The fog of words: how we inadvertently reinforce the 9/11 official story


Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill – Buddha

Words are more treacherous and powerful than we think – Jean-Paul Sartre

By Craig McKee

Words can be used to reveal many truths. They can also obscure the truth, even in ways their users do not intend. Once a particular word used in a particular context has penetrated our consciousness, it’s very hard to dislodge.

Case in point, a favourite term of the 9/11 Truth movement: the “official conspiracy theory” or OCT. This refers to the official story proffered by the government and the “mainstream” media: 19 fundamentalist Muslims led by Osama bin Laden decided one day to punish America for being too darned free.

But it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s not a theory at all. That’s because the people who created the story know damned well it’s not true. That makes it a “lie.” So the term “official conspiracy theory” plays right into the hands of the official liars.

So, let’s stop using it. I’m sticking to “official story,” “official narrative,” or “cover story” (not the kind in Time or Newsweek).

Another insidious term that slips in to usage all too often: the “attacks” of Sept. 11, 2001. The use of this one is lazy at best and dishonest at worst. While one could justify the term on the basis that even a false flag operation is an “attack,” the fact is that most people think of an attack as coming from an external enemy.

To quote journalist, media critic, and 9/11 truther Barrie Zwicker: “Words and phrases such as “attack,” “terrorist attacks,” “September 11th attacks,” “failures” (to “act on intelligence reports” and such) are like grenades lobbed into our brains. They contain the DNA of the official lie. They perpetuate it. They are viruses that infect the public mind.”

Zwicker says the Toronto 9/11 Hearings were at one time to be called the Toronto Hearings into the Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He says he pointed this out to organizers, and the offending word was changed to “events.” But the question remains, how did it get in there in the first place?

A statement on the Hearings’ web site dated Feb. 20, 2011 contains multiple references to the “attacks of 9/11.” This sentence: “In the meantime, the credibility of the official reports on the 9/11 attacks (by the 9/11 Commission…” The bolds are mine, the mistake is clear.

Lower down in the same piece: “At the same time, there are good reasons to choose a location reasonably close to the attacks of September 11, 2001…” And at the bottom: “The Toronto Hearings Steering Committee would like to make an appeal to all citizens … committed to discovering the truth about the attacks of September 11.”

Toronto Hearings moderator Michael Keefer blew me away when he introduced David Ray Griffin on the morning of Sept. 11, 2011, the last day of the hearings. He referred to the books Griffin has written as “assessing different aspects of the evidence pertaining to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Wow. I imagine this was just a slip of the tongue but it does illustrate how easy it is to fall into the terminology of the lie. To my knowledge, no one drew attention to this comment or corrected it. In fact, I’ve yet to speak to anyone who even noticed it. Watch it for yourself. The offending comment occurs about seven minutes in.

A statement on the Hearings’ site from Sept. 6, 2011 about the Building 7 awareness campaign, reads: “This campaign has the power to put Building 7’s collapse in front of 10 million New Yorkers and create a groundswell of demand for a new investigation, but only with your support.”

As Adam Ruff points out in his excellent essay on the subject of words reinforcing the official story, calling it a “collapse” indicates that the building just fell down because it failed structurally in some way. Ruff prefers “demolition,” and I agree. I’d even settle for “destruction” because at least that doesn’t reinforce any official lies.

The 9/11 Consensus project, co-founded by David Ray Griffin, published 13 consensus points in Sept. 2011 that have been agreed upon by at least 85% of the panel members. Five more were added in January, including two dealing with the Pentagon. Points 4A and 5A begin: “Why the Attack on the Pentagon Was Not Prevented.”

Yes, this refers to the reasons given in the official story for the “event” not being prevented, but it still takes as a given that “attacks” occurred.

There is also an Oct. 19, 2011 press release on their site that perpetuates the problem: “In a different news story, on October 17th, Britain’s BBC’s Today Programme interviewed FBI whistleblower Ali Soufan.

“Soufan revealed – as had White House former anti-terror chief Richard Clarke some weeks before him – that the CIA deliberately blocked FBI warnings of  impending hijacker attacks – warnings that could have prevented the attacks.

“These press reports lean towards evidence of domestic complicity in the attacks, long believed by independent researchers.  But some pundits say that journalists are not qualified to challenge the government’s technical reports on the building collapses and the Pentagon attack – that expert opinion must be engaged if these reports are to be meaningfully challenged.”

The 9/11 feature film A Violation of Trust, which is slated to begin filming next month (featuring Ed Asner, Martin Sheen, Woody Harrelson, and others) makes this critical mistake just seconds into the film, according to several versions of the script I’ve seen dated between Feb. and Dec. 2011). A voice-over in the December version begins with: “On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked with over 3,000 lives lost.”

WRONG! The United States was NOT attacked! An elaborate false flag deception was staged to create the APPEARANCE that the U.S. had been attacked. How can a script that has been seen literally by dozens of truthers (who were asked to check the accuracy of the script) retain this massive error for so long?  I don’t know whether the final film will contain this erroneous voice-over or not; the script is still being revised.

Another problematic reference is to the “crash” in Shanksville. We don’t know that a plane crashed there. What seems almost certain is that a plane crash was faked in that field in Shanksville. We can’t refer to a crash at the Pentagon for the same reason.

What about “hijacked planes”? This is used all the time even though there is strong evidence to suggest that there were no hijackings that day. I’m guilty of this myself by using “hijacked planes” as a tag for articles that mention planes. Perhaps I should have used “allegedly hijacked planes.”

The web site of the Toronto Hearings also indicates that one of the presentations was to address “air defence failures.” Once again, to call the non-response a failure assumes that the military wanted to prevent what happened. But what if it was a stand down? No failure. What if no commercial airliners were used? Again, no failure.

The English language is constantly being twisted and pulled in every direction by those who wish to mislead or misdirect us about what is really happening in and to our world. That’s why it’s essential that those of us who want to expose and propagate the truth – about 9/11 and other related events – not make it any easier for them.

47 comments

  1. Excellent Article Mr. McKee.

    As my main area of ‘expertise’ is deconstruction, I have been very sensitive to the topic you just raised.

    ‘What I am looking for is how much is revealed about the deep system. And these things aren’t necessarily realized by many of the authors themselves. When one fits into a system well, those adjustments are telling as to what the system needs from the subject.. The system leaves fingerprints as it were upon the tool it is using. And the design of the tool is it’s own, aside from the person it has molded.

    Design masquerades as Diagnosis. In other words, much of what is written about in war colleges and think tanks is presented as analysis, when it is in fact covert planning..’

    These thoughts, originally written for a paper dealing with deconstructing papers written by officers from the various war colleges, also apply to the skill sets to decipher all manner of language problems.

    You may have noticed in most cases, I have avoided such language as you have noted in your article above. From the very beginning I was focused on the term, “collapsed into their own footprints,” and have written extensively on blogs and in a couple of essays of the error, which even the best of the 9/11 researchers continue to reiterate.

    No, the towers did NOT ‘collapse into their own footprints’, they were blown to smithereens all over Manhattan.

    It has therefore become my habit to put the term ‘collapse’ between quotation marks. And to address the ‘destruction’ of the towers, etc. I don’t recall ever referring to 9/11 as an “attack”, but normally refer to it as an “event”.

    I think the article you have just written is one of the most important aspects of “getting our heads straight” in dealing with the Homeland Security State — LANGUAGE.

    As I have said, one of the best teachers on this subject remains George Orwell, and his coinage of the term, “Newspeak” is well worth reviewing; in what he meant by it, and how it has creeped into political language long before being given that moniker.

    Remember, social engineering infects the engineers even deeper than their target audiences – it is like a virus of highly contagious zombeism.

    ww

  2. Dear Mr. McKee,

    Praise go to you yet again for wonderful efforts.

    Professor George Lakoff has written a lot about the related version of the spin wording your article introduces. He calls is “framing.” He was applying it to politics, and he wrote many articles to help the Democrats expose the malframing agenda imposed by the Republicans in debates. The reason Obama was so successful getting elected was that the framing they put around him was so compelling to our rational, loving selfs. As politicians teach us, the frame you put to a debate does not have to coincide with the reality of your actions. If you can frame the region of discussion (“choose your battles”), you get home-court advantage out the wazoo, because re-framing a discussion sometimes requires the extra effort of demonstrating why the previous framing was a malframing or a misframing of the issue.

    Case in point, I am starting to use the framing “9/11 was a nuclear event.” Before others jump in with their evidence of super duper nano-thermite, let us put that into the frame of secondary and redundant back-up in an overly efficient operation. Being a nuclear event, though, doesn’t misframe it as being exclusively milli-nuclear devices. A milli-nuclear or cold-fusion reactor to provide power to some other destructive mechanism, like a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) adheres to the frame nuclear event. Given what nano-thermite can do, I’d probably pack those reactors and DEW devices into a blanket of such to help burn up the evidence once the deed was done. However, nano-thermite has nothing on unspent but fizzling nuclear material when it comes to being able to create hot-spots with the ability to fizzle and smolder without Oxygen for many weeks or more.

