and the idea that rationality wins out over psychological motivation is, I’m afraid, a modernist myth. Or at least, I don’t see much evidence in human history of that happening.

            Much as I’m amused by the idea of offering bets, I’m not sure what it would prove. That strikes me – no offence – as the sort of thing that would only offer any further proof to those who are already convinced. To those who aren’t convinced it’s a bit like if I told you that I stuck up a website offering a million dollars to anyone who could prove to me that aliens exist, and no one has claimed the money, therefore aliens don’t exist. You wouldn’t find that particularly compelling. Or would you? You strike me as being a lot more intelligent than that.

            Best,
            Tom

          • Glad you clarified this Tom. You’d made it sound as if you weren’t convinced of the use of explosives, which I didn’t even know what to make of. Your tree analogy was great too. Nice one…

          • Tom

            The idea I proposed was half whimsy and half serious. The operative American idiom would be to say to the dissemblers like Popular Mechanics, “Put up, or shut up.” The science of the tower destruction is clearly on the side of the ‘truth community’, and I was wondering out loud how we might press that advantage. Perhaps it’s vulgar, but Americans definitely respond to money, and I was thinking, how can we leverage that?

            As we piece the puzzle together I think it’s important that we distinguish between those things we know with some certainty and those things we know to various and lesser degrees. Those who criticize the recurrent discussion of the towers are right to broaden the context for understanding the event, yet the demolition of the towers is one place where we can confidently place a stake in the ground. As I’ve said elsewhere, until I saw it all in the context of Gladio, the strategy of tension, who it benefits and why, I really didn’t know precisely what I was looking at.

            Thanks for the input and clarification, Tom. All the best.

          • Peter,

            OK, I understand the ‘put up or shut up’ idea and this would be quite a fun way of confronting popular mechanics and all the rest of these lazy-minded yuppies. I guess I’m just a bit cynical because I’ve seen a lot of these sorts of bets/rewards for proving/disproving something and while I quite enjoy watching the arguments as a spectator I’m not sure if they ever achieve all that much. Like I say, this sort of thing does amuse me, I’m on board in that sense.

            Now that I’ve got my internet running properly again I might do a 9/11 and Gladio B episode because there are three connections that are worthy of people’s attention. I should be recording with Lars Svendsen tomorrow, but maybe the one after that I’ll get into this dimension.

  14. Ribbit-Mark says:

    We were talking about the relevance of 9/11 today, in recent discussion.

    Here we have a story about former UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld who was killed in a plane crash in 1961.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/evidence-may-lead-to-new-probe-in-1961-death-of-un-secretary-general-dag-hammarskj%C3%B6ld-1.3121036

    New evidence (documents and testimony) are adding weight to the case suggesting that the plane crash was not an accident.

    So we will spend time, effort and money to re-investigate an event that occurred 54 years ago in which 16 people lost their lives because new evidence has surfaced, but we won’t spend any time, effort or money to re-investigate the most historic event of this century that continues to shape the geo-political landscape of the world.

    I don’t know if I am the only one with a warped mind or whether there are others who read articles such as this and wonder what is wrong with this picture?

    • Oh, it’s a hopeful sign really. Let’s see, 50+ years to reinvestigate something that happened to to a “furriner”, maybe it’ll only be 75 years for domestic events, which puts acknowledgement of the JFK assassination somewhere around 2040 and we can look forward to a new 9/11 investigation just before the turn of the next century. Tiiiiiiiiiime, is on my side, yes it is….

  15. Ribbit-Mark says:

    BennyB you are quite right about my quoting.
    I wish this site had a ‘how to’ showing all available ways to use quotes and other goodies here.
    So far I have only been able to learn how to use italics.

    Until I learn how to quote properly, I will use the method you recommend, quote marks and italics for emphasis.

    Below is the post again, quoted properly:

    TomS:
    “I am not arguing against the notion that the towers were demolished. I’m saying that from my experience that conversation just engages people in a fruitless technical debate that we lack the data to resolve.

    Most people will not accept that the towers were demolished unless you give them the mechanism by which it was done, and we do not have the data to answer that question.

    … Because from my experience they spent an awful lot of time trying to prove that thermite was used, on the basis of a few scraps and flakes of metal. That isn’t hard, forensic, authoritative proof.”

    Well I don’t know where to begin here.
    In the last week or so it has been established that you view 9/11 as irrelevant today.

    Now you declare you are not sure that the towers were demolished.
    That we lack data to resolve this debate (towers).

    You also express doubt that finding thermite in four independent dust samples from ground zero can be viewed as hard forensic proof explosives were used.

    Perhaps you lack the scientific background to assess the evidence?

    • Mark,

      To format long quotes you can use the blockquote tag.

      Just use

      (without the spaces

      I think this is a lot easier to read for a decent amount of text.

