The term "conspiracy theory" is part of the lexical armoury deployed against legitimate enquiry and reasoned discourse. It is an epithet, a dysphemism, an obloquy hurled at any who dare challenge the official narrative.
What does the term "conspiracy theory" really mean? Here is the crux of the problem. The term is enigmatic, its meaning depends on the context in which it is used. It could mean "a theory about a conspiracy", but it rarely does. More often it means "questioning the official account", or simply "ridiculous nonsense".
The term "conspiracy theory" is commonly employed as an insult, a contemptuous rebuff, a conversation killer. Its use is an effective barrier to informed debate, denoting a reluctance to engage a subject with intellectual honesty and common sense.
June 12, 2012
January 11, 2011
The 9/11 Litmus Test
The issue of 9/11 is an excellent instrument for gauging an individuals grasp on reality ... it is a litmus test for ones knowledge of world affairs and the hidden forces that influence them.
Raise the issue of 9/11 to sort the wheat from the chaffe, to differentiate the informed from the clueless, to distinguish open minds capable of impartial reasoning from rigid minds that can't think clearly.
Enquire about 9/11 and the response will immediately illuminate the respondent's understanding of the way the world works ... if they are not interested in the subject, they know very little about the way the world works.
If they believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, they know very little about world affairs ... if they doubt the official story and are interested in the subject, they're probably well informed and know a bit about the way the world works.
If they attack you for raising the issue and accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist or a kook or a nutter, they are either brainwashed dupes or in cahoots with the criminal cabal that sponsored the events of 9/11.
Raise the issue of 9/11 to sort the wheat from the chaffe, to differentiate the informed from the clueless, to distinguish open minds capable of impartial reasoning from rigid minds that can't think clearly.
Enquire about 9/11 and the response will immediately illuminate the respondent's understanding of the way the world works ... if they are not interested in the subject, they know very little about the way the world works.
If they believe the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, they know very little about world affairs ... if they doubt the official story and are interested in the subject, they're probably well informed and know a bit about the way the world works.
If they attack you for raising the issue and accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist or a kook or a nutter, they are either brainwashed dupes or in cahoots with the criminal cabal that sponsored the events of 9/11.
The official 9/11 conspiracy theory
Jeffrey M. Bale, of Lobster fame, provides an illuminating analysis of conspiracy thinking in his article 'Conspiracy Theories' and Clandestine Politics.
To further elucidate the phenomenon Bale describes, I have taken the liberty of including a specific, well known example in the following quote:
In the first place, conspiracy theorists consider the alleged conspirators [of al Qa'ida] to be Evil incarnate. They are not simply people with differing values or run-of-the-mill political opponents, but inhuman, superhuman, and/or anti-human beings who regularly commit abominable acts and are implacably attempting to subvert and destroy everything that is decent and worth preserving in the existing world.
Secondly, conspiracy theorists perceive the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] as both monolithic and unerring in the pursuit of its goals. This group [al Qa'ida] is directed from a single conspiratorial centre [around bin Laden], acting as a sort of general staff, which plans and coordinates all of [al Qa'ida]'s activities down to the last detail.
Thirdly, conspiracy theorists believe that the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is omnipresent, at least within its own sphere of operations. While some conspiracy theories postulate a relatively localized group of conspirators [eg. al Qa'ida in Iraq], most depict this group [al Qa'ida] as both international in its spatial dimensions and continuous in its temporal dimensions. 'The [al Qa'ida] conspirators planned and carried out evil in the past, they are successfully active in the present, and they will triumph in the future if they are not disturbed in their plans by those with information about their sinister designs.'
The conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is therefore capable of operating virtually everywhere. As a consequence of this ubiquitousness, anything that occurs which has a broadly negative impact or seems in anyway related to the purported aims of the [al Qa'ida] conspirators can thus be plausibly attributed to them.
Fourthly, the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is viewed by conspiracy theorists as virtually omnipotent. In the past this group has successfully overthrown empires and nations, corrupted whole societies, and destroyed entire civilizations and cultures, and it is said to be in the process of accomplishing the same thing at this very moment. Its members are secretly working in every nook and cranny of society, and are making use of every subversive technique known to mankind to achieve their nefarious purposes. Nothing appears to be able to stand in their way--unless the warnings of the conspiracy theorists are heeded and acted upon at once. Even then there is no guarantee of ultimate victory against such powerful forces, but a failure to recognize the danger and take immediate countervailing action assures the success of those forces in the near future.
