History Channel Hit Piece: Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies, Journalistic Fraud

The History Channel 9/11 special that aired last night was by far the worst hit piece we have ever witnessed, a completely savage, dishonest and deceptive abomination, replete with dirty tricks, malicious lies and a level of journalistic fraud that goes way beyond simple bias.

read more | digg story

No Speculation Required: 9/11 Was an Inside Job

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” - Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

By Arabesque

Speculation is one of the favorite pastimes among those who like to play “armchair conspiracy theorists”.  This is especially true when it comes to 9/11.

As seen in the Scientific Method, speculation is indispensable,[1] and is always valuable when used in the right context.  Indeed, theory would be impossible.  

If Dr. Steven Jones had never speculated about the use of thermate in the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers he would never have found the incriminating evidence of thermate proving beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job.[2]

Here’s how speculation should work, as it does in the Scientific Method:

·        Observation: Molten Metal for months at Ground Zero

·        Speculation/Hypothesis: This is characteristic of a Thermite reaction—not Jet Fuel Fires

·        Validation: Samples from ground zero tested for thermite—a variant called thermate is found.[3]

If there is no way to validate speculation it is impossible to get definitive answers. 

Truthmod, an activist/moderator on the website TruthMove.org sums it up:

“Speculation gets us nowhere. Go with the sourced and confirmed facts and we can't be denied. Plane swapping, DEW, pods, no-planes, etc. all put us into the category of speculators and theorists while established facts give us credibility as true researchers and journalists.”[4]

Speculating about what happened on 9/11, examining the credible facts that show 9/11 was an inside job,[5] and examining the contradictory facts that demonstrate that the 9/11 official story is false[6] are all completely different things.

There are situations where speculation is the only option when evidence is being deliberately withheld. In such situations we can’t finalize or jump to conclusions—we can only speculate.  When forced into this situation we should instead call for the release of more evidence and ultimately, a new investigation.

The withholding of 9/11 evidence serves two functions:

1. To hide the truth
2. To encourage speculation and distract attention away from verifiable facts

Encouraging speculation is part of an intentional diversion that plays on the psychological understanding that humans crave mysteries, and not what they know.  The government is smart enough to understand that speculation frequently occurs when there is a lack of evidence, and that "conspiracy facts" are consequently ignored in favor of "conspiracy theories". 

There are 9/11 “researchers” who make speculation the entire basis of their existence, and they are among the least credible “activists” within the 9/11 truth movement.  ‘Truthmover’ at truthmove.org observes:

“This is one important reason to reject the 'big tent' mentality. The core of this movement, its facts and priorities have not changed. We have established probable cause to suspect government complicity. Anything detracting from this case or its promotion is not a part of the truth movement. In other words, the movement hasn't ever really split. There is another movement, adopting our themes, that has no particular dedication to the truth. I'll call them the ‘9/11 speculation movement.’”[7]

Why stick to what we know when we can guess about what we don't?

Similarly, Dr. Steven Jones suggests that a weak approach to examining evidence can turn people off from seriously examining the real anomalies of 9/11:

“Watching the ‘In Plane Site’ video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially—until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.”[8]

Anyone even slightly paying attention to the Mainstream media in relation to criticism of the official 9/11 narrative would notice that there is a deliberate focus on only the 9/11 theories that are supported by “tenuous speculations” or even deliberate disinformation—mostly under the propagandist and wearily clichéd banner of "conspiracy theory"; completely ignoring the confirmed and embarrassing “conspiracy” facts.[9] Dan Abrahamson asks of those who speculate at the expense of the confirmed facts:

“Does their speculation get us any closer toward building a nationwide political movement and arresting the 9-11 plotters? Or is it a divisive strawman that will isolate us from the mainstream media and average Americans? …Suddenly it appears the controlled demolition, WTC 7, NORAD stand down, hijacking drills, war games, ‘Angel is Next’ call to Bush, living hijackers, double-agent hijackers, CIA insider put options, and ‘al-Qaeda’ links to Anglo-American intelligence are not enough.  Now every researcher has their own pet theory about no planes, no hijackers, no phone calls, no Pentagon Boeing, and no flight 93 crash (they claim it landed it Cleveland and the wreckage in Shanksville was, you guessed it, planted).”[10]

9/11 Commission: Insider Stock Trading had “No Conceivable ties to Al Qaeda”.  Michael Ruppert agrees: he investigated and found ties to the CIA.[11]

As Abrahamson says, our speculations are highlighted and our facts are ignored by the Media.  This is exactly how speculation is used as a weapon against the cause of 9/11 Truth.  

