Citizens don't trust their government

Few trust the government, poll finds - LA Times

Growing numbers of people want government's power curtailed, Pew reports.

Majority of Americans distrust government - Washington Post

Nearly 80% of Americans say they don't trust the government to do what is right.

Pew Study Finds 'Perfect Storm' of Discontent - Business Week

Only 22 percent of survey respondents said they trust the government in Washington and 30 percent said the federal government is a major threat to their freedom.

Distrust, Discontent, Anger and Partisan Rancor - Pew Research

By almost every conceivable measure, Americans are less positive and more critical of government these days. A new Pew Research Center survey finds a perfect storm of conditions associated with distrust of government.

And there's a reason why ...

Government funds false flag terrorism at home

Defense says NY bomb plot was feds' idea - Washington Post

Four men accused of trying to bomb synagogues and shoot down planes in New York last spring did little more than go along with a fake plot proposed, directed and funded by the federal government.

A federal informant chose the targets, offered payment, provided maps and bought the only real weapon involved, a handgun, the attorneys said in a dismissal motion filed this week in federal court.

"The government well knew that their case had been a government-inspired creation from day one and that the defendants had not been independently seeking weapons or targets," the motion said.

The dismissal motion identified the government's agent as Shaheed Hussain, a "professional informant" for the FBI. The defense claimed he was directed to visit suburban mosques, find members with anti-American leanings and recruit them to join a fake terror plot supposedly funded by a Pakistan-based group.

"The alleged crimes were almost entirely the product of Hussain's labors and the enterprise would have immediately collapsed if Hussain's guiding hand had been removed," the defense motion said.

Man who spied on mosques sues FBI - Washington Post

Craig Monteilh is seeking $10 million from the FBI in a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court in Los Angeles.

Monteilh said he infiltrated mosques for the FBI and gave the agency information about Ahmadullah Niazi, the brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden's bodyguard ...

Monteilh said he began posing as a new Muslim convert to infiltrate Southern California mosques between July 2006 and October 2007. He claimed that FBI agents authorized him to record Muslims using electronic surveillance at mosques, homes and gyms ...

Monteilh said the federal agency vowed to pay him $100,000 and relocate him after his anti-terrorism work.

FBI planting spies in mosques, Muslim groups say - CNN

The groups claim the FBI has sent undercover agents posing as worshippers into mosques, pressured Muslims to become informants, labeled civil rights advocates as criminals and spread misinformation.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said it would seek an investigation into the February 21, 2009, arrest of Ahmadullah Niazi, an Afghanistan native.

Mr. Niazi previously reported to CAIR's Los Angeles office and other community members that, during a raid of a friend's house, an FBI agent urged Mr. Niazi to work with the agency, saying that if he refused to cooperate his life would be made a "living hell".

CIA Domestic Black-Op Team Arrested - Veterans Today

The burglary at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office in the New Orleans Federal Building was more than it seemed, much more. All of the 4 arrested had been trained by the CIA and, possibly, Israel.

One arrested, Stan Dai, is listed as an Operations Officer of the Department of Defense Irregular Warfare Program and a known expert and lecturer on, not only surveillance but explosives training, assassinations and “false flag operations.”

If you wanted a plane to crash, an enemy to get sick and die or a building to blow up, Dai would be the man to know how to make it happen. Problem is, his skills were being used as part of a criminal conspiracy inside the United States against members of our own government.

Also, it is not known how many “black ops” crews are being run by the CIA inside the United States in violation of their charter or if their operations are being limited to spying on Democratic lawmakers or if operations of a more threatening nature have been performed but remain undiscovered.

Additionally, as this was a covert operation against US government investigations of, not only terrorism and terrorism funding but major financial crimes against the United States, it is unclear who the recipient of the “product,” an intelligence industry term for “output” or information put up for “distribution” might be. read more >>

And they've been doing this sort of thing for years ...

Watch this 1993 News report about the FBI's role in the first WTC bombing.

Why the FBI got away with the first WTC bombing - Online Journal

In a call to an FBI agent shortly after the bombing, Salem complained, "We was start already building the bomb, which went off in the World Trade Center. It was built, under supervision from the Bureau [FBI] and the DA [district attorney] and we was all informed about it. And we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case."

Informer's Tapes Give Rare Glimpse of FBI dealings - NY Times

It is shortly after a bomb has blown a hole five stories deep at the World Trade Center and an FBI agent is talking to Emad A. Salem, the former Egyptian army officer who is the bureau's secret source of information, its most valuable undercover operative.

The transcripts are replete with new allegations about what the authorities have called the most damaging terrorist attack in American history and the larger conspiracy related to it.