Finally, for conspiracy theorists, conspiracies [attributed to al Qa'ida] are not simply a regular feature of politics whose importance varies in different historical contexts, but rather the motive force of all historical change and development. The conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] can and does continually alter the course of history, invariably in negative and destructive ways, through conscious planning and direct intervention. Its members are not buffeted about by structural forces beyond their control and understanding, like everyone else, but are themselves capable of controlling events more or less at will.
This supposed ability is usually attributed to some combination of demonic influence or sponsorship, the possession of arcane knowledge, the mastery of devilish techniques, and/or the creation of a preternaturally effective clandestine organization. As a result, unpleasant occurrences which are perceived by others to be the products of coincidence or chance are viewed by conspiracy theorists as further evidence of the secret workings of the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida]. For them, nothing that happens occurs by accident. Everything is the result of secret plotting in accordance with some sinister design.
To further elucidate the phenomenon Bale describes, I have taken the liberty of including a specific, well known example in the following quote:
In the first place, conspiracy theorists consider the alleged conspirators [of al Qa'ida] to be Evil incarnate. They are not simply people with differing values or run-of-the-mill political opponents, but inhuman, superhuman, and/or anti-human beings who regularly commit abominable acts and are implacably attempting to subvert and destroy everything that is decent and worth preserving in the existing world.
Secondly, conspiracy theorists perceive the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] as both monolithic and unerring in the pursuit of its goals. This group [al Qa'ida] is directed from a single conspiratorial centre [around bin Laden], acting as a sort of general staff, which plans and coordinates all of [al Qa'ida]'s activities down to the last detail.
Thirdly, conspiracy theorists believe that the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is omnipresent, at least within its own sphere of operations. While some conspiracy theories postulate a relatively localized group of conspirators [eg. al Qa'ida in Iraq], most depict this group [al Qa'ida] as both international in its spatial dimensions and continuous in its temporal dimensions. 'The [al Qa'ida] conspirators planned and carried out evil in the past, they are successfully active in the present, and they will triumph in the future if they are not disturbed in their plans by those with information about their sinister designs.'
The conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is therefore capable of operating virtually everywhere. As a consequence of this ubiquitousness, anything that occurs which has a broadly negative impact or seems in anyway related to the purported aims of the [al Qa'ida] conspirators can thus be plausibly attributed to them.
Fourthly, the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] is viewed by conspiracy theorists as virtually omnipotent. In the past this group has successfully overthrown empires and nations, corrupted whole societies, and destroyed entire civilizations and cultures, and it is said to be in the process of accomplishing the same thing at this very moment. Its members are secretly working in every nook and cranny of society, and are making use of every subversive technique known to mankind to achieve their nefarious purposes. Nothing appears to be able to stand in their way--unless the warnings of the conspiracy theorists are heeded and acted upon at once. Even then there is no guarantee of ultimate victory against such powerful forces, but a failure to recognize the danger and take immediate countervailing action assures the success of those forces in the near future.
Finally, for conspiracy theorists, conspiracies [attributed to al Qa'ida] are not simply a regular feature of politics whose importance varies in different historical contexts, but rather the motive force of all historical change and development. The conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida] can and does continually alter the course of history, invariably in negative and destructive ways, through conscious planning and direct intervention. Its members are not buffeted about by structural forces beyond their control and understanding, like everyone else, but are themselves capable of controlling events more or less at will.
This supposed ability is usually attributed to some combination of demonic influence or sponsorship, the possession of arcane knowledge, the mastery of devilish techniques, and/or the creation of a preternaturally effective clandestine organization. As a result, unpleasant occurrences which are perceived by others to be the products of coincidence or chance are viewed by conspiracy theorists as further evidence of the secret workings of the conspiratorial group [al Qa'ida]. For them, nothing that happens occurs by accident. Everything is the result of secret plotting in accordance with some sinister design.
