by Clyde Wilson

Our late friend Murray Rothbard used to point out to those who scoffed at "conspiracy
theories" that history is indeed full of real conspiracies, and that often conspiracy
provides a more satisfactory explanation for an event than the "lone nut theory" that
is popular with government spokespersons.

The continuing drumbeat of speculation that 9/11 may have been a U.S. government "black
ops" mission, a charge coming from what seems to be a respectable minority of seemingly
informed observers, tells us much about the sad condition of the American polity.

I am inclined to think that none of us can possibly have enough information to know the
full truth about 9/11. We will not have such information for years, very possibly
never. Why, we still don’t know the full truth about the Lincoln and Kennedy
assassinations. In my always humble opinion, the incompetence demonstrated by our
rulers before, during, and after 9/11 would be alone enough to bring down any
government, without the need for revelations of complicity – if we had a responsible
democratic regime.

I am not a "conspiracy theorist," but, like any old newspaperman, I am a skeptic. In
the years of my misspent youth as a reporter I saw police chiefs, mayors, newspaper
executives, and other dignitaries lie and distort and suppress the truth. I am inclined
to suspect that such is even more likely among the feds, for whom the stakes are much
greater.

Is the U.S. government capable of such an atrocity? I take this to be true: the
politicians who wield the immense powers of the U.S. government will murder Americans
if it serves their agenda and they can get away with. To think otherwise is to take an
excessively naïve attitude toward Power. Those politicians have a lifetime record of
self-serving and lack of moral principle – else they would not be where they are. Power
corrupts. Power can only be checked by counter Power. The U.S. government exercises
much power that is unchecked, unresponsible, and clandestine. This has been habitual
and institutionalized at least since World War II.

Can we judge that the official government story of what happened on 9/11 is unreliable?

We know that politicians lied about the sinking of the "Maine," Pearl Harbour, the Gulf
of Tonkin, Waco, and Iraqi WMD. This administration has engaged in more systematic and
frequent deception of the public perhaps than any other in recent times. And has been
successful at it because the public has never been more ignorant and the media more craven.

Yes, thoughtful citizens have every reason to suspect some self-serving deception in
the government story, though this does not necessarily imply actual complicity in the
atrocities. It might imply a cover-up of incompetence, irresponsibility, negligence,
and fecklessness in high places. The strongest argument against the black ops theory,
it seems to me, is that such an accomplishment is beyond the imagination and the
competence of the politicians in power.

The most important point here is that Power is by its nature dangerous, acquisitive,
and corrupting and must always be watched and questioned by people who wish to retain
their freedom. This we have nearly forgotten, but was a watchword to our Founding
Fathers. So, let's keep on doubting and challenging official "truth."

September 18, 2007

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wilson/wilson26.html

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Name one.

----
Anyone that hasn't seen Ground Zero in NYC and the "Truth Movement"
kooks that hang out there should look at the first three videos. The
others should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about
9/11 and WTC or has never been to NYC.

Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars   by Ray Rivera  http://rayrivera.net
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007   Sad.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
  http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

"If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what
they do not want to hear." - George Orwell, Preface to Animal Farm (1946)

The movement that uses the word "Truth" much, too much, hasn't come up
with a relevant fact in 6 years of whining.

----
Anyone that hasn't seen Ground Zero in NYC and the "Truth Movement"
kooks that hang out there should look at the first three videos. The
others should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about
9/11 and WTC or has never been to NYC.

Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars   by Ray Rivera  http://rayrivera.net
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4162315283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5004042232637229146&hl=en

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007   Sad.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6371069744838112957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2083421624495848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
  http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

Your sarcasm is reality but to limited. They do not give a rats ass
about anything but their beliefs.

The "truth Movement" shows itself for what it is by it's own quotes.
They turn out to be fraudulent when checked.

Avery, Burmas, Prof. Jones, Alex Jones and the rest Make Shit Up and
the masses of Twoofers just parrot them.

There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"
committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly
repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.

There is *zero* effort by the Truthies to fact check and correct their
own material.  The worst are the alleged "peer reviewed" sites. They
contain fraudlent quotes by NYFD/EMS personel that can be shown to
differ from the public record.  One of the steps in peer review is
fact checking.

Examples;

Washington Newsman Mike Walters shown how Truthys have  twisted his
9/11 reporting;
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305

------------------------

 "Todd Beamer is Alive"

Truthys have said that Beamer (Flt93) is alive becuase and
used this faek quote  

   "Todd Beamer's wife told Larry King on CNN on 23 Aug 2002 that he
        is still alive.",

When we find the real quote, we see that she means he's in heavan.