In undated transcripts of conversations after the World Trade Center bombing, an FBI agent, Nancy Floyd, tells an informer, Emad A. Salem, that she believes the bureau mishandled the investigation of suspected terrorists before the blast.

FBI Blunders and the First World Trade Center Bombing - fff.org

The FBI placed an informant named Emad Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian military officer, in the midst of the Muslim protesters. Salem insinuated himself and became the bodyguard for Sheik Abdul Rahman, a radical Muslim cleric. The sheik had been heavily subsidized by the US government while in Pakistan in the late 1980s helping to inspire Muslims to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Who Bombed The World Trade Center? - LectLaw

Two cassette tape recordings of telephone conversations between FBI informant Emad Salem and his Bureau contacts reveal secret US Government complicity in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in which six people were killed and more than a thousand were injured.

Strategies for raising debate about 9/11

Academic research in the behavioral sciences provides clues to effective campaigning for 9/11 truth.

A paper published in the February issue of American Behavioral Scientist, entitled In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11, contains information relevant to anyone involved in raising awareness about the crime of 9/11.

The paper identifies some of the barriers encountered by 9/11 truth activists and explains some of the psychological mechanisms that prevent people from looking at the evidence objectively. By gaining insight into the reasons why some people find it difficult to confront the issue of 9/11, truth activists can learn to raise the issue in ways that reach people in a more effective manner.

There are three underlying premises to this paper: firstly, state crimes against democracy are real and do cause real harm to society; secondly, there are social psychological barriers that mitigate challenges to state criminality; and thirdly, it is imperative that civil society recognize and address the threat posed by state criminality.

The first premise is clearly evidenced by the post-9/11 litany of Presidential findings that strip away civil liberties and defy longstanding principles of justice and the rule of law. The scope of state criminality extends to include unlawful surveillance, detention without trial, torture, assassination, terrorism, wars of aggression and gross human rights abuses.

The second premise is one we're all familiar with, the difficulty many people have even thinking about 9/11, let alone discussing it rationally. For most people, the issue is charged with strong emotion, and raising the issue can sometimes provoke hostile, even violent responses.

The third premise is quite clear, the situation is dire, and if not addressed urgently and vigorously, the consequences for democracy are sure to be grave. For this reason it is important that truth activist hone their methods and strategies for optimal effect.

The paper provides some useful advice in this regard.

In order to breach the social psychological barriers that prevent the assimilation of information, we need to understand the nature of those barriers. We all have our own set of beliefs or world view with which we feel confident and comfortable. When that world view is threatened by evidence that does not affirm our beliefs, we tend to get defensive and resist the new information. This is quite normal response, but it can be overcome if approached in a subtle or sensitive manner.

The key to breaking down social psychological barriers is to be open and friendly, not rigid or dogmatic, find common ground on which to introduce new ideas gradually. Avoid laboured, hyperbolic and excessively emotive language. Research shows that "controlling language can arouse psychological resistance to the message, whereas civic participation is increased when people are drawn into discussions of social responsibility, and message repetition increases familiarity which can translate into message tolerance or acceptance."

"The events of 9/11 have produced enduring fear and aversion associated with those events, the phrase 9/11 has become implicitly associated with traumatic death, destruction and terrorism. The effect for many people is a corresponding increase in defensive and aggressive behavior when exposed to reminders of 9/11."

"Clearly, then, prompting people with reminders of 9/11 may arouse strong emotions that can be used by both government officials and mainstream media to manipulate citizens’ behaviors. For example, arousing people’s anger evokes reactions such as focusing on blame and justice, whereas arousing sadness leads to more sympathetic responses, such as focusing on how to improve matters."

This would suggest that an empathetic approach that appeals to an audiences sense of compassion and concern for their own heroes, like the first responders who are suffering terrible health consequences as a result of working at ground zero, is more likely to penetrate the conscious mind of the audience and expose them to evidence they might otherwise reject out of hand.

There are many “social psychological mechanisms by which people defend and justify the existing social, economic, and political arrangements, often to their own detriment”. Justification of the system also maintains “consistency, coherence, certainty, and existential needs to manage various forms of threat and distress and to find meaning in life”.

"Research has shown that people can be strongly motivated to resist or avoid information in order to maintain a definitive answer to a question as opposed to experiencing uncertainty, confusion, or ambiguity. The persistence of faulty beliefs at both individual and societal levels, may perform an important psychological function, for example, by promoting feelings of safety rather than admitting potential vulnerability and exploitation."