      … just testing: if this does something different using tag (for small part of quote)
      couple more tests 😆 😳

      • whoa.. that came out crazy… I’ll have to make a note of it. just do the blockquote same as you did for the italics =]

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        Thanks Benny.
        I’m going to try out a few right now to see what happens.

        This should be the beginning of a block quote. We’ll see how it pans out in the end.
        This should be bold inside the blockquote.
        And my trusty italics should work as well.

        Now how was that? 🙂

    • Mark,

      “In the last week or so it has been established that you view 9/11 as irrelevant today.”
      Wrong. I said part of me agrees with Chomsky when he said ‘who cares?’. The two are not the same thing. Perhaps you lack the intellectual faculties to make such elementary distinctions.

      “Now you declare you are not sure that the towers were demolished.”

      I’m a natural sceptic, I’m not really sure of anything. But I did say ‘the fact that the towers were demolished’, which indicates I accept that as a general premise on which to build a discussion. So again you’re wrong, and perhaps you lack the intellectual faculties to make such elementary distinctions.

      “That we lack data to resolve this debate (towers).”

      We do. You can’t tell me exactly how the towers were demolished or who demolished them. It’s like having a dead body riddled with gun shot wounds but no gun and no suspect – to claim you’ve solved the crime and resolved any debate about it is ridiculous.

      “You also express doubt that finding thermite in four independent dust samples from ground zero can be viewed as hard forensic proof explosives were used.”

      Thermite isn’t really an explosive, and thermite alone could not have caused the massive excess of energy that produced the pyroclastic dust clouds. A few scraps of stuff in some dust that may or may not have been from Ground Zero and may or may not have been contaminated/tampered with before Steven Jones shoved an electron microprobe into it is not ‘hard forensic proof explosives were used’. However, the condition of the bits of scrap and rubble left from the WTC destruction is pretty hard evidence, because metal cannot get into those shapes/that condition without much greater heat/energy than was available from the plane strikes. And we know those pieces of scrap were from the WTC, unlike the dust samples.

      “Perhaps you lack the scientific background to assess the evidence?”

      How ironic, given how lazy and lax and unscientific your understanding is.

  16. Ribbit-Mark says:

    Well everything worked except the italics, because the entire block quote was italics.
    But at least I learned something today. 🙂

  17. stevan topping says:

    Fair enough, technicalities lose folks. (Sometimes not always – Building 7 – Thermite). I’m all for Webster Tarpley’s (and many others) – WHO MADE IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE – NINE ELEVEN ??? Will that steer it all back on track. That day is still central to what’s going on. Of course it is. So, who done it? As a side note I found the NRO Drill (all drills interest now – easier to use as a diversion/chose sac by design) interesting. Does who made it happen trump who allowed it to happen? Probably. Do we need to start discussing who made it happen on purpose?

  18. stevan topping says:

    A Name, I resonate with your frustration. Peace.

  19. stevan topping says:

    A Name, I resonate with your frustration. Peace

  20. I think a lot of people here are missing my point.

    I’ve never suggested that bringing relevant evidence to light would lead to:

    – Prosecution of those responsible
    – Justice for those most directly effected (the loved ones of those who lost their lives etc)
    – A consensus on the plausibility of any of the more convincing alternative theories

    If these were the goals, I’d agree largely with what’s been said by those of you that the much of the efforts around 9/11 are in many ways a waste of time.

    What happened on 9/11 was an assault on reality. There was a psychological trauma inflicted, primarily on Americans, which lead to a suspension of any capacity to view the idea of “national security” rationally. PNAC was right when they said that Americans wouldn’t accept their concept that “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” and ramped up multiple theatre military conquests was in our interests without a ‘catastrophic and catalyzing event’.

    I think there’s a reasonable level of recognition at this point that the wars, if not Afghanistan, then certainly Iraq, were ill advised, based on a false sense of a threat, and at this point, are a catastrophic mess that we never should’ve allowed ourselves to get talked into. The less recognized and psychologically more insidious aspect of what happened that few have been able to grasp is how things like the Patriot Act, the NSA’s (expanded) warrantless wiretapping, the doubling down of the Police State, and the expansion of the Industrial Security complex was advanced on this false premise.

    I’m not looking to prove to people who accept the “official narrative/explanations” that the towers collapsed as the result of controlled demolition, or any other element of what happened on 9/11, for the sake that their understanding will somehow change what’s already been done. I want people to recognize on some level, using the most practical and compelling means possible, that we all have every reason to be extremely skeptical of whatever official narrative we are presented with – as it’s happening – so that people might stop and ask questions when they see things that don’t make sense – to read the fine print before signing on the dotted line.