    This isn’t meant to crank up the previous debate. It is meant to show that “9/11 was a nuclear event” is the framing that the perpetrators absolutely do not want applied, and it is why they worked so feverishly to build and maintain their malframes of gravitational collapses and super duper nano-thermite and to a certain degree energy beams from space, despite how stupid they are to non-science-challenged thinkers.

    A problem with 9/11, is the official framing sometimes looks like stretched and bent gerrymandered political districts, noteworthy for the areas covered and for the areas not: the holes in their framing and discussion points through which a trend line of light shines.

    I’ve made it a habit to objectively review (dis)information sources to mine, refine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth and to indentify the dross of disinformation. “9/11 being a nuclear event” is a laser-beam straight tend line that pierces the holes in most 9/11 framing, even those labeled and perceived as disinformation sources.

  3. I would like to point out that the fact is that the official story as framed by the government, specifically the 9/11 Commission and the NIST Reports, the “collapse” of the WTC is presented as the result of airplane crashes and fire damage causing gravitational collapses.

    The attempt to “reframe” the government position as containing the “super duper nano-thermite” frame is so disingenuous that the intent of someone asserting this should be questioned very carefully.

    Please do not attempt to deny that this is precisely what you wrote here Mr. Once:

    “the framing that the perpetrators absolutely do not want applied, and it is why they worked so feverishly to build and maintain their malframes of gravitational collapses and super duper nano-thermite ”

    I would propose that the attempt to reframe the government position as that of those disputing the government, is the most blatant, prima facea disinformation I have yet to see directly stated.

    This is preposterous and outrageous, without foundation upon any known facts, but based in delusional fantasy or malignant intent. I have seen this building in the subtext of your arguments for some time MISTER Señor El Once. And this is why I have made it a point to follow your arguments carefully and rebut them.

    ww

    1. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      You wrote:

      The attempt to “reframe” the government position as containing the “super duper nano-thermite” frame is so disingenuous that the intent of someone asserting this should be questioned very carefully.

      Don’t make me laugh, because I’ll probably choke on the words that, as you habitually do, you try to shove into my mouth… Maybe we should question very carefully the disingenuous intent of such habitual actions on your part.

      But now that they are in my mouth, let us chew on them a spell like cud of the “super duper nano-thermite” sacred cow.

      I know you don’t like me inserting “duper” between “super” and “nano-thermite”, but aside from them rhyming and always belonging together even from the days of “Superman” comics, it inserts into the framing of the phrase an element of something “duping” us.

      At first, I thought your latest antics here were such a flamable strawman, because I never said or implied that “super duper nano-thermite” was the official framing of the govt conspiracy theory. But now that I think about it, you might be right. I’ll let you have the credit for bringing up such an astute observation: “Super duper nano-thermite” is the official govt framing!

      You see, if Dr. Jones was a govt infiltrator to steer us away from thinking about “9/11 being a nuclear event,” then anything he proposes to fill the vacuum — like “super duper nano-thermite” handed to him by the govt and only produced in MIC facilities — becomes the quasi back-channel official govt position. “Thus far and no further; defend that line at all costs.”

      Don’t believe me? Consider how hard the Cass Sunstein NSA Q-Groupies have worked to discredit nano-thermite. They’ve always taken zealous offense in most discussions, always falling back on the ludicrious jet fuel, office furniture fires, weakened steal, and pile driving Newtonian gravitation to lamely explain content pulverization. (If they can, they purposely ignore the infamous duration of under-rubble hot-spots.) Their zeal, poor understanding of physics, and inability to admit they were wrong are what gave away their token offense. They set themselves up to purposely lose those discussion in order to prop up the token winner: “super duper nano-thermite.”

      This isn’t to say that “super duper nano-thermite” wasn’t present on 9/11 or doesn’t pack an energetic punch. It just means the fight is staged, because “super duper nano-thermite” has never been demonstrated in the real world to be able to achieve pulverization in reasonable quantities. And even if I’m proven wrong on this charge, the flip-side and the “you can’t have it both ways” argument from physics is that the more “super duper nano-thermite” has its energy output honed in the direction to account for pulverization, the less likely such a fast burn-rate is able to explain the many weeks long duration of hot-spots.

      Yet, Dr. Jones went to great effort to plant the seeds for the science-challenge yeomen of 9/11 Truth that “super duper nano-thermite” could burn at high temperatures under the rubble by obtaining Oxygen from the steel it was burning. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from Dr. Jones et al that estimates quantities of “super duper nano-thermite” that can account for pulverization ~AND~ hot-spot duration? Missing in action.

      You write:

      This is preposterous and outrageous, without foundation upon any known facts, but based in delusional fantasy or malignant intent. I have seen this building in the subtext of your arguments for some time MISTER Señor El Once.

      Let’s chalk it up to delusional fantasy, because I am, afterall, a duped useful idiot. Thus, the way to get me to build a different subtext to my arguments is to provide sound science-based arguments to dupe me into some other delusional fantasy. Your boojie woojie high school chemistry has been proven inadequate to the task.

      You write:

      And this is why I have made it a point to follow your arguments carefully and rebut them.

      Could it also be that you were assigned such a task, as would be evident by your zeal to comb through all of Truth & Shadows and to proliferously post and post and post to get the last word in? Too bad they refuse to let you have the tools that could help you rebut my arguments, namely Dr. Wood’s textbook and Mr. Shack’s September Clues.

      Me thinkest thou doth protest too much.

      Thank you for providing that opening.

      1. “..the framing that the perpetrators absolutely do not want applied, and it is why they worked so feverishly to build and maintain their malframes of gravitational collapses and super duper nano-thermite ”~ Señor El Once

        There is nothing in the preamble leading to this section of your sentence that negates the clear meaning of your text. You have stated in unambiguous language that “the perpetrators…build and maintain their Malframes…and super duper nano-thermite”

        It is this sentence itself which is a blatant misframing.

        FACT: the official-story has never contended that the buildings were destroyed by explosive demolition. You are now, with zero evidence, adding to the list of “perpetrators” the very people espousing explosive demolition, which is counter to everything the government has ever said.

        By insinuation and innuendo you are charging the core members of those who have exposed the lies of the government, as agents of that government. This is deeper than what is known as a ‘revetment’ or ‘fallback position’, such as the claims of “incompetence” of the intelligence community and NORAD, for this revetment would in itself indict the government as the perpetrator of the event.

        It is my assertion that this tact is more than simple loopy thinking, or delusional hypothesizing, but is in fact a deliberate attempt to defame the core of the Truth Movement. It is in fact insidious propaganda.

        ww

      2. “Don’t believe me? Consider how hard the Cass Sunstein NSA Q-Groupies have worked to discredit nano-thermite. They’ve always taken zealous offense in most discussions, always falling back on the ludicrious jet fuel, office furniture fires, weakened steal, and pile driving Newtonian gravitation to lamely explain content pulverization.”~Señor El Once

        The first question I will answer first; NO I don’t believe you.

        Second, you propose that the Sunstein crowd have worked so hard to discredit nano-thermite, as some sort of ploy to cover for some other ‘worse’ scenario, as if the proof of nano-thermite itself is not a clear indictment for an inside job.

        I won’t address the remainder of the rantings in your last post because they all hinge on preposterous allegations and unscientific meanderings. Manic dispersion, would be the psychological term.

        ww

      3. Split those damn hair, Mr. HybridRogue1. That’s another way of growing a full head of hair, albeit very fine and whispy.

        You write:

        FACT: the official-story has never contended that the buildings were destroyed by explosive demolition.

        True. Super duper nano-thermite is the supposition from the mainstream 9/11 Truth movement, a movement that was destined to be created, infiltrated, and steered by the govt, covertly if at all possible.

        In the same paragraph beginning with FACT, you add:

        You are now, with zero evidence, adding to the list of “perpetrators” the very people espousing explosive demolition, which is counter to everything the government has ever said.

        Zero evidence? Sure you can pin that on me.

        But the allegations of me adding the very people espousing explosive demolition and Super duper nano-thermite to the list of “perpetrators” is really just you coming delusionally unhinged behind your secret agent sunglasses and skinny black-tie.

        If my statements do anything, they add to the list of “duped people” the very people who thought they weren’t duped and were onto the truth when they rallied behind nuclear physicists and super duper nano-thermite discoverer Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones’ involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement didn’t come until 2003 (?) or so, so he could hardly be a “perpetrators”. Damage control and infiltrator? Maybe. But “perpetrators”? Nah.

        Here again, your nasty habit of putting words into my mouth is demonstrated and put on display.

        You write:

        By insinuation and innuendo you are charging the core members of those who have exposed the lies of the government, as agents of that government. This is deeper than what is known as a ‘revetment’ or ‘fallback position’, such as the claims of “incompetence” of the intelligence community and NORAD, for this revetment would in itself indict the government as the perpetrator of the event.

        You lost me on the second sentence, but I’ll cop a plea of guilty to the first sentence with the caveat that lots of people were duped by the efficacy of super duper nano-thermite, including me for awhile. Duped useful idiots, like myself, aren’t likely to be agents of the government. Duped is my true view of most core members.

        You write:

        It is my assertion that this tact is more than simple loopy thinking, or delusional hypothesizing, but is in fact a deliberate attempt to defame the core of the Truth Movement. It is in fact insidious propaganda.