Alex Jones similarily asks:

“Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein? Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down? Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.”[12]

Given the fact that there is no real debate or speculation about the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, what is the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement?  Endless debates over tenuous speculation or justice over the many proven facts?[13]

As Jon Gold has said, “the time for debate is over.”[14]

How does unsubstantiatable and never-ending speculation bring us closer to Justice?  How will it force another investigation?   

In the information war, we are never going to be victorious or have a powerful effect by debating weak arguments that can’t be proven endlessly.  It is self-defeating if we support true (or even false) conclusions with false, misleading, uncertain, unconvincing, or biased arguments.  Unverified speculation is the entire basis of a Trojan Horse Straw-man exploited unmercifully by Popular Mechanics, the Mainstream Media, the left gatekeepers, and many others.

While the facts speak for themselves, they are sometimes not enough to convince everyone, which is why the best evidence must be consistently presented.  As Oilempire says:

“If there is any hope for the ‘9/11 truth’ movement, it will involve refocusing on the evidence that has the strongest proof, and excluding the hoaxes and those who push the hoaxes.”[15] 

While at first glance the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job is unthinkable, those who believe any government is incapable of killing its own citizens have not seen the Northwoods document,[16] paid attention to the fact that the government lied about the air quality at ground zero which will outrageously result in more deaths than 9/11,[17] or observed historically documented “false-flags” resulting in the deaths of civilians to justify wars.[18]

There are many who believe that corrupt elements within the US administration could unload the next 9/11 at any time to justify war with Iran, further destroy civil liberties, and even enable a dictatorship.[19]

Speculating while proving nothing when we have real evidence to prove an inside job and show that the 9/11 official story is ludicrously false is a diversion that suits the perpetrators just fine:

"Speculate, while we continue our wars of aggression planned long before 9/11, kill innocent civilians indiscriminately, steal oil, plan additional synthetic terror attacks under the guise of war-game exercises, make billions for war profiteers, destroy the constitution because the ‘terrorists’ hate our freedoms, terrorize the world with blatantly and stunningly fake propaganda,[20] commit impeachable offenses including treason, engage in other illegal/unethical activities, illegal wars, and our neo-conservative ‘project for a new American Century’."

The sooner that the many fighting for the truth about 9/11  figure this out the better:

The time for speculation is over—9/11 has been proven to be an inside job.  The time for justice is at hand.

---

[1] The Scientific Method, http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

[2] Steven Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? http://www.journalof911studies.com/ See also:

Steven Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001—Applying the Scientific Method

[3] Ibid.

[4] Truthmod, TruthMod Forum, Sudden rise in "TV Fakery" topics... http://www.truthmove.org/

[5] http://www.911proof.com/ “9/11 Proof… See the Facts for Yourself”

[6] Dvaid Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie, http://www.911truth.org/

[7] Truthmover, Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements, http://www.truthmove.org/forum  

[8] Jim Hoffman, Hoax-Promoting Videos: In Plane Site, http://www.911review.com/ 

[9] Joseph P. Firmage, Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11

Dr. Frank Legge, 9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions

Dr. Frank Legge, NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire

[10] Dan. L. Abrahamson, 9-11 Truth Movement: Focus or Die, http://falseflagnews.com/

[11] Michael Ruppert, Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks, http://www.globalresearch.ca/    

[12] Alex Jones, and Paul Watson, Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op: Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them, http://www.infowars.com/

[13] Steven Jones, "What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community?" (Updated Mar 7, 2007)

[14] Jon Gold, The Time For Debate Is Over, http://visibility911.com/ 

[15] Oilempire.com, the rise and fall of 9/11 truth, http://www.oilempire.us/

[16] What Really Happened, US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ 

[17] Laurie Garrett, EPA Misled Public on 9/11 Pollution: White House ordered false assurances on air quality, report says, http://www.commondreams.org/ 

[18] Alex Jones, TerrorStorm Deluxe High Quality (Alex Jones), Google Video, http://video.google.com/

[19] Arabesque, The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[20] YouTube, How to Create an Angry American, http://www.youtube.com/ 

Keith Olberman, Keith Olbermann Updates The Nexus Of Terror And Politics - Creating Terror, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

The Pentagon Honey Pot

A collection of quotes on the Pentagon Controversy

"A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association” – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:

“The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.”