    I reject a lot of the pessimism and resignation that I see here, not because I don’t agree with your rationale, but because I feel that you’re missing the point: ================

    Uncovering the truth retroactively is relatively useless with most of what we discuss here if it’s just to reach some sort of consensus among ourselves, but it does matter if shedding some light, not just on the nature of how we’ve been lied to, but most importantly – how these lies have been taken advantage of to ramp up the Security/Police State, then what we’re doing here is important if we want to try to resist allowing the powers that shouldn’t be to advance this agenda.
    =======================
    If the discussions we’re having here aren’t about reaching a greater level of understanding on matters which we can actually use in some shape or form to affect positive change, either through conversations with others or with respect to how we react in real time to various false flag attacks and the agenda’s that spring up on their heels, yes, what we’re doing here is a waste of time.

    • What sections of that PNAC document had the juicy stuff?

    • Benny,
      My thinking is that 9/11 was a Gladio event, and to understand the event in its proper context is to interpret it along those lines. That has some chance of getting through to people and getting them to question the power dynamics that feed off (among other things) false flag terrorism.

      This is why I find so many of the technical disputes rather tedious. But then, people find my obsession with the papertrail a bit tedious, so I guess it is a swings and roundabouts. Needless to say, if I ever make that grand three-part Gladio documentary, 9/11 will feature quite centrally.

      • Tom,
        I get where you’re coming from and, in conjunction with your response to Peter, I see that as an angle of sound logic, which it seems actually mirrors my own: basically that collecting evidence for the sake of proving that a crime took place, or even more irrationally, imagining this would lead to “justice” of some sort is indeed a waste of time (IMO). My concern is that people recognize what happened as a crime so that they’re less likely to be fooled of whatever “solutions” are on layaway as a response to whatever manufactured event they pull off.

        I lean in the direction of trying to present the most compelling arguments to get people to acknowledge, at the bare minimum, that the lies they’re being told about such and such event ought to make them suspicious. I don’t think we have any control over when, whether, or not false flag attacks will take place. I don’t think researching these events with this in mind is worthwhile at all. Nor is it what I believe you’re suggesting for that matter.

        So we’re on the same page it seems with the idea that the goal of the research needs to be centered around making the link between the event and what objectives it’s intent on achieving.

        An aside, I remember the first time I went to the airport after 9/11 and seeing people taking off their shoes (and I forget what else) and thinking; yeah, ‘we let the “terrorists” win’. I want to call out the BS, to try to prevent the next rounds of stripping our liberties (pun intended)… To prevent people from getting conned into taking out an insurance policy to protect their child from the monster under their bed. (Or calling for military action to smoke the monsters out of their caves in the rogue countries who aid and abet them 😉 )

  21. Ribbit-Mark says:

    TomS said:

    But that’s the task for the likes of us now – coming to terms with the event psychologically and culturally. Legally and politically, there is no chance, or rather the chance has gone…
    So the opportunity open to us now is trying to explain 9/11 not as a crime that we know the truth about (we don’t, however much we might like to think we do) but as a psychological, cultural event that had an enormous impact.

    This is where you and I have fundamentally opposing views. I don’t know how much you personally have researched 9/11 but we do know enough truth about 9/11 that we could easily win a court battle should the opportunity ever arise (assuming the jury was legit, and that would be a tall assumption).

    I’m not saying discussing the psychological and cultural repercussions is not productive or a bad thing, but dismissing the hard evidence we have taken years to amass as inconclusive is simply preposterous.

  22. Ribbit-Mark says:

    john said:

    The conclusion is inescapable. The people to whom science and rationality matter are a small minority without influence. Critical thinking skills are f*cking rare. And that’s why the official narrative of 9/11 remains standing today, in all its absurd and flimsy glory.

    Very sad, but very true. 🙁

  23. CuChulainn says:

    Lukacs’ classic _The destruction of reason_ is highly pertinent, especially the epilogue on Pindostan as heir to the irrationalist traditions of Nietzsche & the 3rd Reich

    • That sounds like a good one, CuChulainn. The Lukacs will be useful to me; will obtain!

      • CuChulainn says:

        one chapter is online, which touches on Walter Kaufmann’s post-WWII rehabilitation of Nietzsche: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/destruction-reason/ch03.htm
        The current attempts to dissociate Nietzsche from Schopenhauer’s irrationalism, and to connect him with the Enlightenment and Hegel, I regard as childish, or rather, as an expression of history-fudging in the service of American imperialism on the lowest level yet seen… Much as the basic objectives accorded with the ideological outlook of the parasitical intelligentsia, to voice them in a systematic, brutal and open fashion would have repelled a wide and not insignificant circle. Thus it is far from an accident that, with but few exceptions (notably the immediate pioneers of Hitlerian fascism), Nietzsche-exegesis has stuck to his cultural critique, moral psychology and so forth, and has seen in Nietzsche an ‘innocent’ thinker concerned only with the spiritual problems of an intellectual and moral ‘élite’. Brandes and Simmel saw him thus, as did Bertram and Jaspers later, and as does Kaufmann today.