"Even when faced with incontrovertible evidence of the system’s failings, people tend to support it as the best available option. The citizens’ need to defend and justify the system against threat have contributed greatly to the important psychological and social aftereffects of the 9/11 attacks"

This would suggest that an effective approach to introducing the idea of state criminality to a resistant audience might require an explicit differentiation between corrupt officials and the government system as a whole. In other words, make clear that criminal activity by government officials does not mean the government is all bad ... rather, government is being misused by a few to the detriment of many.

The concept of a few corrupt officials is easier to digest than the notion that the entire government is criminal or corrupt. If people can see that their government has been undermined by the criminal actions of a few, they are more likely to support efforts to protect the integrity of their government by facing up to and dealing with the criminal elements that infect it.

"When changes to the collective worldview become inexorable, people’s defense of the status quo begins to weaken in response to a growing support for the emergent worldview. The implication for social change is that it will either come not at all or all at once, the way that catastrophic change occurs in dynamic systems and in tipping point phenomena. A growing number of Americans do not believe that their federal government has been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

"Indeed, citizen trust in the current political system is moving toward a tipping point phenomenon that threatens to change the status quo: Questions about the motives of the administration post-9/11 are translating into questions about the complicity of U.S. officials in the events of 9/11, which could have future repercussions on democracy in America."

"Immediate strategies to increase public awareness of state crimes against democracy should focus on framing information in neutral, nonthreatening language that gradually introduces people to the most serious of charges. Alternative accounts should be repeatedly presented within the public sphere with specific requests for citizens to themselves research the information presented to them and pass their findings along to others."

Apathy, bias and cant at the ABC

Clueless and incurious, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has not aired a single fair, balanced, impartial or objective interview with anyone who has written critically of the official explanation for the events of 9/11. The ABC has not reported on any of the numerous independent scientific studies that have been published, challenging the official theory of the destruction of three World Trade Center buildings.

The ABC has been content to merely reiterate, ad nauseam, the official narrative, while actively resisting public pressure to provide even a moment of airtime to the alternative accounts, without the sneering derision and glib disregard that typifies the treatment of any who question the official story. On the issue of 9/11, the ABC is acting more like an organ of state propaganda than an independent, informative broadcasting service.

If the ABC has any regard at all for its reputation and credibility, it should consider investigating the science and the evidence that is well known by many, but apparently none at the ABC. They could start by reading some of the books that have been published by David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Nafeez Ahmed, Mike Rupert, Webster Tarpley and others, who have collectively amassed a mountain of evidence that is not even addressed by the official version of events.

Then perhaps the ABC could spare an hour or so to view the presentation by Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

There are many questions that deserve consideration; for example, why did NIST refuse to look for residues of accelerants or explosives at the WTC site? It is normally standard practice in fire investigations to test for accelerants and explosives, especially in the event of a building collapse.

Why was the steel from WTC shipped off and recycled before any investigation could examine it? The steel was evidence from the crime scene and should have been preserved for investigators to examine.

Why were no fighter jets scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft on the morning of 9/11? Interception has long been routine, standard operating procedure in the event of aircraft going off course and not responding to air traffic control, but not on 9/11. Hijacked planes flew around the North East air sector for 90 minutes before any fighter jets appeared in the skies over Washington, shortly after the Pentagon was struck.

And this was just five weeks after the President's Daily Brief of August 6, entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US", warned that FBI information "indicates patterns of suspicious activity consistent with preparations for hijackings". So why was the air defense so tardy on 9/11?

Why was the official explanation of 9/11, which has remained unchanged to this day, presented within hours of the supposedly surprise attack, replete with 19 Arab hijackers, box cutters, flight manuals, scorched passports, a copy of the Koran and buildings exploding into dust, "mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense" ... all known with certainty, long before any investigation of the events?

Why did the Bush administration oppose any investigation into 9/11? Why, after 15 months of intense public pressure, did the administration setup an inquiry that was poorly funded, unduly limited in time and scope, and directed by an administration insider, Phillip Zelikow?

Why did senior administration officials initially refuse to testify before the 9/11 Commission? Why did Bush and Cheney insist on appearing together, in private, before a select few of the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did they refuse to testify under oath?

Why did senior military officials deliberately mislead the 9/11 Commission? Why did the Pentagon change its version of events not once, not twice, but three times, before the 9/11 Commission?

Don't these circumstances warrant some degree of consideration? Why is the ABC so obstinately incurious about these matters?

None of these questions have been acknowledged, let alone addressed by anyone at the ABC. I challenge the ABC to prove otherwise. If the ABC is not censoring this issue, why is there no fair, unbiased coverage of the worldwide campaign and demand for a new investigation of the events of 9/11?