  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/23/lkl.00.html

   KING: So you feel Todd is somewhere now?

   BEAMER: Absolutely. Todd is still alive. He is alive in a much
        different scenario than he was last year at this time, but...

   KING: Watching you and the babies?

   BEAMER: I don't know how much influence he has or knowledge he has
    of what goes on here. The Bible doesn't give us really a complete
    picture of the connection between Heaven and Earth. But I do know
    that he's experiencing the presence of God. And he is more alive now
    than he was before. And I'll join him some day

--------------------------------------------

An Aside: Mr. Jones's Dishonest Illogic.

---
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions",  to
support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at
levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never
observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=n...

You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of
thousands of burning computers."

Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers
to know.

----------------------

Here's another bit of fraud by someone that uses "truth" a lot.  Many
911 web sites, http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html for
one) have this quote;

     "you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
     tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
     explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was."
         Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8] ...

The sites never provide a link to the original testmony to see the
entire quote;

    "you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
    tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
    explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. WE REALIZED
    LATER AFTER TALKING AND FINDING OUT THAT IT WAS THE FLOORS
    COLLAPSING TO WHERE THE PLANE HAD HIT.

Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPH...

----------------------

Many Truthy sites  have this quote  from  a firemen. This
URL, for example;   http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

   "It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on
   certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."  
               - NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera

The Truthies edited Rivera's text to obscure the fact that Rivera
knew it was just syuff collapsing.

    Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN
    A: THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE
    Q:  WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE
    A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE.
        AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL
        DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
        FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP
        POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT
        IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
         THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN
     Q: WHAT DID YOU DO
     A: RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE

Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPH...

----------------------
Here is the page of official testimony for about 500 first responders.  

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAP...

You can check lots of trythy quotes here, and if the Truty site says
something different, it's not impossible to contact any of them and
verify quote.

I first came across these fraud edited NYFD quotes on Jones' "peer
reviewed" 911 site.  (there are more misleadingly edited quotes
there).  One task of peer review is fact checking. It's clear that the
site is bullshit.

That's enough of the fine people in NYFD and EMS.  Here are more;

------------------------------------------------------------

Many sites have quotes similar to this;

   Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic
   controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on
    its maneuverability;
     http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html

but it leaves out the end of the statement,
    "... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's  unsafe."

My point isn't that the quote is goldplate accurate,
it's that the Truthies have edited pertenant info out,
not told us, and not given URLs to sources.

----------------------------------------------------------

Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller,
as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash;
over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12
passengers "using mostly dental records."[31]

http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp

------------------------------------------------------

You.ll often find transcripts of witness statements used on 9/11
sites. Here.s one used to support a .controlled demolition at the WTC
argument, for instance.:

A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also
given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked
up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming
from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling
around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction
was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those
implosions on TV."
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4131

Convincing? Looks that way, but then that.s because you.re not reading
the original. Where Fitzpatrick says he doesn.t recall thinking he saw
explosions at all, and offers an alternative explanation, but
mysteriously that.s been edited out:

We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we
saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some
people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I
remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of
the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to
collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks
when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fi...

You always need to look at the complete transcript, then, and the 9/11
Transcripts Blog is designed to help you do just that. Interesting
transcripts are highlighted regularly, there.s a search engine to look
for quotes, and links to help you find out more. Visit it here.

----------------------------------------------------------

There are quotes like this interview of chief flight instructor Marcel
Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills
when he took

   Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,
   meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said,
   they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed
   that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee
   said. "He could not fly at all.

   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

It fails to clarify Bernard's expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to
hit the Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that
[hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a
building and hit it."

         http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23....

-------------------------

http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

---------

There is *zero* effort by the Truthies to fact check and correct their
own material.  The worst are the alleged "peer reviewed" sites. They
contain fraudlent quotes by NYFD/EMS personel that can be shown to
differ from the public record.  One of the steps in peer review is
fact checking.

Examples;

Washington Newsman Mike Walters shown how Truthys have  twisted his
9/11 reporting;
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305

------------------------

 "Todd Beamer is Alive"

Truthys have said that Beamer (Flt93) is alive becuase and
used this faek quote  

   "Todd Beamer's wife told Larry King on CNN on 23 Aug 2002 that he
        is still alive.",

When we find the real quote, we see that she means he's in heavan.

  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/23/lkl.00.html

   KING: So you feel Todd is somewhere now?

   BEAMER: Absolutely. Todd is still alive. He is alive in a much
        different scenario than he was last year at this time, but...

   KING: Watching you and the babies?