  24. Ribbit-Mark says:

    I think that in the minds of the general US population, 9/11 is always the reason, whether stated or not. “We don’t want that to happen again…” It makes a useful justification for people to just ignore the horrible things the US is doing to other countries… it’s still hanging over this nation like Monty Python’s 6,000 pound weight. The minute we begin to question our continued involvement in various conflicts, we are reminded of 9/11, and the threat of another attack.

    That’s exactly the way I see it too Katie.

  25. Ribbit-Mark says:

    TomS said:

    But I could see with my own eyes as I watched it on TV that the towers were blown up. You just watch it, and they are being blown up…

    … So anyone who didn’t get it the first or second time, or at least the third time with someone pointing them to a few key things to help them along, then all this other stuff is not going to help.
    Admittedly, it took me 5 years or so to figure that out…

    A little contradictory on the timeline but, whatever.
    At least you are on our side with this. 🙂

    So the opportunity open to us now is trying to explain 9/11 not as a crime that we know the truth about (we don’t, however much we might like to think we do)

    We know many truths about the crime, not least of which is the one you yourself mention above (towers blowing up).

    I’m a natural sceptic, I’m not really sure of anything. But I did say ‘the fact that the towers were demolished’, which indicates I accept that as a general premise on which to build a discussion.

    Facts and premises are mutually exclusive.

    I am not arguing against the notion that the towers were demolished. I’m saying that from my experience that conversation just engages people in a fruitless technical debate that we lack the data to resolve.
    Most people will not accept that the towers were demolished unless you give them the mechanism by which it was done, and we do not have the data to answer that question.

    Tom, the general public does not need all the specific details of which particular explosive was used, what it’s chemical ingredients were, the mechanism used to detonate etc.
    Again, you yourself said you saw the towers being blown up with your own eyes.
    That is all the physical evidence we need at this stage.
    There is no need to complicate things.

    • Mark,

      It took me five years or so to realise that having a reasoned technical argument will not convince someone who has a strong psychological motive against believing something. It took me about thirty seconds to realise that the towers had been blown up.

      “Facts and premises are mutually exclusive.”

      I would disagree. But I was using ‘fact’ in the rhetorical sense anyway.

      “Tom, the general public does not need all the specific details of which particular explosive was used, what it’s chemical ingredients were, the mechanism used to detonate etc.
      Again, you yourself said you saw the towers being blown up with your own eyes.
      That is all the physical evidence we need at this stage.
      There is no need to complicate things.”

      I am not trying to, I’m telling you what happened to me, over and over, when I engaged people in this sort of conversation. I couldn’t give them the data that they would find convincing, because I didn’t have it. Or I banged up against someone’s lack of willingness to consider that possibility.

      Meanwhile, my subjective opinion watching something happen on TV may be proof enough for me, though as a sceptic I admit I’m not sure. But it isn’t proof enough for someone else. It isn’t ‘all the evidence we need at this stage’. Or looked at another way, ‘need’ for what? What is the purpose or end goal here?

      • Ribbit-Mark says:

        Meanwhile, my subjective opinion watching something happen on TV may be proof enough for me, though as a sceptic I admit I’m not sure. But it isn’t proof enough for someone else. It isn’t ‘all the evidence we need at this stage’. Or looked at another way, ‘need’ for what? What is the purpose or end goal here?

        Good questions.

        It has long been my contention that all of the ‘truther’ groups should unite and say:

        “Look we will never agree on all the details of 9/11.
        We don’t have to. We all agree that the U.S. government lied to us.
        That is all we need to agree on.

        Let us now move forward and work together using all our brain power
        to form a strategy to get the general public on side and ‘mad as hell’; enough to stop future false flag operations, bogus wars, the move towards a police state and the ‘war on terror’.”

  26. Tom, have you discussed “American Sniper” somewhere? I watched the film yesterday and I’d be interested on a perspective of how this relates to the “official” story of Chris Kyle (with or without “air quotes”).

    • Pearse, Guillermo and I discussed it on an episode of ClandesTime as part of a wider discussion about cultural warfare and free speech, but in truth none of us had seen the film. I still haven’t but I will try to muster up the stomach to watch it and do a proper review. To be honest though, I’d rather watch Mad Max or Jurassic World.

  27. 60 Minutes Australia: Special Investigation Spies Lords and Predators

    Go look that up on the y toob.

    Is this ball sarting to roll?

  28. That piece was a limited hangout. They try to portray it as isolated and mostly in the past. Most likely it has been going on for millenia.

    I wonder how they are going to spin it if it does become more than a limited hangout.

Speak Your Mind