The 9/11 B. S. Movement

The 9/11 B. S. Movement
Blatant Insanity = Intentional DIS-information

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
-Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow

It's a sad day for me, as I have to wade hip deep through this sewage. But, it's come to this. We are drowning in DIS-information, that is deliberate gibberish passed off as a "9/11 conspiracy theory," which is intended to associate all of the 9/11 skeptics with "whack job" ideas about that day.

The rational public will then see the "whack job" ideas dutifully printed in the mainstream corporate press, and they will respond with revulsion to the concept of skepticism of the official 9/11 story. It's simple guilt by association psychology.

No one wants to associate with obvious morons. There is indeed method to the madness.

As if we haven't suffered enough ad hominem attacks, we now must defend against deliberate campaigns that are on their face: MAD. And they're supposedly coming from us.

In the Beginning

It started with some anomalies at the Pentagon, an initial penetration hole that -- in most photos -- appeared too small to accomodate the Boeing 757 said to have rammed the building there.

This was accompanied by strange behavior by both the Pentagon and the FBI to confiscate and keep secret all of the videotapes from the security cameras around the site. These were provocative acts that got a lot of people suspicious of what had really happened there.

All manner of speculation followed. Some people said a missile hit there. Some said a small fighter jet fired a missile, and then it too crashed there. Some said a plane flew right over the top while preplanted explosives blew up the Pentagon.

"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

Those who controlled the information drew in skeptics with the sweet lure of a seeming inconsistency. Droves of people bought DVDs like "In Plane Site" to find out more. The "Loose Change" video accepted this "small hole" theory that somehow proved the government was lying about the Pentagon crash scene.

I was told of a "12 foot hole," a "16 foot hole," and an "18 foot hole" on many occasions, on many websites.

Not true:

Click for larger image.
(SOURCE: http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/fig_3_8.jpg
"This photograph, reproduced in the FEMA Report, shows punctured walls extending to column line 8, about 50 feet to the north of the impact hole center.")[1]

Not where the real story lay.

If millions and millions of people could be so easily redirected, so easily discredited by their own words, their own deeds, the perps at the top had learned a valuable lesson. The weaknesses of the "9/11 Truth Movement" were that it was vulnerable to distractions, to infiltration, to bogus evidence, and even to nonsensical arguments.

Take the case of Michael C. Ruppert, one of the first, perhaps one of the greatest investigators into September 11th 2001. His Truth and Lies of 9/11 is what roped me into this subject, back in late 2002. Ruppert was a powerful speaker, a devoted investigator, and a serious scholar of ilicit US government covert operations.

So, when everyone expected him to crack the case wide open in his book Crossing the Rubicon, we found out that he had written a book primarily about ... "Peak Oil???"

Sure, there was some information about war games happening during the attacks. But, why was focus lost? Why was 9/11 turned into "peak oil?" These two areas are completely different subjects (...Ruppert would disagree). Michael Ruppert was distracted from the goal, and he suffered as a result.

The "In Plane Site" crew stepped in, and they took the initiative with what? Pods! It was "pods" that were going to break 9/11 wide open! Sure, the (normal) wing fairings [2] under the 767's that struck the World Trade Center were now giant protrusions that can only have been put there by demonic conspirators, who don't mind letting it all hang out in front of the NY press.

The reflective properties of the aluminum airplane skin were not to be scrutinized; just take it from the video: pods, pods, pods.

DISINFO 2.0

Well that's the disinformation of yesteryear. Today, they have fired up the thrusters, and they are on some kind of disinformation rampage over at the dark side think tanks. It has become some kind of contest to pass along the most insane nonsense for the willing dupes out there to slurp up.

No planes hit the WORLD TRADE CENTER???

Of all the preposterous garbage I have come across, this one takes the feces. On its face, with very little effort or time, this senselessness is debunked in several ways. If you see the term "TV Fakery", get out, click onward, make a hasty lunge for saner pastures. You'll thank me later.

On top of many thousands of eyewitnesses looking directly up at the second plane as it crashed into the South Tower, and the photographs, and the videos, and the entry holes, the exit holes, the explosions which travelled through the buildings, the radar tracks, etc., none of this is good enough for the "No planers." They know better.

What is it exactly they think they know?

They know that all the live broadcasts were easily faked in realtime on all national and local TV stations simultaneously -- BACKWARDS. Yes, backwards is my word for it, because you see if there was no plane in the sky, and it had to be drawn in by computers, the only way to synchronize all this (with teams of how many witnesses? in how many locations? with how much precise foreknowledge? and for what reason?) is to think of it as a pre-timed explosion, and that the plane had to be calculated in backwards from the prearranged, agreed upon time of detonation, and at the precise locations where these explosives were planted, and this information had to be given to numerous technical staff in many media organizations...

They're pushing this as a "serious" concept! You can't write this shit.

Given how live cameras use lenses with analog zooming, meaning they show you a frame where the operator chooses the framing angle -- and can pan and tilt at the whim of the cameraman -- there seems to be NO WAY IN HELL this is even remotely feasible even for one network that was a direct subsidiary of the intelligence service allegedly perpetrating this hoax.

The "no planer" position is that ALL videos and ALL phtotographs of that plane crash were controlled and "faked" by the invisible hands of the puppet masters!

(SOURCE: Camcorder footage of Pavel Hlava [4].)

(SOURCE: Camcorder footage posted by Jeremy Morrison [5].)

Of course all the private footage was rapidly converted to show the "fakery," and no one ever talked about it. In fact no one even thought of this blatantly bogus baloney for years after 9/11/01.

Next the "TV Fakery" people tell you that the landing gear (and any other airplane wreckage in NYC) was "planted," without a shred of evidence to support this theory. Why do they tell you this?

Because only an asshole would believe it without any supporting proof!