November 10, 2010
Dare to talk about 9/11
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th - malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty" - George W. Bush
While addressing the UN General Assembly in New York last week, the President of Iran touched upon the subject of the September 11 attacks, noting there exists some doubt about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
As soon as he mentioned 9/11, the American diplomats hurried from the chamber, dutifully followed by their western vassals. This walkout by the West says we will not tolerate talk of 9/11.
Ahmadinejad went on to wonder why the Americans never properly investigated the attacks and whether it was rational to invade two countries and kill millions of people in response... quite reasonable questions, it seems to me, yet well beyond the bounds of permissible discourse.
This ban on talk about 9/11 extends to the media, where any who dare raise doubts about the official narrative are goaded and galled by attack poodles like Jon Feine of the ABC, who recently berated Kevin Bracken on air for stating a few unpopular facts about 9/11.
But it seems the strategy of scorn is not sufficient to stem the tide of questions. Obama's information czar, Cass Sunstein, now openly advocates "cognitive infiltration", in lieu of honest answers, to combat doubts about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
And we have our own outraged "right-thinking" MP, Josh Frydenberg, who recently demanded, in Parliament, that Prime Minister Gillard discipline Kevin Bracken, for stating facts that can't be stated, asking questions that aren't to be asked and thinking things that ought not be thought.
While addressing the UN General Assembly in New York last week, the President of Iran touched upon the subject of the September 11 attacks, noting there exists some doubt about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
As soon as he mentioned 9/11, the American diplomats hurried from the chamber, dutifully followed by their western vassals. This walkout by the West says we will not tolerate talk of 9/11.
Ahmadinejad went on to wonder why the Americans never properly investigated the attacks and whether it was rational to invade two countries and kill millions of people in response... quite reasonable questions, it seems to me, yet well beyond the bounds of permissible discourse.
This ban on talk about 9/11 extends to the media, where any who dare raise doubts about the official narrative are goaded and galled by attack poodles like Jon Feine of the ABC, who recently berated Kevin Bracken on air for stating a few unpopular facts about 9/11.
But it seems the strategy of scorn is not sufficient to stem the tide of questions. Obama's information czar, Cass Sunstein, now openly advocates "cognitive infiltration", in lieu of honest answers, to combat doubts about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
And we have our own outraged "right-thinking" MP, Josh Frydenberg, who recently demanded, in Parliament, that Prime Minister Gillard discipline Kevin Bracken, for stating facts that can't be stated, asking questions that aren't to be asked and thinking things that ought not be thought.
July 18, 2010
NIST lied to cover up the WTC demolition
NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, was tasked with investigating the destruction of three World Trade Center buildings on 9/11.
NIST immediately ruled out the possibility that explosives were involved.
That fact alone should arouse suspicion.
On the basis of this premature preclusion and disregarding regular investigative requirements, NIST refused to test for explosive residues at the WTC site. When asked why they didn't look for evidence of explosives, a NIST spokesman replied,
"It would be a waste of tax payers money to look for something that isn't there".
How did NIST know there were no explosives involved, if they didn't look?
NIST claimed there was no "incredibly large sound" that would indicate explosives were used to demolish Building 7. NIST used this false claim to justify their refusal to test for explosive residues at the WTC demolition site.
At the media briefing of the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...
"We did not find any evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of Building 7. We ran down detailed computer simulations of blast scenarios - what you see in the slide are the expected air pressures from the smallest possible blast capable of crippling a critical column. This size blast would have produced an incredibly large sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses"
Video recorded near WTC7 provides evidence of an incredibly loud blast.
This video footage, shot near the pay phone at 66 Murray St, approximately 150m, or two city blocks north of Building 7, provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on the morning of 9/11, sometime after the destruction of the Twin Towers. One of the firemen is heard to say...
"We've gotta get back, 7's exploding!"
The composite image below depicts the location of the pay phone on Murray St, (A) as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View
Another video shot near St Paul's Chapel, approximately 250m east of WTC7, also provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on 9/11,
The composite image below depicts the location of St Paul's Chapel on Broadway and the view looking west toward the WTC site as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View.
These videos do not prove that explosives were used to bring down Building 7. Yet NIST claims the absence of this video evidence proves explosives were not used.
These videos refute the claim made by NIST, that "an incredibly large sound was not recorded on videos nor reported by witnesses", and they clearly discredit NIST's decision not to look for evidence of explosives used in the demolition of WTC7.