Why does the ABC steadfastly refuse to interview credible, published experts; architects, engineers, physicists, pilots, former intelligence professionals like Ray MacGovern and Robert Baer, former FBI officers like Colleen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds, scientists and academics like Steven Jones and Frank Legge who have conducted studies and authored reports of high quality.

Can the ABC offer any reasonable explanation for diligently ignoring all the work that has been done over the last nine years by intelligent, conscientious citizens who have every reason to question the honesty and integrity of our governments, especially in light of the 2003 invasion of Iraq on the basis of fabricated fears and phoney intelligence.

The ABC does no service to society or humanity by failing to scrutinize official dogma. The woeful performance of an overly credulous, timid and co-opted media is in no small part to blame for the unlawful invasion of Iraq.

Likewise, the continuing cover up of the 9/11 crime is made possible by the media's cowardice and incompetence in the face of state criminality.

NIST versus Newton

NIST and fellow agents of the military industrial empire would like to conceal the physical principles involved in the collapse of Building 7 and the Twin Towers ... as if the buildings were somehow unique in that they lacked quantifiable characteristics of material strength, or that their material strength magically dissipated in an instant on that fateful day.

The matter is one of classical mechanics, the laws that describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and the motion of that body. These laws were discovered by Sir Isaac Newton and first published in his work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in 1687. [Wikipedia]

A free falling body does no work, and it can do no work unless or until it meets resistance. If a falling body meets resistance, the force applied by the falling body to that which is providing resistance is equal and opposite to the force applied by the resisting substance to the falling body (Newtons 3rd Law of Motion). Furthermore, the magnitude of the force is directly proportional to the rate of change in velocity of the falling body (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion).

In other words, a falling mass cannot exert any force without first impacting against something, and when it does impact, the fall will be impeded or slowed, and the more force it exerts, the greater it will be slowed. NIST claims the top floors of the Twin Towers fell onto the lower floors, causing the towers to collapse, however, the falling block would have been slowed in its fall by the impact, with the amount of slowing proportional to the force it applied to the lower block. Bear in mind, the lower part of the building was not damaged, not on fire and also much larger and stronger than the damaged, burning top block.

So if the burning, damaged, top section of the tower fell onto the lower, cold, undamaged, much larger and stronger part of the building, and if the falling block impacted the lower block with sufficient force to shatter and pulverize the top floors of the lower block, the equal and opposite force applied by the lower block to the upper falling block would be sufficient to not just slow, but also pulverize and destroy the weakened falling block, hence leaving nothing to continue the crush down. What do the videos of the event show?



We see the upper falling block was indeed destroyed as it fell, even before it reached the undamaged, lower portion of the building, but there was no observable slowing of the fall, no deceleration at all. Hence there was no impact and therefore the falling block could not have applied any force to the lower portion of the building.

So we know, the buildings could not fall at nearly freefall acceleration AND be doing the work of pulverizing concrete and breaking massive steel columns at the same time, under the force of gravity alone. If the falling mass were to do any work at all as it fell, there would be an observable slowing or halting of the collapse in the process.

In fact, nearly ALL the gravitational energy was being used to accelerate the building downward. The top of the building could not possibly accelerate down through hundreds of thousands of tons of cold, hard reinforced concrete and massive steel columns, due to the force of gravity alone. Some other force, some extra source of energy was required to pulverize those buildings.

The strength of those buildings, like any building, was a known quantity. The architects and engineers who built them understood the properties of the materials they used - they had precise, time honoured methods and calculations to ensure the buildings were strong enough to hold themselves up... they didn't have to guess how much steel and concrete was required, because they knew the strength and other properties of the materials, and they didn't scimp, those buildings were in fact designed to carry several times their own weight.

That is why over a thousand qualified, professional architects and engineers have put their signatures and their names to a petition demanding a new investigation, because they understand, those buildings did not fall due to gravity, plane impacts and/or fire alone. I just want you to know, there really is more to this story.

Government and media obscure the evidence

The government and corporate media have done all in their power to censure, censor and suppress debate about 9/11, they have worked hard to confuse and obscure the evidence.

There exists an abundance of evidence that has been neither addressed nor explained by the official account of 9/11. This evidence, albeit ignored, discounted or denied, refutes the official story and permits the postulation of an alternative account.

Let us consider a sample of this evidence.

Indirect (circumstantial) evidence:

1) A preconceived grand narrative, a ready-made explanation, no investigation required; "Al Qaida terrorists hijacked four planes, crashed two of them into the WTC Twin Towers, causing three high rise buildings to collapse, crashed another into the Pentagon and the fourth into a field in Pennsylvania - because they hate our freedoms - an act of war demanding military response"

2) US air defenses failed to launch aircraft to intercept the hijacked airliners in a timely fashion, despite the military Command Post Exercises that were coincidentally conducted that morning and which, according to General Myers, actually enhanced the response. [GENERAL MYERS]

3) US air defenses failed to launch aircraft to intercept the hijacked airliners in a timely fashion, even though NORAD had conducted exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets prior to 9/11, exercises that included scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination. [USATODAY]

4) Much of the material evidence was quickly removed from the crime scene and destroyed, in violation of standard investigatory procedures. No investigation was undertaken, a violation of standard practice in response to a major crime. "The Administration opposed at every turn the creation of an independent commission to investigate the tragedy of 9/11." [SENATE COMMITTEE]

5) When the demand for an investigation became overwhelming, the Administration setup a commission of inquiry that lacked independence, was excessively limited in scope and poorly funded. [SENATE COMMITTEE]

6) The official inquiry into 9/11, which began 15 months after the event, sought evidence to confirm a preconceived conclusion and ignored evidence that did not support that conclusion. The official account of 9/11 is consequently riddled with incongruities, omissions and contradictions. The official version of events does not satisfactorily explain much of the evidence relating to the events of 9/11.

7) The Pentagon deliberately mislead the official inquiry. [WASHINGTON POST]

8) US intelligence had the names and photos of all 19 hijackers within hours of the hijackings, yet the Administration claimed it had no prior knowledge or forewarning of the attacks. Some of the alleged hijackers had received training at U.S. military installations. Others have since turned up alive and well. [NEWSWEEK] [BBC]

9) Bush received a PDB (President's Daily Brief) from CIA on August 6, titled "Bin Laden determined to strike inside the US", which warned specifically of terrorists training for possible hijacking attempts. [TRANSCRIPT]

10) Also in August, senior FBI officials blocked investigations into a suspected terrorist hijacker, Zacharia Musawi, whose suspicious behaviour in seeking flight lessons led to his arrest on August 20. [TIME] [LATIMES] [JUDICIAL WATCH]

11) The alleged hijackers' behaviour prior to 9/11 did not exemplify a high degree of skill, competence or sophistication.

12) According to DCI Tenet, the CIA had been infiltrating Al Qaida and recruiting terrorist operatives for several years prior to 9/11. [TENET]

What can we deduce from this sample of circumstantial evidence?

a) The Administration had a predetermined response to the attacks - the global war on terror, the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, abductions, assassinations, detention without charge and torture in secret prisons, beyond the reach of law.

b) The Administration had forewarning of possible hijacking attempts, but apparently gave no warning to FAA, NORAD or any other agency, did nothing to prepare for such eventualities and then denied that they had any forewarning.

c) The Administration attempted to first prevent, then obstruct the course of the investigation into 9/11. Government and military officials have deliberately lied and misled the public in order to cover up ... something.

d) Senior FBI officials systematically and deliberately obstructed investigations into suspected terrorist activities prior to 9/11.

e) Government officials assisted and protected known terrorist operatives for supposedly "intelligence" purposes.

Direct evidence:

1) The WTC towers disintegrated at near free fall acceleration, physically impossible due to gravity alone. [PDF] [PDF]

2) All the concrete in the towers was pulverized, physically impossible due to gravity alone.

3) Molten metal remained in the rubble pile for weeks after the collapse, not possible due to fire and gravity alone. [PDF]

4) Iron-rich microspheres found in the dust, evidence of vapourised molten metal, not possible due to fire alone.

5) Bone fragments found on the roof tops of neighbouring buildings, not possible due to gravity collapse alone.

6) Unexploded energetic thermitic material found in the WTC dust, not officially admitted or explained. [PDF]

What can we deduce from this sample of direct evidence?

a) The towers could not have fallen the way the government claims - a gravity driven collapse caused by structural damage and fire alone, is not a plausible explanation for the observed event.

b) The WTC buildings 1, 2 & 7 were necessarily brought down by planned explosive demolition.

c) The demolition was necessarily conducted by a highly skilled, professional demolition team, in conjunction with the aircraft strikes, so as to give the impression that the buildings collapsed due to a terrorist attack.

d) The operation must have been planned over many months or years, involving highly skilled demolition experts and senior government, military and intelligence officials.

Note: the evidence cited above does not establish the actual sponsors of the operation, but supports the proposition that senior government and military officials must have been involved, at some level, in the planning, facilitation and/or execution of the operation.