“Few people have direct experience with the results of high-speed collisions of aircraft into strong barriers. Most aircraft accidents occur shortly after takeoff or during attempted landings, and do not completely destroy the aircraft. In contrast, uncontrolled crashes into terrain usually reduce aircraft into fine debris, leaving little if any parts identifiable by casual visual inspection. The debris fields of several jetliner crashes pictured here show the surprising paucity of apparent debris many crashes produce.”

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

“The aircraft impact punctured the facade over a contiguous area measuring approximately 96 feet wide on the first floor, and 18 feet wide on the second floor. Damage to the facade extended beyond the punctured areas.”

Alex Jones and Paul Watson of Prison Planet:

Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op: Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them:

“For over four years we have remained neutral on the subject, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement.  The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11.  At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.  The government is steam valving this issue so as to garner as much interest as possible before blowing the entire matter out of the water. We know for a fact that the FBI seized the gas station camera footage and footage from hotels across the highway which would show the entire sequence of events and prove exactly what happened at the Pentagon.  The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11.

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.

Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein?  Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down?  Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.”

What Really Happened

The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon

“At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact, and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web.  But if you think about it, common sense tells you their claims are just plain silly. After all, if the passenger jet didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go? And since the people behind 9-11 had to get rid of the passenger jet and its contents anyway, there was no reason for them NOT to ram it into the Pentagon. Why risk a swap? Why complicate matters even further?”

911Truth.org

THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

“3) Pentagon Strike

How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?”

Oilempire

".... if you think that the "no plane at the Pentagon" claim, even if it is wrong, is harmless... or if you think perhaps even it is beneficial because it converts a lot of people into 9/11 skeptics (and it certainly does), please think again. John Judge and Mark Robinowitz and others are correct that its intention was to alienate people inside the beltway, and make us look foolish among D.C. professionals. It succeeded."
-- Emanuel Sferios, 9/11 Visibility Campaign

“If this was all a government conspiracy, why go to the bother of using a missile or fighter to hit the Pentagon when a 757 would do just fine, make a bigger bang, and there would be no need for a cover-up?”

“There is no question that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Remaining agnostic on this point also gives ammunition to the perpetrators of the stand-down and serves to discredit the other good work that continues to be done about the reality of what happened that day. It is my feeling that this thesis was actually part of an intentional disinformation campaign that spreads red herrings to discredit the real findings.” Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn't Hit the Pentagon 23 October 2002, by John Judge

“The ‘no plane’ theories don't make sense—why would they bother to substitute? Why risk being caught in the act, if someone got a clear photo? Why not just remote control a 757 into the empty part of the building? The area around the Pentagon is densely populated, and a clear photo showing something other than the 757 would compromise the entire operation.”

“I think there's a grave problem of ‘sexing up’ the truth with spectacular yet specious arguments. For instance, some of the splashiest and attractive 9/11 material is devoted to supporting the ‘Pentagon Missile.’ Sure, it gets people's attention - in fact, it dominates the public perception of alternative theories of the attacks - but is it right? Well, no; as I've said, I don't think so. And truth will suffer again and again when those who fell for the missile ‘hook’ come to the same conclusion and chuck the whole thing, and those who were turned off the ‘missile’ refuse to look any further.” -- Jeff Wells, Rigorous Intuition, http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/05/no-way-and-yeah-so-what.html

TruthMove

“The “no plane at the Pentagon” theory has been called a hoax or disinfo by many within the movement. At TruthMove, we believe that most of the strongest points behind this argument have been effectively countered by honest skeptics within the movement.”

Pentagon Research

“Some of the observations here support the ‘official’ story. I can only say I've been diligent and honest in my approach. Whatever I found is what I found. I considered both the official story and the alternative theories every step of the way… There are photos of aircraft debris outside and inside the Pentagon. There are no large aircraft structures that one would intuitively expect from an aircraft the size of a 757-200. Some of the debris can be specifically identified with a 757 aircraft. I personally believe the amount of debris exceeds what could be planted without detection... I find it as hard to believe that a Cessna 172 unqualified hijacker could fly a 757 for the first time with military precision as I do aircraft override theories.”