        Why thank you, Mr. HybridRogue1, for such a glowing review! Rather than “loopy thinking or delusional hypothesizing”, I prefer to take the bull by the horns and call it “bat-shit crazy.”

        When you can’t address the facts because your boojie woojie high school chemistry doesn’t give you the chops to, you stoop to ad hominem. Come on! I’ve given you permission to use the homework not only of your 9/11 Truther Neighbor, but also your 9/11 Truth Movement Leaders to explain the duration of hot-spots by means of super duper nano-thermite and any combination of slow-burning incendiaries to prove that it doesn’t require massively huge and unreasonable quantities.

        It truly was “loopy thinking or delusional hypothesizing” on my part to expect that you would, to expect that you might offer a reasonable scientific explanation, and to expect that you wouldn’t attack me with loopy & delusional ad hominem style charges. Gee, you haven’t even addressed my framing that 9/11 was a nuclear event, that the many Hiroshima style ailments of 1st responders can attest to. I love the way you squirm.

        Yep, when the agents lose their cool from their cold DUMB sites (deep underground military bunkers), we know that nerves are hit. Thanks for the confirmation.

        Frequency of disinfo agent postings can also be a clue. So at this point, I’ll turn my attention to Mr. HybridRogue1’s second response to mine.

        Second, you propose that the Sunstein crowd have worked so hard to discredit nano-thermite, as some sort of ploy to cover for some other ‘worse’ scenario, as if the proof of nano-thermite itself is not a clear indictment for an inside job.

        It is called “picking your battles” and “sacrificing pawns.” Yes, nano-thermite itself is a clear indictment for an inside job, but it leaves some wiggle-room open for outsource, off-shore operatives. Nano-thermite also doesn’t give off the unmistakable whiff of radiation that takes lifetime(s) to go away. Nano-thermite, being the new kid on the block, doesn’t come with quite the baggage framing that “NYC was nuked” does, even if it turns out that it was really a small nuclear reactor and a DEW.

        You write:

        I won’t address the remainder of the rantings in your last post because they all hinge on preposterous allegations and unscientific meanderings.

        The science is there. You’re too caught up in arguing to verify.

        Manic dispersion, would be the psychological term.

        Thank you again. I love it when you talk naughty to me. I suggest you refrain from such antics going forward, if you want people to believe you. It wouldn’t hurt to crack a book, do some math, and verify with other “boojie woojie high school science” sources before you go running off at the keyboard. Arguing from a position of willful and purposeful ignorance is not strength. It remains ignorance.

      4. February 14, 2012 at 11:24 am – on the 36 Truth Leaders thread
        I posted this in reply to your following assertion:

        You say, “And I understand both why criticisms were wrongly oriented..”

        My reply:
        Really?

        Well then you just go ahead and explain WHY they are “wrongly oriented,” – which implies that these criticisms were not addressing the facts of the claims she made, but looking elsewhere and misrepresenting those claims. Having read these criticisms myself, I can say with confidence that they were made directly to the claims of Ms. Wood, and did NOT in any way dissemble into arguing against anything she did not herself assert.

        Enough of your euphemisms and spurious allegories Mr. Once – address directly wherein these critiques of Wood are “wrongly oriented”. And I will not accept the hand-waving fizzspittle that these criticisms are not of her new book, and are therefore dated. Her website is still promoting these issues that have been thoroughly debunked. As they have not been retracted there, one must assume that they have been carried forward into her publication.
        _____________________

        Your next reply was again, ‘hand-waving fizzspittle’ wherein you did NOT address the question of why the criticisms of Dr. Wood are “wrongly oriented” but went on another of your spurious rampages.

        You have yet even to this day to address in what the criticisms of Wood are “wrongly oriented,” but continue to merely cast dispersions on the scientists who have made such criticisms. In fact now you accuse them of being undercover government agents, for the “crime” of undressing your heroine Judy Wood.

        And it was she, yes this same Judy Wood who began these dispersions against Dr. Jones in a document written by her and Morgan Reynolds that is nothing but a cold-blooded attempt at character assassination. This paper too was addressed by a battery of other scientists, showing that the whole paper was a smear based exclusively on ad hominem.

        The issue of Jones’ experiments in cold fusion was addressed in a post showing conclusively that Jones had been doing these experiments as early as 1983 – long before the Pons-Fleischmann controversy. And this too you merely hand-waved saying it simply “put it in a different light”.

        I can only conclude from all of this Mister Once, that you are the slippery character in this drama, while you now cast the same sorts of dispersions upon myself insinuating that I must be some sort of agent involved in trying to muddy waters.

        While this is indeed ludicrous and absurd, and found to be humorous for a time, your continuance in this vein is unacceptable, and I will not stand by silent while you rant and rave like a lunatic.

        ww

      5. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

        I can only conclude from all of this Mister Once, that you are the slippery character in this drama, while you now cast the same sorts of dispersions upon myself insinuating that I must be some sort of agent involved in trying to muddy waters.

        Slippery character in this drama? No, I’m the duped useful idiot.

        I’ll continue to caste dispersions upon you until you obtain some objectivity, open-mindedness, and humility in admitting what you know, what you don’t know, and where you are clearly wrong. The inability to perform the latter is a slippery tell in agents with an agenda.

        Where are you wrong? The most glaring area is trying to explain away hot-spot duration with super duper nano-thermite.

        You demand:

        address directly wherein these critiques of Wood are “wrongly oriented”.

        I already did. But another tell of slippery agents is to demand busy work be carried out and then to ignore the crux of what is presented, preferring instead to go into the weeds with faux afronts of being called an agent or an infiltrator or he-said/she-said dead-end-alleys.

        For the benefit of Mr. McKee’s readers, I’ll go into it briefly.

        Dr. Wood’s book doesn’t draw conclusions. It presents ideas and concepts that might not be familiar to science-challenge people. She does it in an easy to understand way; she writes well; her book is of high paper, print, and color quality. Both her textbook and website raise valid scientific questions that must be answered by whatever is the 9/11 theory-du-jour. She presents evidence that must be addressed to be complete.

        Due to the compartmentalized nature of the chapters of her book and the lack of definitive conclusions, any statements from her detractors that tries to pin “Dr. Wood said 9/11 was soley X with Y and Z” are in error, by crafty design. For this very reason, the old criticisms you bring up are inapplicable.

        Her website is still promoting these issues that have been thoroughly debunked. As they have not been retracted there, one must assume that they have been carried forward into her publication.

        Her website also has statements here and there that say it is still under construction with dates from 2006. It could clearly use some updating, refinement, reformatting, and corrections. Your assumption about what got carried forward into her publication is just that: an assumption. Why don’t you validate it?

        What got carried over verbatim, what was refined in the process, and what is new are left as an exercise for you to discover.

        Contrary to your bold statement, though, Dr. Wood’s website has not been thoroughly debunked.

        Case in point, look at the pages that show anomalous damage to vehicles. On these pages, she asks questions about the damage. In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. This, nobody has done. In fact, I’ve only seen one half-hearted attempt by an associate of Albury Smith that made it less than a fraction of the way through the images of one page, was very selective, and had the taint of an Albury-style skew that we’ve grown to love and cherish.

        Why has nobody gone through, say, the collected images of vehicle damage from Dr. Wood, explained them, and included them into their conjecture as to the cause of the WTC’s destruction, like super duper nano-thermite theories?

        Because to do so calls attention to it and shows quite clearly that the debunker doesn’t have an answer for it. In raising an eyebrow about, say, the Hutchison Effect, such debunkers would be forced into acknowledging a wealth of evidence in other areas as being valid nuggets of truth needing an explanation that they simply don’t have (or don’t have permission to reveal).

        So, they don’t go there. (And you don’t go there either.)

        But if they were being objective and honest, they would. They wouldn’t be afraid of discovering nuggets of truth, mining them, refining them, and re-purposing them into an improved understanding of what caused the destruction at the WTC.

        For the record, I have never said Dr. Wood’s is the holy Mother Theresa. I didn’t purchase her book thinking it was perfect, nor after reading it do I think such. I have discovered a few (so far) minor errors in her publication. I expect that several sections and maybe a chapter or two will be updated or removed at the 20 year anniversary for being in error or inapplicable to 9/11. Mr. Shack really did provide a key into unlocking where Dr. Wood was duped and/or is duping us when he questions the veracity of images.

        That being said, Dr. Wood’s legacy has enough nuggets of truth to make it a worthy entry into anyone’s 9/11 library and to be used as a textbook for any course on 9/11. Even the disinformation, once proven as such, will be useful for students to see and understand how we were played.

        In fact now you accuse [scientists who have made such criticisms of Wood] of being undercover government agents, for the “crime” of undressing your heroine Judy Wood.

        Mr. HybridRogue1, the words you put into my mouth always taste funny.

        That’s a slippery tell of a disinformation agent: misframe and misrepresent your opponent’s position.

        The 9/11 Truth Movement has few scientists who are active in scrutinizing 9/11 information. The vast majority of them (particularly nuclear scientists) work for the govt or are beholden to govt grants, and probably have signed national security contracts preventing them from voicing their opinions and expert knowledge publicly. Dr. Jones is about the only nuclear scientist to have spoken up, except for the Anonymous Physicists (whose website I encourage people to go to.)