Consequently, these videos have been ignored, negated or denied by NIST.
Furthermore, credible and corroborating eyewitness accounts by Barry Jennings and Micheal Hess, who witnessed explosions inside Building 7 on the morning of 9/11, have been ignored by NIST investigators and ommited from their report.
Video shows foreknowledge of WTC7 demolition
At the media briefing on the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...
"What we found was that uncontrolled building fires similar to those we have seen in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fires. This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building over 15 stories tall has collapsed primarily due to fire."
If this is true, if the "collapse" of WTC7 was unprecedented, an "extraordinary event", the first known example of total building collapse due to fires alone, how is it that video footage shows workers walking north along West Broadway, two blocks away from WTC7, saying ...
"keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down
... the building is about to blow up, move it back"
And why did the BBC and CNN report the collpase of WTC7 before it actually happened? What was the basis for this apparent foreknowledge of a supposedly unprecedented event?
Clairvoyant construction workers, a prescient press ... or just a mistake?
And listen to what the building's owner, Larry Silverstein, had to say ...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
Silverstein's statement seems to imply that a decision was made to deliberately take down the building, as in the manner of a controlled demolition.
The most incredible hypothesis
According to NIST's lead investigator, Dr Sham Sunder, "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".
In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire ... it's never happened.
Dr Sunder told No Lies Radio that NIST had chosen the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of Building 7.
Listen here ...
WTC7 collapsed suddenly, symmetrically and completely, into it's own footprint, exhibiting gravitational acceleration (freefall) and generating an enormous dust cloud, at 5.20 pm on September 11, 2001.
A side-by-side comparison of the WTC Building 7 "collapse" and a known controlled demolition, clearly illustrates a remarkable similarity. To the casual observer, they appear indistinguishable.
Controlled demolition is a well established industry and the only known method for bringing down skyscrapers into their own footprint.
And yet, according to Dr Sunder, NIST did not consider controlled demolition a credible hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7 and hence did not look for evidence of it.
Instead, NIST decided the "most credible" hypothesis was one that described a new phenomenon ... a phenomenon that NIST admits is the "first known instance" of its kind and that FEMA concedes "has only a low probability of occurrence."
NIST's hypothesis describes a phenomenon whereby scattered fires somehow lead to the sudden, simultaneous failure of thousands of structural steel components.
NIST claims, "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 caused an extraordinary event, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."
And this NIST considers to be the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7... amazing, incredible, pick your word... I'd say unscientific.
WTC 2 core severed below 68th floor
This is probably the most important photograph taken on 9/11 - Gordon Ross
This photograph, taken by Aman Zafar from his apartment in Jersey, clearly shows that the core of the South Tower was severed well below the level of the aircraft impact and therefore could not have been severed by the aircraft.
The composite image below was created by overlaying two images taken from the same location, at the same resolution, by the same camera, just moments apart. It depicts the location of the remnant core structure relative to the building as it had stood moments before.
The lower 60 plus floors of the inner core survived the initial collapse front and came down moments later. It could not, therefore, have collapsed, as NIST claims, under the weight of the falling upper section of the tower, which had already disappeared.
Gordon Ross presents a credible and coherent explanation for the observed destruction of the Twin Towers.
NIST immediately ruled out the possibility that explosives were involved.
That fact alone should arouse suspicion.
On the basis of this premature preclusion and disregarding regular investigative requirements, NIST refused to test for explosive residues at the WTC site. When asked why they didn't look for evidence of explosives, a NIST spokesman replied,
"It would be a waste of tax payers money to look for something that isn't there".
How did NIST know there were no explosives involved, if they didn't look?
NIST claimed there was no "incredibly large sound" that would indicate explosives were used to demolish Building 7. NIST used this false claim to justify their refusal to test for explosive residues at the WTC demolition site.
At the media briefing of the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...
"We did not find any evidence that explosives were used in the collapse of Building 7. We ran down detailed computer simulations of blast scenarios - what you see in the slide are the expected air pressures from the smallest possible blast capable of crippling a critical column. This size blast would have produced an incredibly large sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses"
Video recorded near WTC7 provides evidence of an incredibly loud blast.