   BEAMER: I don't know how much influence he has or knowledge he has
    of what goes on here. The Bible doesn't give us really a complete
    picture of the connection between Heaven and Earth. But I do know
    that he's experiencing the presence of God. And he is more alive now
    than he was before. And I'll join him some day

--------------------------------------------

An Aside: Mr. Jones's Dishonest Illogic.

---
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions",  to
support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at
levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never
observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=n...

You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of
thousands of burning computers."

Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers
to know.

----------------------

Here's another bit of fraud by someone that uses "truth" a lot.  Many
911 web sites, http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html for
one) have this quote;

     "you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
     tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
     explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was."
         Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8] ...

The sites never provide a link to the original testmony to see the
entire quote;

    "you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
    tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
    explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. WE REALIZED
    LATER AFTER TALKING AND FINDING OUT THAT IT WAS THE FLOORS
    COLLAPSING TO WHERE THE PLANE HAD HIT.

Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPH...

----------------------

Many Truthy sites  have this quote  from  a firemen. This
URL, for example;   http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

   "It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on
   certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."  
               - NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera

The Truthies edited Rivera's text to obscure the fact that Rivera
knew it was just syuff collapsing.

    Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN
    A: THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE
    Q:  WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE
    A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE.
        AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL
        DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
        FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP
        POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT
        IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
         THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN
     Q: WHAT DID YOU DO
     A: RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE

Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPH...

----------------------
Here is the page of official testimony for about 500 first responders.  

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAP...

You can check lots of trythy quotes here, and if the Truty site says
something different, it's not impossible to contact any of them and
verify quote.

I first came across these fraud edited NYFD quotes on Jones' "peer
reviewed" 911 site.  (there are more misleadingly edited quotes
there).  One task of peer review is fact checking. It's clear that the
site is bullshit.

That's enough of the fine people in NYFD and EMS.  Here are more;

------------------------------------------------------------

Many sites have quotes similar to this;

   Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic
   controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on
    its maneuverability;
     http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html

but it leaves out the end of the statement,
    "... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's  unsafe."

My point isn't that the quote is goldplate accurate,
it's that the Truthies have edited pertenant info out,
not told us, and not given URLs to sources.

----------------------------------------------------------

Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller,
as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash;
over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12
passengers "using mostly dental records."[31]

http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp

------------------------------------------------------

You.ll often find transcripts of witness statements used on 9/11
sites. Here.s one used to support a .controlled demolition at the WTC
argument, for instance.:

A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also
given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked
up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming
from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling
around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction
was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those
implosions on TV."
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4131

Convincing? Looks that way, but then that.s because you.re not reading
the original. Where Fitzpatrick says he doesn.t recall thinking he saw
explosions at all, and offers an alternative explanation, but
mysteriously that.s been edited out:

We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we
saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some
people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I
remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of
the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to
collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks
when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fi...

You always need to look at the complete transcript, then, and the 9/11
Transcripts Blog is designed to help you do just that. Interesting
transcripts are highlighted regularly, there.s a search engine to look
for quotes, and links to help you find out more. Visit it here.

----------------------------------------------------------

There are quotes like this interview of chief flight instructor Marcel
Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills
when he took

   Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,
   meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said,
   they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed
   that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee
   said. "He could not fly at all.

   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

Prove me wrong.  It has to have the name of the person quoted to be
fact-checled. There are a couple people that are mis-quoted by
Twoofers.

  10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
  A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
  http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

  1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who
     are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep",
     patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

  2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy
     no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of
     what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above,
     even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth
     time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep"
     again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis
     whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

  3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise
     their determination to the principle of questioning everything,
     they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics
     about the claims that they make.

  4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui
     bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the
     importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's
     "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
     however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in
     common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any
     responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you
     simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account
     can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of
     your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the
     government) is therefore the truth.

  5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the
     principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the
     small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are
     dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and
     evidence in any alternative account.

  6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists
     have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
     respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by
     anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand
     that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual
     enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they
     do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and
     abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

  7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy
     theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be
     without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any
     of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a
     liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of
     their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material
     rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the
     previous lot.

  8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed
     to declare the "official" account totally discredited without
     having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables
     them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small
     inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered
     questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure
     from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate
     to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively
     discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to
     prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that
     they even definitely exist.

  9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their
     claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six,
     the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in
     order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should
     be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do
     not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are
     almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the
     real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that
     the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and
     of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

  10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the
      body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people
      are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are
      questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable
      length. Because the most important thing about these people is
      that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They
      cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good
      evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source
      from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with
      the same answer when they ask the same question.

That's what happens to people eventually Cornholio.