Joël van der Reijden

Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself

“The one thing that I think is important with conspiracy theories, is that they are not based on false assumptions, or on the selective gathering of evidence. The problem is that this is exactly what has been done with the Pentagon crash. And not just a little, it has been taken to the extreme. And that's a problem, because now that more and more people have been getting involved with the alternative 9/11 movement it's getting harder for them by the month to escape the pointless ‘yes 757’ vs ‘no 757’ debates (update: lately, the tide has been turning).”

Caustic Logic

Author of The Frustrating Fraud

“It is my opinion that these arguments have swelled the movement for all the wrong reasons. The “hard proof” crowd have claimed to find literally hundreds of “smoking gun” clues left laying out in the open. While some have real validity, many, on closer inspection, are fraudulent. Yet somehow the worst arguments get more air play and capture more attention and so the “Truth” movement has become dominated by the desire not to provide the most rational explanation but the one most opposite to the official story.  Beyond providing endless distraction and requiring endless de-bunking (and they keep coming back!), this approach alienates intelligent skeptics, whom we need on our side… Through careful research, I have found almost all evidence points clearly to a 757 as the attack vehicle, piloted by whatever means, and in the process have exposed a long thread of apparent disinformation running from 9/11 to the present and continuing despite all evidence to the current day.”

Michael Ruppert

“Some of the more outlandish theories—like French writer Thierry Meyssan’s claim that a cruise missile, not an airplane, hit the Pentagon—are only diluting the waters, Ruppert said. There are other theories, too: that there were no planes at all, only holographic projections of planes (used in conjunction with explosives planted by some shadowy group); or that one of the planes that hit the WTC had some sort of anomalous “pod” attached to it that caused extra damage. But this is all “bullshit,” Ruppert said, and is either intentional disinformation or sheer stupidity.”

9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 19, 2007

The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has described and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11.

The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain anonymous until the film is released.

We can reveal that the individual concerned was asked to report to building seven with a city official after the first attack on the North tower but before the second plane hit the South Tower and before their eventual collapse, in order to provide the official with access to different floors of the building.

The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas this official now works for Guiliani partners.

The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called "bunker" that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.

When he got there he found the office evacuated and after making some calls was told to leave immediately.

It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex.

The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.

listen to the clips

Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of [WTC] 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.

This is vital information be cause it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building [7], yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level.

What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation.

The fact that the building was not even mentioned in the report in light of this information thus becomes chilling and indicates that officials have lied in stating that they have not come into contact with evidence of explosive devices within the buildings.

Avery and Burmas successfully contacted the individual after discovering a TV interview he did on 9/11 while they were trawling through news footage from the day in research for the Final Cut.

Avery says that he can and will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the individual was in building 7 on 9/11 and that what he is saying is accurate.

read more | digg story

Cindy Sheehan: Twin Towers Collapse Looked Like Controlled Demolition

Anti-war icon Cindy Sheehan has gone public on her support for the 9/11 truth movement after she told a radio show that the collapse of the twin towers looked like a controlled demolition and that there should be a new investigation into the terrorist attacks. [...]

On 9/11, Sheehan expressed her support for the Jersey Girl's petition, which calls for a new independent investigation of the terrorist attacks, slamming the 9/11 Commission Report as a "total travesty and a smokescreen."

"George Bush and Dick Cheney held hands and testified behind closed doors, not under oath," said Sheehan, adding, "There are many things that just don't add up on that day."

Sheehan questioned why U.S. air defenses were distracted by drills and exercises scheduled for the morning of 9/11 and why standard operating procedure for intercepting errant aircraft was not followed for the first and only time in history.

"When you lose control of an airplane, you intercept it with a military jet and that should only take seconds - from what I understand it's not even an order to do that it's mandatory," said Sheehan.

Speaking on the collapse of the twin towers, Sheehan stated, "It does look to me like a controlled demolition - I'm not an expert - but it does look to me like a controlled demolition - I'm looking at common sense."

"I do see some very high profile people saying it was an inside job," concluded Sheehan.

Click here to listen to Sheehan's interview on the Alex Jones Show.

read more | digg story