        The faster a vehicle is traveling, the smaller the course corrections with the steering wheel.

        Dr. Jones has applied just enough pinky to the steering wheel to get the 9/11 movement vectored away from thoughts of 9/11 being a nuclear event. Once that task was accomplished, he was rewarded with discovering nano-thermite in the dust, exciting speaking tours, and establishing a name for himself in the history books.

        I’ve already pointed out the (few) errors in Dr. Jones (much larger) legacy. Those few errors start in his “no nukes” paper that was based on a govt report on measured radiation that itself was never validated. Concluding that 9/11 wasn’t nukes of types X, Y, or Z was one thing for radiation measurements of types A, B, and C. Concluding it was no nukes at all (nothing nuclear) without substantiation — and in fact with spurious evidence suggesting something else — is quite another.

        Beyond that, I fault Dr. Jones for not putting a halt to the extraction of nano-thermite characteristics by yeomen of 9/11 Truth to explain features of the destruction that they cannot. Does duration of hot-spots ring a bell with you? How about pulverization?

        Super duper nano-thermite was neither the sole nor primary source of anomalies found in both the destruction and aftermath. The energy requirements were massive... the elephant in the room. The side-effects in the form of hot-spots and anomalous burn damage to vehicles are noteworthy.

        You’ve addressed only the low-hanging fruit about Dr. Jones that really are of no consequence unless the other information is validated. So readers should take note of your hand-waving fizzspittle and unwillingness to look at Dr. Jones’ warts with a critically piercing eye.

        You are so anxious to get a flame war going, you have purposely ignored statements I have made through out Truth & Shadows that expose niggly errors in Dr. Wood’s work, Dr. Jones work, Mr. Shack’s work, CIT’s work… It doesn’t take their legacy off the table, it just trims the fat.

        Nuggets of truth. Nuggets of truth.

        I will not stand by silent while you rant and rave like a lunatic.

        Take a look in the mirror to see who’s ranting and raving like a lunatic. Since you discovered Truth & Shadows, your posting count has exceeded mine.

        Mr. HybridRogue1, kindly take a lesson from Jesus, updated to today’s venacular. If you find me “indeed ludicrous and absurd, and found to be humorous for a time, [and that my] continuance in this vein is unacceptable”, then turn the other cheek. “Do not feed the troll.”

        If you aren’t going to help me find the nuggets of truth that can be refined into a more accurate picture of how they duped us, ignore me, bro.

      6. Okay Hombre Once,

        If we are back to the “Buy the Book Tango”, sure, I would ignore you, BUT:

        I know you know, that I asked you for a specific refutation by the Journal of 9/11 scholars to be addressed, so you could show me where they were wrong in their critique of Wood’s assertions. Rather and instead it is your same lolly lolly lollipop roundabout again, mixed with accusations against Jones, et al. Plus trying to tag me with the provocateur label yet again.

        Then you say, “I already did.” And this is a bald faced lie. And you repeat the excuse here on this page again. And anyone reading this exchange – here on this page – can see that you did NOT address that specific question, but instead claim it is irrelevant… because..because…because…?

        Simply “bla bla bla.” Yes, a “duped useful idiot” indeed. Those words shouldn’t “taste funny” at all for they are your own self representation.

        ww

      7. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

        I’ll have you know that I was once, according to the ladies themselves, a very accomplished Argentine Tango dancer. Argentine Tango is similar to Jazz and Blues in being about improv, both for the musicians on the stage and for the tango leaders on the floor who have the responsibility of interpretting the music, leading interesting steps to the music for the followers, and keeping the follower safe. A good tango leader is concerned less about the decorations that his own feet may or may not make, but is dancing the followers feet and making her dance like a star.

        In Argentine Tango, all mistakes on the dance floor are the leader’s fault, even when the follower steps on your toes. Let me tell you, this humbling experience of always being at fault was great preparation for marriage.

        You wrote:

        If we are back to the “Buy the Book Tango”, sure, I would ignore you, …

        The book is a symbol for objectivity.

        Your obtuse behavior has you failing this small measure of character. Until you either moxie the courage to evaluate the entirety of the book on your own or find an online chapter-by-chapter book report that gives you the Cliff Notes version of what your own opinion might be, you really don’t have a leg to stand on while maintaining your credibility on this topic.

        Your demonstrated lack of objectivity on this book (and the Simon Shack website) exposes your weaknesses and allows this very textbook, like the Beatle’s Silver Hammer song performed by a Tango Orchestra, to come klunking “down upon your head” in a dazzling display of improv to get you in line.

        Mr. HybridRogue1 says:

        [… I would ignore you, BUT:] I know you know, that I asked you for a specific refutation by the Journal of 9/11 scholars to be addressed, so you could show me where they were wrong in their critique of Wood’s assertions.

        “I know that you know” that you asked for no such thing framed is such a manner. You’ve mangled that sentence so badly in your attempt to impose a new frame about me supposedly dodging your request, I do not even know what exactly your (new) request is. Let’s see: I’m supposed to address a specific refutation (of Wood’s assertions) by the Journal of 9/11 Scholars? I’m supposed to show you where the Journal of 9/11 scholars critique of Wood’s assertions is wrong?

        You didn’t ask for a specific anything. And if you would have, I would have turned it around and said: “No, you provide specific refuation of Wood’s assertions by the Journal of 9/11 Scholars; then we’ll see about whether or not it is (a) applicable and (b) wrong.”

        Because that wasn’t the assignment, I obviously didn’t comply. The assignment was:

        Let it be admitted … that long before [Dr. Wood] published her mighty tome …, central portions of her propositions were scientifically critiqued as false logic based on misrepresentation of the scientific facts addressed.

        I gave you a three sentence answer. You might have gotten more than three sentences out of me, were it not for your many posts that interrupted me. Be that as it may, I’m going to break down those three sentences, because (a) you didn’t get it, (b) they answer the original framing, and (c) they actually come close to addressing your new malframing that wants to picture me as a liar.

        Sentence 1:

        Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass have admittedly been deployed in such scientific critiques, I discover when I research this objectively, on my own, and going deeper than second-hand regurgitated cud.

        In the past, I have had the opportunity to explore the Journal of 9/11 scholars critique of Wood’s work. “Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass” is my best recollection of a biblical verse that reflects my impression of far too many echo-chamber & brain-dead opinions of Dr. Wood’s work.

        Sentence 2:

        Cud does have nutritional value, which is why the sacred cow chews it some more in the manufacture of milk.

        The analogy is:

        “Cud” is equal to “central portions of [Dr. Wood’s] propositions were scientifically critiqued.” I read it before, so reviewing it again is like a cow chewing on regurgitated cud.

        “Nutritional value” means that the critique has value and might even be validated and in alignment with my understanding. This kind of turns it into a fool’s errand for me to find fault with the things I already agree with.

        Sentence 3a:

        Alas, cud ain’t Spring grass either, …

        “Spring grass” is in reference to Dr. Wood’s 2010 publication that does have some new information.

        The famed critique related to old material, so it really does take on the appearance old grass that had made one pass through one of many cow’s stomaches to return into its mouth as cud for chewing.

        This is in reference to the blatant, undeniable, irrefutable FACT that you do not even know what exactly is in Dr. Wood’s textbook; you argue from the weak position of obvious ignorance. Granted, some old material — having nutritional value — may indeed knock out, say, a chapter or two of Dr. Wood’s new book, but old material doesn’t encompass all that the new book is, so fails in its mission of taking it off the table.

        Meanwhile, the readers of this forum should well ask themselves about your motives and agenda that your weak argumentative position of purposeful ignorance exposes.

        Sentence 3b:

        … and I’ve found many instances of the such scientific critiques running pre-maturely out of steam or simply off the road into the weeds.

        “Pre-maturely out of steam” is foreshadowing one clarification I wrote on February 16, 2012 at 7:23 pm:

        Dr. Wood’s website has not been thoroughly debunked. … In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. This, nobody has done. In fact, I’ve only seen one half-hearted attempt by an associate of Albury Smith that made it less than a fraction of the way through the images of one page, was very selective, and had the taint of an Albury-style skew that we’ve grown to love and cherish.

        Although the above applies to the website, some themes from her website are re-purposed in her book. So, if nobody or nothing old has debunked her website image-by-image, then that same nothingness is incapable of addressing the overlap that is in her book.

        “Simply off the road into the weeds” might just apply to your efforts against me.

        You read those three sentences and offered your review February 14, 2012 at 7:07 pm on a different thread:

        More hyper jitterbug scatterprattle is simply not going to do it for me. Perhaps when you get your head on even keel we will have something to talk about… [Your posting] is scattered fragments, and nothing else.

        Right you mostly are, Mr. HybridRogue1, except for the “one step b-e-y-o-n-d” into “nothing else.”

        Scattered fragments? Or, Nuggets of truth.

        Mr. HybridRogue1 went on to write:

        Rather and instead it is your same lolly lolly lollipop roundabout again, mixed with accusations against Jones, et al.

        “I know that you know” that you haven’t addressed the critique I made of Dr. Jones no-nukes efforts except to call them accusations. Where’s your science? Where’s your math? “[I]nstead it is your same lolly lolly lollipop roundabout again” with the same old disinformation techniques of putting words into my mouth, misstating my position, building up straw-man arguments, casting your weaknesses onto me, trying to start flame wars with me, etc.

        Plus trying to tag me with the provocateur label yet again.

        Ooooh! I like it! I never called you a “provocateur”, but I like it. It is exactly what you are doing. [As if I didn’t notice how you are trying to crank up a discussion with Mr. A. Wright, who arrived just after Mr. Albury Smith was shown the moderator’s door and who already has a reputation here. Not a good sign.]

        Which brings us to Mr. HybridRogue1 statement:

        Then [Señor El Once says], “I already did.” And this is a bald faced lie. And you repeat the excuse here on this page again. And anyone reading this exchange – here on this page – can see that you did NOT address that specific question, but instead claim it is irrelevant… because..because…because…?

        With your a bald faced lie statement your true talent as provocateur on the A-team of the NSA Q-group shines through. As I document above, you had to go through a lot of twisting, re-wording, and re-framing of the discussion to come up with that one. Trying to get me all wound up and put this discussion… where? Oh, in the weeds of our very own he-said/she-said flame war.

        Kudos.

        Simply “bla bla bla.”

        Applying your weaknesses to me. Another kudos.

        Yes, a “duped useful idiot” indeed. Those words shouldn’t “taste funny” at all for they are your own self representation.

        “Duped useful idiot” is indeed mighty tasty! How’d you guess it was my favorite? Yum, yum, yum.

        You’re missing the key point. I’ve been duped, and I know it. I just don’t know exactly where, but I am eager to work through it and have sincerely been asking for assistance. You’ve been duped by something else, and you don’t know it.

        I’ve been sincerely asking for assistance in pointing out where the duping specifically is. All you can do is “simply “bla bla bla” and side-step the issue with all-or-nothing logic, whereby one error (whether or not more exist) in Dr. Wood’s or Mr. Shack’s research is sufficient for you to relegate both the entire class of research and the researcher themself to the trash heap. It doesn’t, and you know it, because otherwise why haven’t you given Dr. Jones the heave-ho for the same failings that I’ve brought up?

        The answer is: nuggets of truth.

        And you don’t seem to have the nuggets to mine, re-fine, and re-purpose such nuggets of truth.

        Prove me wrong. Man up.

      8. I see Mr. Tango,

        I am we are now left to interpret your poetics to glean what you are talking about.

        ____________

        Once upon a lonesome weary I met a maid all daft and bleary
        Lingum whipt and left roadside she made a dreadful mocking bride
        She told wild tales I took as true ones that turn the bright sides blue
        But through the cranking dank ringed cleft I found the lies that there were left

        So now the bell of mordus rings and plates of merde the servants brings
        Mystical tidings mysterious things that hush the songs that the harpy sings
        Twelve knights of grace spoke not in haste but counsel to a finer taste
        We linger there and wonder wide where is center if side is side?

        The truth the truth the jester cried is neither black nor white but pied

        So now again we’re on the road

        Which is the prince which is the toad?

        And will it be that just a simple kiss brings a change of places…
        __________________

        So thus my Tango dancing friend, we shall develop a new lexicon betwixt us and leave the rest of the forum here to scratch their heads.

        Ja?

        ww

  4. Mr. McKee,

    I had originally logged in this morning to parse one portion of your article and makes some specific distinctions. But I had to interject my second post first because of the outrageous nature of the post by Señor El Once.

    My original reason for attendance here was to address the original story, which as you state, is first and foremost, “a lie”.

    However, it should be pointed out that as a secondary point, that the lie that is attempted to be sold is in fact a “conspiracy theory” – it may be half baked, it may be one of the most absurd conspiracy theory ever offered, but on technical grounds it still proposes a conspiracy.

    And this has some significance do to the general debunking of the term, “Conspiracy Theory” as verboten in toto, because pointing this out ‘steals the thunder’ of that term as some sort of end all to debate.

    These points are indeed parsimonious, but I believe they add clarity to our position.

    ww

    1. The point I make in the article is not that the official story isn’t a conspiracy; it clearly is. What I’m saying is that it’s not a theory. The people who created the story know it’s not true. So where’s the theory?

      In fact, that’s the main problem with the term “conspiracy theory.” Most of the 9/11 researchers I’ve come to know deal primarily with facts and evidence, not theories (although we all like to speculate from time to time). I’m afraid the term conspiracy theory is not one we can, or should, try to reclaim. The other side has successfully discredited the notion.

      Dictionary.com offers this definition of a theory as “a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.”
      That’s not the only definition of theory, but it’s the one people think of. So WE DON’T WANT IT.

      One of my favourite quotes (can’t remember off hand who said it) is, “I’m not interested in conspiracy theories, I’m interested in facts about conspiracies.”

      1. Mr. Mckee

        “The point I make in the article is not that the official story isn’t a conspiracy; it clearly is. What I’m saying is that it’s not a theory. The people who created the story know it’s not true. So where’s the theory?”

        As I made clear in my post, it is first and foremost that the official story is a lie. My second point is that they clearly present what is certainly a conspiracy story. The operative word here is “conspiracy”, a story that is not proven, such as the official story is clearly not proven, stories not proven are oft time considered theories – not in the technical ‘scientific’ sense but in street jargon.

        My points were made in reference to such mud-slingers who refer to “tin-hat conspiracy nuts”, who do not see the absurdity of the phrase in context of the official story as positing a conspiracy.

        That was my only point.

        ww

        1. Yes, clearly the public impression of the word “conspiracy” doesn’t even fit with what people already know is true (such as that 9/11 is a conspiracy either way). I think we should never let the term “conspiracy theory” slide by without challenging it. But I would still object to calling the 9/11 official story a conspiracy theory.

  5. I agree with your latest remarks Mr. McKee, and as I have noted, I have never been in the habit of using the term “Official Conspiracy Theory” – and was in fact not sure what the initials OCT stood for, for some time.

    I only point this out to those who see the term “conspiracy theory” as a magic ticket to deride any information one is trying to impart on this subject.

    ww

      1. Perhaps you know of the work of Peter Dale Scott. He speaks in terms of ‘deep events’ – ‘deep politics’ – ‘deep analysis’ thereof, etc. He is one of those researchers who made one very aware of the great importance of careful attention to language.

        I have always considered my studies as a deep structural analysis of the architecture of political power. As such a great deal of historical knowledge is necessary [“Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them” – or Santayana’s dictum], and while we see that indeed there have been innumerable conspiracies throughout history, most of these that have historical repercussions take place in the deep structures of states and societies.

        And I would add that most of these succeed as “open conspiracies” – in other words they are worked out in such a way that those who actually pay attention can detect such machinations. And this is where language becomes so important, and the use of euphemism and sophisticated rhetorical twining and the smiling assurances of the soothing media propagandists and the development of a completely fraudulent paradigm by a ‘drip-by-drip’ or ‘boiling frogs’ campaign of public relations and slow insidious adjustments to the education of the youth.

        So as a final point:

        I see the 9/11 as a core ‘deep event’. There are analysis by all manner of experts on this who say that the event was directed by a ‘rogue group’ – making the point that “the WHOLE government wasn’t in on the plot”, and trying to present a “reasonable” scenario to a “reasonable” audience. Thus trimming the analysis down to a bite sized meal for the ‘average person to be able to manage.

        I disagree. Events of such historic nature as 9/11 are developed carefully by a consensus at the very top of the pyramid of power. This power is global, it is tightly centralized. Even to consider it “international” is a misnomer – as it is not structured by nations or nationalities, but by regions.
        In this way I also disagree with calling the new system the ‘American Empire’ as many analysts do [the Chalmers Johnson school] – in my view I see the US as developed as the empire’s ‘garrison state’, and as we see today, this does not give the citizens of the US any particular privilege, and that privilege and wealth was merely a temporary phase for building the powerful “Military-Industrial-Complex” – which in the 21st century is already a global activity: Essential military items such as microchips being produced in China, are one example as to the absurdity of the idea that all of the global tensions in effect are anymore than manipulated ‘theater’.

        So again, I refer to the world described by George Orwell in ‘1984’ – Big Brother is a global system, there is no actual ‘government’ in the sense that we learn in ‘civics’ – the whole planet is run by a Public Relations Regime based in the power of perception manipulation. the ‘political class’ are nothing but actors, and titular as far as any real political power is concerned.
        And of course at the core of the way the real power manifests – it is a Tattle-Tale World, from top to bottom.

        ww

  6. For your education Señor El Once,

    A revetment is a retaining wall to support a structure. The term is used in Intelligence circles to describe what is also referred to as a “modified limited hangout” – a contingency story to cover for some covert information that has fallen through the cracks and is then in the public domain.

    If one looks at the 9/11 Commission Report, and subsequent information to do with the military non-response during the event, and the Intelligence services missing blatant clues, you will see a series of revetments offered by the military and the Intel community leading to the spurious conclusion of “incompetence”.

    ww

    1. Oh…and please do forgive me for yet again making too numerous responses, which is “surely” an indication that I am some sort of “agent provocateur”.

      ww

  7. I believe it was David Ray Griffin who first started propagating the term “official conspiracy theory” as a means to neutralize the term in the pejorative sense.

    I was in the movement when nobody was saying “official conspiracy theory” or “OCT.” Then once DRG started using it in his speeches on his speaking tours, much of the movement followed suit.

    But you really hit the nail on the head, Craig. It is not a “theory” because in order for it to be a theory, the person(s) putting it forth have to sincerely believe it to be true.

    On an unrelated note, I’ve been made aware of a photo of NIST’s John Gross AT Ground Zero in front of molten steel:

    1. Yes Mr. Syed,

      John Gross is grasping what is obviously the very type of evidence that he claimed did not exist.
      Love the Cheshire Cat grin.

      Thanks for the jpg, I’ve saved it to my files.

      ww

  8. Craig I want to thank you for your thought provoking article.

    Perhaps the chant of “9/11 was an inside job” although effective up to a point is not likely to be the complete truth and therefore is not likely to summon an uninformed patriotic American with faith in its Federal government to ask the hard questions.

    However if the chant was “9/11 was an inside outside job” an uninformed patriotic American might question what we mean. You never know he or she might find the truth slightly more palatable if they were to realize that it was not just their government which was involved but also other allied overseas intelligence agencies.

    Perhaps when we refer to 9/11 as an inside job we should be more accurate and refer to it as.

    “9/11 was an inside outside job”

    1. “We’re doing this for a higher reason. We know what we’re doing and we know what it’s gonna mean in the future.” ` FBI agent Floyd – taped admission transcripts – 1993 WTC Bombing.

      ww

  9. And…the reason I bring up the 1993 WTC Bombing should be apparent, but I will be more specific in why I did bring it up — to lead back to the issue that this article articulates – language and thinking, ie “epistemology” and it’s bain, “agnotology” {culturally-induced ignorance or doubt}.

    What is most important is to regain our historical perspective, to actively REMEMBER things.
    It is totally ridiculous to have to remind someone in their forties about Ronald Reagan’s “Freedom Fighters”- the Mujahideen [Taliban], with whom there are even photo’s of him meeting these “rag-heads” in the White House – during the Iran/Contra era.

    To have to remind that al Qaeda is a Western Intelligence subsidiary formed to provoke the now defunct Soviet Union into the quagmire of it’s own “Vietnam”…this is the crux of the matter: The Pathological Society.

    “Various WTC architecture and building collapse controversies about explosions vs. planes tells as little as ballistics arguments about JFK. That’s gotten nowhere. We won’t face that our system of government is a plutocracy, aristocracy, and kleptocracy. The technical arguments are merely fodder for “conspiracy theorists” to play with, which avoids the “systemic” questions, who and why.”
    ~takeovertheworld web site

    I would propose that the only reason to follow the white rabbit is to come face to face with the Red Queen and grasp what is actually taking place at the croquette match, for this is the core of the system and structure of ‘Wonderland’ – it should be our purpose to understand this and make every effort to return to reality.

    ww

  10. @Adam

    But you really hit the nail on the head, Craig. It is not a “theory” because in order for it to be a theory, the person(s) putting it forth have to sincerely believe it to be true.

    I know I’ve posted this quote from Pilotsfor911truth forums before but it fits nicely into the theme of this thread (nice job Craig). It’s simple and very true yet seeing how we have all fallen into the game and psyop “lingo” it’s very easy to see a word or phrase being used so often it usually negates or diminishes the strength of it.

    I think there’s a very real danger of becoming numb to what we have witnessed for the past 10 years.

    To me our only real opponent is the government. What we say is directed at them and their version of the story in the 911 Commission Report. What GL’s and other Truthers like Legge say and write is meaningless unless the government says it too. That’s why I think it’s best to simply direct them all to the government instead of fighting with them (along with my confidence that the government will not adopt what they say). Only our real opponent can make any of their stuff matter.

    That’s it. If it’s not in the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST or ASCE, it’s not part of the official story.
    Those documents are in shreds and then some. Government loyalist wordsmiths have only prolonged the agony with their “official story” parts 1, 2 , 3, whatever.

    There is no “OCT” as we understand it. It was designed to morph into whatever government loyalists wanted it to be. No matter how contradictory.

    1. Thank you Onesliceshort,

      You say:

      “If it’s not in the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST or ASCE, it’s not part of the official story.”

      That is my position exactly, and that which I had reiterated in a couple posts above.

      ww

  11. I would thing that as the topic of this article is ‘Language’ and ‘Argumentation’, that an essay I have just begun might be of relevance on this thread. But I don’t want to hurt any sensabilities by being overly wordy on this site, so I thought I would just give a short abstract of what this essay is about, and leave it to Mr. McKee to give the go-ahead to post anything further.

    _______________________________________

    PROFILE OF A STOOGE
    A CASE STUDY IN ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM

    “If it’s not in the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST or ASCE, it’s not part of the official story. If it’s not part of the official story it must be wrong.”~First stage in the assumption of an appeal to authority.

    “[1] The FDNY is not in your “truth movement,” [2] and they disagree with your “piddly little ‘Office Furnishings Fires’” crap, as do the videos and other eyewitness accounts. [3] Are all of them in on the plot too, along with 200+ NIST engineers and countless others? [4] You have no evidence except for a column cut with an oxyacetylene torch, [5] no perp or plausible motive, so you resort to misrepresenting the owner’s PBS statement, [6] and secretly blowing up hi-rises in Manhattan is so absurd that it’s beyond impossible.”~Government Stooge

    Here we have a quick procession of 6 separate points in one single paragraph, mixing a blend of contexts and blurring it all together as if it actually makes sense as a whole.
    This paragraph is presented as the “summation” of three previous paragraphs, which will also be deconstructed here. I will show the miss-framing of the ‘summing’ paragraph first, as it is most clearly the weakest link in this ‘argument’ whereas it should be the final stroke if the argument had any merit.

    Now to address these 6 points:

    ______________________________________

    I will wait for Mr. McKee’s response before I post the deconstruction of the 6 points.
    ww

      1. I would like to comment here that the fact is that “the moderator” of the site, coto2 is simply not home. She is no longer paying attention to this thread – it started last year in the time building up to the ten year anniversary of the event.

        The thread is now over 400 posts long. It will have it’s own one year anniversary in August…if Albury can keep it going in circles that much longer.

        ww

      2. Please pardon me for just one more comment concerning this posting by Albury.

        I went to some care to leave the subject in my article ‘PROFILE OF A STOOGE’ unidentified, as to the sections published on this blog.

        It is clear testimony to the underlying hubris of this egotistical shill – that he could not restrain himself from identifying himself as the pathetic and infamous stooge he has come to be.

        w

  12. NOTE: “Argumentum Ad Verecundiam” is Latin for an argument that is an “Appeal to Authority”, and falls under a general category of fallacy in argumentation known as ‘Reductio Ad Absurdum’ – reduction to absurdity.
    __________________________________

    Now to address the 6 points:

    [1] The FDNY is not in your “truth movement,”

    – What is the context for the use of the term, FDNY {New York Fire Department}?
    Agent X seems to mean the official organ itself. But in a larger context the “fire department” is composed of thousands of individuals that may have such a variance of opinions as to make the assertion that they have no sympathies, spoken or reserved as to the veracity of the official story, that such an assertion becomes an example of a sub set of Argumentum ad Numerum. This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it. As it is used here, these “sheer numbers” have no statistical proofs, and one is left to assume that all of the members of the fire department toe to the official story line. Thus the logical fallacy.

    As to the FDNY itself as a department of the New York City government, there is a conflict of interest, as it cannot officially disagree with the employer due to complex and powerful political considerations. The FDNY then, is part of the structure of the system of authority being appealed to in Agent X’s argument. This argument is a proclamation that it is proper for an authority to police itself. As is shown and will be shown, there is evidence that destroys the official story, which means that at some higher level at the interface between the FDNY and the political apparatus of the city government there are indeed those willfully covering up the truth.

    This then introduces us to the issue of “peer pressure” and the tacit ‘conspiracy of silence’ from the fear of loosing ones personal livelihood. It is well known that there were implicit gag orders put upon the members of the fire department and other first responders in the aftermath of the event.

    But the peer pressure assumes itself in most instances simply do to the assumption of a ‘standard line’ being taken from the top authorities. Some testimonies taken of the first responders have such dialog as, “well, at first I thought I had heard a bomb go off. But now I realise it must have been other concussion sounds in the collapse…”
    It is rare in such institutions for someone to insist on being the ‘odd-man-out’, or to speak up and become the dreaded ‘whistleblower’. Most people have a very well taught understanding of the personal troubles that can ensue if one does not ‘go along to get along’. Culturally this is one of the strongest lessons one learns in life.

    [2] “and they disagree with your “piddly little ‘Office Furnishings Fires’” crap, as do the videos and other eyewitness accounts.”

    – This is a mixed conundrum of assertions. As illustrated in the discussion of [1], the “they” who “disagree” are an unknown quantity. The “official” stance of the FDNY would certainly qualify as “they” who “disagree”, but their veracity is in question for the reasons stated above.

    As for the “videos and other eyewitness accounts,” this is an assertion based on a cherry picked selection of videos and eyewitness accounts. Taken as a whole, ALL of the videos and eyewitness accounts shows there is a controversy presented, that when taken together shows evidence that overwhelms the accounts chosen by Agent X and the sources he relies upon.

    [3] “Are all of them in on the plot too, along with 200+ NIST engineers and countless others?”

    – This rhetorical question falls squarely into the class of ‘Argumentum ad Numerum’. Plus it asserts the false assumption that “all of them” have any knowledge beyond their particular job description that would give them the perspective of the higher authorities for whom they work. This is one of the attributes of a technological system based on compartmentalization of knowledge and access to it. This is very much the same sort of system of hierarchy used in the military and the system of “the need to know”. If it is outside of ones department there is no compelling ‘need to know’ and such knowledge is considered a ‘distraction’ from the subject’s job description. The same sorts of penalties are implied here as in the situation of not ‘going along to get along’. This is all well understood within a corporatist system, whether articulated within this context or not.

    So, essentially Number 3 is a rhetorical trick of inserting cognitive dissonance into the argument.

    [4] “You have no evidence except for a column cut with an oxyacetylene torch..”

    – This assertion is directly contradicted by the prior FEMA report:

    The FEMA report, in an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese.

    When asked whether it had carried out tests for explosives on 911, NIST said it had not. When a reporter asked NIST spokesman Michael Newman why not, he replied:

    “Because there was no evidence of that.”

    When the reporter asked the obvious follow-up question, “How can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?”

    Newman replied: “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”

    This argument put forth by Newman is not only circular logical fallacy , it is obviously disingenuous and a willful lie. It is pure propaganda.

    What explains the chemical evidence of thermite, an incendiary material found on the
    ends of steel beams and in the leftover dust? FEMA documented in Appendix C of its
    BPAT Report “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel,
    including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting.” This is
    clearly not a feature of gravitational collapse, or of hydrocarbon fuel or office fires.
    NIST summarily dismissed this key evidence when they took over the investigation.

    [5] “no perp or plausible motive, so you resort to misrepresenting the owner’s PBS statement,”

    This is a reference to Larry Silverstein the owner of WTC 7 who declared intention to ‘PULL it” on an interview on PBS. The controversy over this statement has run deep, but the simple assertion that the Agent’s opponent in the debate this dialog is drawn from, is a ‘misrepresentation’ is a bold one which must ignore very clear and common usages of syntax and twist them into strange forms to deny that Silverstein did say what he said in clear language. Claiming it has been ‘misrepresented’ is the actual stretch in interpretation.

    This should be addressed with some care. [Which will follow, if this much is approved to post]
    ww

  13. BTW – I have added some non-attributed quotes here, and these will be identified directly as to whom and what.

    The stanza:
    “This assertion is directly contradicted by the prior FEMA report:” and all that follows up to, “Newman replied:” – is a quote from Griffin – this was clear in notes that I haven’t added to this post.

    w

  14. Thank you Mr. McKee,

    As I ended with the last section:

    Claiming it has been ‘misrepresented’ is the actual stretch in interpretation.

    This should now be addressed with some care.

    Exact quotation:

    “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘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 we watched the building collapse.”~Larry Silverstein

    Agent X has made the argument {with myself personally} that the “they” in the last sentence of Silverstein’s statement is “obviously” the FDNY. I have already addressed the contextual problems of this argument in my previous remarks. But would further point out that the only people identified positively in this phone conversation is Mr. Silverstein himself, and the fire department commander. The fire department commander may indeed ‘represent’ the FDNY as a top official, but it does not identify who the “they” were who “made that decision to pull”. Who was involved in this decision other than the commander and Mr. Silverstein?

    Let’s pause here and be very clear and specific at this point. The ONLY people identified by Silverstein as to this telephone conversation is, himself and the “fire department commander”.
    Therefore any assumptions as to who “they” were who “made the decision to pull”, are just that, any other assertions than that are merely HEARSAY.

    Whereas Agent X will continue to insist that “they” are the FDNY it is simply not proven. And as far as the “reasoning” we have thus far seen by this agent , there is little evidence for any confidence that such is warranted to accept that the “they” that Silverstein refers to are simply the unknown quantity, the FDNY.

    Whereas Agent X will continue to insist that “they” are the FDNY it is simply not proven. And as far as the “reasoning” we have thus far seen by this agent , there is little evidence for any confidence that such is warranted to accept that the “they” that Silverstein refers to are simply the unknown quantity, the FDNY.

    We surely aren’t being led to believe here that a consensus was drawn from all of the firefighters in FDNY. Surely there were merely key people making this decision, and the fact is they are not identified. We might suppose that the mayor and other high political players were involved, perhaps even the technicians who planted the explosives used to “pull” the building.

    It should be mentioned here that as a further ‘clarification’ Mr. Silverstein’s pubic relations spokesperson claimed that what Silverstein meant to be pulled was not the building itself, but the firemen in the building. The problem with this is that there were no firemen in the building for several hours before “we watched the building collapse.”

    Further, if we look carefully at the linkage of, “they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” It is clear to any lucid mind that the “pull” had to do directly with “the building collapse.” Thus any dispute over the term “pull” as one used or not by demolition experts is based on rhetorical gamesmanship.

    Clearly Mr. Silverstein inadvertently let the cat out of the bag in this PBS interview. What has followed has been an attempt to erase this admission by all manner of scurrilous techniques of language manipulation.

    Now, as per who “they” were who made the decision to proceed with the demolition of Bldg.7, further research by Kevin Ryan would indicate the following individuals as possibly having been involved in that decision, as they are known to have been together as a group that day [Sept 11, 2001] as per eye witness testimony:

    Rudy Giuliani
    Richard Sheirer
    Richard Rotanz
    Bernard Kerik
    Pasquale J. D’Amuro
    John Odematt
    {and perchance even the fire department commander}

    SEE: http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

    ww

  15. “Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote, ”The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.”
    They go on to propose that, ”the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”, where they suggest, among other tactics, ”Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”
    Sunstein calls for covert “cognitive infiltration” by government agents of organizations the government deems “conspiracist”. Sunstein paints the 9/11 truth movement as “harmful,” “dangerous,” and likely to resort to “terrorism”.

    Defenders of the official account of 9/11 actually cannot proceed by using reason and fact. They are forced to resort to disinformation, suppression of evidence, lies, illogic, threats and intimidation, always with the same result: failure. The more people study the events of 9/11 the more certain they become that the government and its media outlets are lying.”~David Ray Griffin

    I post this quote of Griffin’s as a relevant addendum to the former remarks I made in defining the nomenclature, habits and techniques of a government stooge.

    Just a few more examples here should be enough to make my case clear that the ‘agent’ or ‘stooge’ under profile has indeed shown all of the very same qualities called for by Cass Sunstein in his proposal to have government sponsored agenteur attack chatrooms, blogs, and any other pages on the web containing an opportunity comment.

    So, the following begins with a reply by this agent to the remarks of someone we will simply call Roger:

    “You also refuse to accept the fact that hi-rises can FREE FALL without damage from explosives, as many floors in real C/Ds do”~Agent X

    This statement is not even a form of argument, it is simple bullshit. Every single adjoinment in a highrise must be disjoined in an implosion-demolition. Anyone who has ever studied the blast sequence blueprints for a demolition knows this. FREE FALL is impossible without removing impeding structure.

    “No, Roger; you’ll try to change the topic to Afghanistan policy, which wasn’t affected in the slightest by a predicted, non-fatal ~5:21 PM collapse of a burning building…”~Agent X

    At this point Agent X reached the point of utter lunacy. ‘Afghanistan policy’ IS predicated on the pretext of 9/11. It is time to review the PNAC document again, as it lays out the whole strategy for the imperial invasion of the Middle East, and in fact implicitly calls for a pretext such as this “new Pearl Harbor” that 9/11 became.

    The agent’s postings become increasingly unhinged from reality as he floats through the black empty space between his ears. This is an attempt to erase known history:

    “Only a “trickster…playing with words” would play down the seriousness of “normal Office Furnishings Fires,” and continue to lie about Dr. Sunder’s statement after it was fully explained to you. Once again, the new phenomenon was not thermal expansion of steel beams, but the factoring of that expansion into a structural engineering report on steel-framed building collapses in fires.”~Agent X

    Agent X says the “new phenomenon was not thermal expansion of steel beams, but the factoring of that expansion into a structural engineering report..”… BUT, it is the factoring in of that expansion which is the fantasy of the whole issue here – as it is understood that such expansion is impossible without concurrent expansion of the concrete. It is established by NIST’s own testimony that it did not “add heat” to the concrete in the software instructions, but only added heat to the steel. This is the crux of the matter right here – the fire that supposedly heated the steel, had to have heated the concrete it was attached to in any real life situation, as both materials are effected by heat to the same expansive degree.

    No one is “playing down the seriousness of “normal Office Furnishings Fires,” What they are doing is pointing out the physical absurdities claimed by NIST.

    Again we are faced with Agent X playing the part of the Mad Hatter at his table in Wonderland, setting out his arguing teacups.

    ____________________

    This will do it for now, the actual essay will be quite long and detailed, this digest has only been offered as a taste of what can be gleaned by deconstructing the false frames built by the Sunsteinian ‘Cognitive Dissonance’ Crews haunting the Internet at this time.

    ww

  16. “Are all of them in on the plot too..”

    This is a microcosm of one way 9/11 was carried out:

    Sorry for quoting my own post at Pilotsfor911Truth:

    “On the flip side, these “sting” operations and patsies could simply be allowed to carry out an attack (with a little “help” of course).

    It wouldn’t require “thousands of people” to be in on it or to “keep a secret”..yadda yadda.

    It just requires a shredder, a “national security” stamp, and a whore media.

    Job done.”

    If anybody has the slightest idea of how psyop/terrorist operations function (not “terrorist” in the MSM sense), they would know that each facet of an operation would be broken up into cells, each with specific orders and completely anonymous to eachother, from the on the ground operatives through to the information whores.

    Only when the full attack is accomplished will each cell know the extent of the damage and mayhem they will have caused. Each individual will then shut up shop and be tight as a camel’s ass in a desert storm knowing the ramifications of being caught.

    As and when each (OCT) facet unravels, damage control and information wars are put in place under the cloak of National Security and misdirection.

    Even those involved in the operation at the highest levels are subject to the misdirection and nobody bar a select few know who did what (even those people will be in “cell” form)

    And so on and so on..

    2cents

  17. If I may, some final thoughts for a summation of the issue of shills, toadies, and stooges for the system. I want to leap up the food chain of this hierarchy to a stooge in a much higher position.
    In this way I hope to speak to the central problem we face as a society – indeed as a species, in this post-modern world…seemingly on the verge of self destruction.

    “that’s enough now, this regime must go and there is no reason that Syrians don’t have the right to live their lives and choose their destiny freely.”

    This statement by Sarkozy is pathos. The central underlying question remains to be asked, let alone answered. That question is:

    ‘What does it mean to be well adjusted in a pathological society?’

    This is a simple question for those lucid and sane enough to understand it. For others however – the majority that make up the pathological society, the question will appear to be nonsensical, for they do not recognize the pathos they share. It is to them a state of ‘normalcy’ that they were inducted into as children, and conditioned by the system into accepting absurd contradictions that create a twisted and deformed epistemology.

    The well adjusted personality will always be at odds with pathological systems and the societies they build and maintain. The well adjusted personality cannot be well adjusted to the pathological society, they are anathema to one another. This is by no means a new phenomenon, but has indeed been the focus of sages throughout the ages. Throughout history wise men have gleaned that the majority of there fellow men are caged within the mythos of the day, and cannot see beyond their mental bars to view the simple reality in front of their faces.

    Thus it is far from surprising that ad hominem is the closing argument against those who promote the official myths of their day. For it is the apologist for the myth {for he is integral to the myth}, as much as the myth itself, that must be defined to reveal the truths of our day.

    What is just? It is quite straightforward, what is just and fair are clear to any self aware human being. It is a sense of empathy – a necessary trait for a species evolved as reliant on the group for survival. Feelings of compassion are indeed a survival trait for social beings. The cross-sensual links between empathy, compassion, and a sense of fairness is to my mind, self evident.~ww

    However, there is empirical and scientific evidence for such as that is self evident to me:

    http://www.activistpost.com/2012/02/new-biological-studies-reconfirm-that.html

    “This is really common sense, but there has actually been a scientific consensus that humans are not innately violent for well over 20 years. In 1986 scientists from around the world got together and shared psychological and biological evidence until they came to the conclusion that human nature is no excuse for violent behavior. The findings that were released came to be known as “The Seville Statement”.~J.G. Vibes – Activist Post

    The Seville Statement

    1. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors.”
    2. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behavior is genetically programmed into our human nature.”
    3. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behavior more than for other kinds of behavior.”
    4. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a ‘violent brain’.”
    5. “It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by ‘instinct’ or any single motivation.”
    ______________

    Thank you, ww

  18. craig,

    still catching up around here. excellent article, the thrust of which i most certainly agree. going forward, i’ll be making it a point to be more on my guard about this, and choosing my terms more carefully. yes, “Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill.”

    i disagree with one of your objections, however, in at least in one setting. during 9/11 truth conversations, when a peson ridicules and dismiss me for embracing “conspiracy theories,” when all i’m doing is challenging the official story, i have found it to be an effective comeback to point out to the conspiracy denier that the official story—that a small group of angy muslims armed only with box-cutters somehow manged to take over four commercial jets, and then outwit the most sophisticated military defense system the world has ever known, four times in one day—is itself a conspiracy theory. and then, as he is mulling that over, i’ll ask rhetorically, “and you believe that b.s. why? because it’s the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory?” usually the point gets made as to how outrageous the government’s claims is, and the “conspiracy theorist” charge against me defused.

    if someone (e.g., during conversation) uses the term “attack,” i’m thinking that it might be a good tactic to make it a point to not let that slide. instead, say something like, “you mean ‘supposed attack’” or “…alleged attack.” same thing as for correcting with “alleged air defense failures,” or (sardoncially) “’hijacked’ according to the government,” etc.

    my two cents.

    1. Dennis,

      Thanks for reading it, and I understand the value you see in “official conspiracy theory.” I agree that it is useful to wake people up to the fact that the government’s case isn’t any more proven than any other “theory.” Maybe it could be nuanced a bit (can nuance be a verb?). The key is not to give the impression that those who put forward the official narrative actually believe it. That’s the key. I’m going to think about this a bit before suggesting a way to compromise.

      I noticed that the Consensus Panel’s press release made it to Market Watch (part of the Wall Street Journal) complete with the reference to “when the Pentagon was struck.” This is a problem, as I stated before.

      1. craig,

        thanks for the reply. yeah, i’d say “nuanced” can be a verb, tho some folks hate verbing nouns (sorry, couldn’t resist;-) understood about the problematic language.

        yes, i was told that the Consensus Panel’s press release had made it to 80 mainstream media websites, including market watch, seattle times and the boston globe.

        was advised also that the press release appeared on over 100 alternative sites, and on Global Research at http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31308

  19. Wonderful article that needed to be written. Thank you especially for dealing with the word “attack.”

    Here are a few other phrases and words I have a problem with.

    “evidence” If we define this in terms of the legal rules of evidence, then we often use this word way too loosely. Still, “evidence” presumably means more than just “data”, but we also misuse the term “data” too.

    “truth” I guess I better not get started on this word, but suffice it to say that “truth” in the world of science is far different than the metaphysical sense of the term. When I see some of the efforts out there claiming to be seeking truth, I cringe.

    “movement” As in “the truth movement” or “the 9-11 truth movement” or “the liberty movement.” When we see that we have been told a big lie, most of us want the truth of the matter and we search for it in various places. But there is no one big collective entity that could be called a “movement.” The “rules” of each group for seeking liberty or seeking truth vary so substantially that it is not possible to lump them all together into a “movement.”

    “explosive” I think most of us think of things like TNT, RDX etc as an “explosive”. We also think “heat” is always present with an explosion. I think there may be some debate about this term among scientists.

    “controlled demolition” – You have dealt with term “demolition” sufficiently. I prefer the term “destruction.” But the “controlled” word with the word “demolition” almost makes the phrase a redundancy. Most people think of a demolition and a controlled demolition of being of the kind done on old Las Vegas hotels and consinos. The Jones / Gage gang have deliberately flooded their new investigation / Building 7 campaign with this controlled demolition term. What is so odd is that the Jones / Gage gang never used the term “controlled demolition” in connection with their first 5 years of existence in connection with thermite and the Towers, but clearly the use of thermite in the destruction clearly implies “controlled demolition.” But really, the term could be used very generically to convey that it is a destruction controlled by, carried out by, man, as opposed to a destruction effected by, say, an act of “nature.”

    “theory”
    “hypothesis”
    “hard science”

    These terms do relate to science but the kind of “evidence” we have in relation to 9-11 is far away from “hard science”.

    Sort of off the topic of the article, but I believe the information that Dr. James Fetzer puts out regarding the faked crash sites, the video fakery of planes going in to the Towers, and the media’s role in deceiving us, is much more fruitful in proving the lie of the official story and shedding light on what was done. The 5 years of keeping all of us in neutral gear by the Jones / Gage gang and their mysterious evolving substance thermite was also a time where we were focused almost exclusively on what physical agent of mechanism effected the destruction of the Towers. Now, all of a sudden, the Jones / Gage gang will deign to mention Building 7, and while they still lead us to believe Building 7 was destroyed in the same way as the Towers (i.e. involving nanthermite), the bait and switch new focus for all of their followers is calling for a new “scientific” investigation. Nanothermite has carried out its mission successfully but it is now time for a new focus to take center stage.

  20. “but I believe the information that Dr. James Fetzer puts out regarding the faked crash sites, the video fakery of planes going in to the Towers, and the media’s role in deceiving us”~Dachsielady

    This is an odd way to sum things up after talking about “science”, “evidence”., “data”, etc.

    If you think Fetzer and his screwy theories are the cats meow then you obviously know nothing about “science”, “evidence”., “data”, etc.

    If you think this is pure flame with nothing to back it up, then you haven’t been reading the other commentaries on this thread wherein Fetzer has been proven conclusively to be a charlatan. He hasn’t any idea of the physics he attempts to speak to. The video fakery and No-Planes PR is nothing but utter bullshit.

    SEE:
    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/disinformation-video-fakery/
    AND:
    http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/disinformation-no-planes-theory/

    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s