This video footage, shot near the pay phone at 66 Murray St, approximately 150m, or two city blocks north of Building 7, provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on the morning of 9/11, sometime after the destruction of the Twin Towers. One of the firemen is heard to say...
"We've gotta get back, 7's exploding!"
The composite image below depicts the location of the pay phone on Murray St, (A) as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View
Another video shot near St Paul's Chapel, approximately 250m east of WTC7, also provides evidence of an incredibly large blast sound near WTC7 on 9/11,
The composite image below depicts the location of St Paul's Chapel on Broadway and the view looking west toward the WTC site as seen in the above video and from Google Maps Street View.
These videos do not prove that explosives were used to bring down Building 7. Yet NIST claims the absence of this video evidence proves explosives were not used.
These videos refute the claim made by NIST, that "an incredibly large sound was not recorded on videos nor reported by witnesses", and they clearly discredit NIST's decision not to look for evidence of explosives used in the demolition of WTC7.
Consequently, these videos have been ignored, negated or denied by NIST.
Furthermore, credible and corroborating eyewitness accounts by Barry Jennings and Micheal Hess, who witnessed explosions inside Building 7 on the morning of 9/11, have been ignored by NIST investigators and ommited from their report.
Video shows foreknowledge of WTC7 demolition
At the media briefing on the NIST Investigation into the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, August 21, 2008, lead investigator Dr Sham Sunder said ...
"What we found was that uncontrolled building fires similar to those we have seen in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was primarily due to fires. This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building over 15 stories tall has collapsed primarily due to fire."
If this is true, if the "collapse" of WTC7 was unprecedented, an "extraordinary event", the first known example of total building collapse due to fires alone, how is it that video footage shows workers walking north along West Broadway, two blocks away from WTC7, saying ...
"keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down
... the building is about to blow up, move it back"
And why did the BBC and CNN report the collpase of WTC7 before it actually happened? What was the basis for this apparent foreknowledge of a supposedly unprecedented event?
Clairvoyant construction workers, a prescient press ... or just a mistake?
And listen to what the building's owner, Larry Silverstein, had to say ...
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
Silverstein's statement seems to imply that a decision was made to deliberately take down the building, as in the manner of a controlled demolition.
The most incredible hypothesis
According to NIST's lead investigator, Dr Sham Sunder, "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".
In fact, no skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire ... it's never happened.
Dr Sunder told No Lies Radio that NIST had chosen the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of Building 7.
Listen here ...
WTC7 collapsed suddenly, symmetrically and completely, into it's own footprint, exhibiting gravitational acceleration (freefall) and generating an enormous dust cloud, at 5.20 pm on September 11, 2001.
A side-by-side comparison of the WTC Building 7 "collapse" and a known controlled demolition, clearly illustrates a remarkable similarity. To the casual observer, they appear indistinguishable.
Controlled demolition is a well established industry and the only known method for bringing down skyscrapers into their own footprint.
And yet, according to Dr Sunder, NIST did not consider controlled demolition a credible hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7 and hence did not look for evidence of it.
Instead, NIST decided the "most credible" hypothesis was one that described a new phenomenon ... a phenomenon that NIST admits is the "first known instance" of its kind and that FEMA concedes "has only a low probability of occurrence."
NIST's hypothesis describes a phenomenon whereby scattered fires somehow lead to the sudden, simultaneous failure of thousands of structural steel components.
NIST claims, "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 caused an extraordinary event, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."
And this NIST considers to be the "most credible" hypothesis to explain the collapse of WTC7... amazing, incredible, pick your word... I'd say unscientific.
WTC 2 core severed below 68th floor
This photograph, taken by Aman Zafar from his apartment in Jersey, clearly shows that the core of the South Tower was severed well below the level of the aircraft impact and therefore could not have been severed by the aircraft.
The composite image below was created by overlaying two images taken from the same location, at the same resolution, by the same camera, just moments apart. It depicts the location of the remnant core structure relative to the building as it had stood moments before.
The lower 60 plus floors of the inner core survived the initial collapse front and came down moments later. It could not, therefore, have collapsed, as NIST claims, under the weight of the falling upper section of the tower, which had already disappeared.
Gordon Ross presents a credible and coherent explanation for the observed destruction of the Twin Towers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)