They say it's "impossible" for plane parts to have travelled through the central core of the WTC North tower.

Not so.

Click for larger.
(SOURCE: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/construction-1.jpg
"Fig 1. World Trade Center's first 110-story tower is already up to 10th floor level above grade; excavation is almost complete.")[3]

The core was dense, but not impenetrable. As the plane severed columns on its way in at a high rate of speed, the possibility of plane parts continuing through the core, and out the other side is far more plausible than any alternative explanations. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion until some countervaling force acts upon them (Newton).

These agents of bullshit -- whether neocon ideologues, or willing dupes -- are extremely aggressive and prevalent all over the Internet now. They are actively "poisoning the well" of legitimate discussion of September 11th 2001 with their endless and ridiculous disinformation.

Who benefits?

Meet the Masters of Disinfoland

The "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" group has a history that casual observers might not realize. Originally formed to legitimize the study of September 11th anomalies (or was it?) by PhD's and other academics in the related fields, the organization was of course vulnerable to infiltration.

James H. Fetzer PhD. "wrote the book" on disinformation [6]. In Fetzer's study of the ways of twisting the truth and delegitimizing your opponent, he revealed many of the disengenuous techniques that he himself later used against his fellow scholars in the 9/11 Truth Movement [7].

Fetzer's control of the Scholars group/website led to its eventual breakup. The "Scholars" website suddenly started entertaining nonsense theories, under the guise of legitimate scientific inquiry. The group imploded in December 2006 with the promotion of the "directed energy beam" hypothesis by Judy Wood PhD., and the subsequent retirement of Dr. Steven Jones PhD. from the group.

Steven Jones went on to start up a second group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth AND JUSTICE. Jones smartly retained editorial control of the Journal of 9/11 Studies (much to Fetzer's dismay) which publishes related papers.

The "directed energy weapons" garbage was at the root of most of this controversy.

Fetzer:

"I am inviting Judy Wood to organize a panel discussion on non-conventional means, including high-tech directed energy weaponry, that might have been used to destroy the World Trade Center." -James Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, December 2006

Add to that an attempt to legitimize the "no planes" claptrap:

"I am inviting Morgan Reynolds to organize a panel on planes/no planes at the WTC and George Nelson on the Pentagon and Shanksville. Each of these sessions would be of 2 1/2 to 3 hours duration." -James Fetzer, Scholars for 9/11 Truth website, December 2006 [8]

The "directed energy weapons" is the second most idiotic "theory" I've heard yet. It takes more time and effort to properly debunk[9], and its proponents couch it in pseudo-scientific jargon in order to fool the average reader. It's still nonsense and demonstrably so.

From their own mouths, this "theory" is rendered laugh out loud clownish:

Jim Fetzer: “I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?”

Judy Wood: “Nope. I don’t think so.”

Fetzer: “Planes?”

Judy Wood: “No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.”

Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my, oh my, oh my. This is huge… this is huge Judy.” [10]

"Huge" as in the big lie principle. A simple viewing of the towers collapsing shows that a beam from orbit has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The tops of the buildings do not "disintegrate" into "dustified steel" as a first step. The collapses begin near the plane impact zones. Having a directed beam from above cut away all the supporting columns horizontally inside the building, floor by floor, is not remotely feasible, even if Darth Vader himself was at the controls. This theory is so bad, so on its face bullshit, that it's incredible so many people have fallen for it.

Or have they?

How many anonymous internet posters are there pushing this pap? The crew is highly active and well represented on message boards, but how many unique and different individuals does it take to create a disruptive presence?

I think we are witnessing a small number of highly active operatives who get off on mindfucking the gullible public. I'd prefer not to name them all here, but you'll see them around, and smile.

The directed energy beam hoax has a deeply insidious aspect to it, however. It renders moot all of those eyewitnesses [11] who reported "bombs," "explosions," "secondary devices," "detonator charges," and every other euphemism for high velocity blasts. The more than 100 firemen [12] who reported explosions are irrelevent to the Star Wars Death Star "theory." This is intentional misdirection.

Your smile may very well turn to a frown when you see the gusto and prolific nature of these shills, who like cockroaches are swarming the message boards of reasoned debate, and transforming them into wastelands, garbage dumps of idiotic drivel.

They are a movement unto themselves, the 9/11 Disinformation Movement, a parasite clinging onto the legitimate "truth movement", the one that seeks new independent investigations of the attacks, and full disclosure.

In other words, the enemies of truth and justice, not to be confused with bonafide investigators who make sense, have impeccable sources, and are unsatisfied with the "official" 9/11 narrative.

###

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Notes:

1. ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole', Jim Hoffman, http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

2.Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims, by Eric Salter with contributions by Brian Salter, questionsquestions.net, 9 September 2004, http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

3. SOME ARTICLES FROM ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

4. pavel hlava video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sM7N1Hz9k

5. Footage in possession of Jeremy Morrison, http://jeremymorrison.com/wtcplane.html

6. Disinformation: The Use of False Information, Minds and Machines Journal, http://www.springerlink.com/content/g1u2q540010236xq/

7. 9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples, Arabesque's Blog, http://www.911blogger.com/node/6531

8. Wayback Machine, archive.org, Scholars for 9/11 Truth Website, December 25, 2006, http://web.archive.org/web/20061225083635/http://www.st911.org/

9. The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center, Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

10. Radio Interview: Fetzer interviews Wood, transcribed in comments by Arabesque http://www.911blogger.com/node/9431, http://truthaction.org/media/Judy_Wood_and_Jim_Fetzer_discuss_DEW.mp3

11. Eyewitness and Media Accounts of Bombs at the WTC,. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7094370627958457222&hl=en

12. 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers, Graeme MacQueen, Journal of 9/11 Studies,http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf