Contempt prior to investigation
There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. This principle is, contempt prior to examination.
But, government-sponsored propaganda does not rank at that level of truthfulness. In fact, governments regularly resort to the Big Lie technique when they wish to control the political narrative. This can only occur when the mass media are tightly reined in, as they were in the 2020 presidential election. They unanimously repeated the Big Lie that no substantial election fraud occurred that day, and got away with it by silencing everyone who wished to present evidence of fraud. [See Appendix J: The Big Muzzle.]
Similarly, the Deep State and its press allies promoted a bizarre Hollywood-style conspiracy theory as to what happened on 9/11, ridiculing or silencing all who questioned that story. Their aim was to convince people to blow off the criticism by assuring them that the evidence provided by critics should not be examined. Don't look! was the Deep State's real theme, both on the 9/11 and 2020 election matters.
Even Wikipedia regularly parrots and promotes the Deep State's Big Lies.
Who are the 9/11 conspirators?
Among them are those who control AOL/Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom, Walt Disney, Liberty Media, News Corp. [see Appendix K. Fox News, trumpet of Israel's hard right], Gannett, Bertelsmann, Vivendi, Universal and Sony.
Our news media are largely dominated by these corporations.
Learn who really controls these companies and you'll know who has agreed to protect the conspirators. As you can see, it wouldn't take very many people to agree to a cover-up.
Of course, this isn't the whole story, but it will give you an idea of how it's done. An anonymous person comments,
A perplexing incident
A reader writes,
In a probably related matter, I discovered a couple of years ago that my internet news articles had been blocked from the Pentagon's computer system, even forbidding veterans from viewing the pages on Veterans Administration hospital computers. The prohibited news articles contained no classified information and thus it made little sense to forbid Pentagon employees or military veterans from reading the articles.
Astonishing 'perfect storm'
Consider this: An amazing "perfect storm" of things had to go wrong in order for four World Trade Center buildings to collapse down to the ground (or lower) on that fated day. Ordinarily only bombs or demolition explosives can bring steel frame buildings all the way down.
Another point that should give pause: The current interloper in the White House never lifted a finger, or a voice, in condemnation of the Big Lie being told to America about 9/11. You may say that neither did many others who apparently didn't know much. Yet if the man was too feeble or disconnected to obtain the right information, if he was so foolish as to trust the Deep State intelligence services, how can he be trusted as chief executive and commander in chief? America doesn't need in that position a mediocre person who lacks courage to go up against the System and its press,
Why are Dems happy with incomplete 9/11 report?
January 22, 2007
Congressional Democrats, such as Patrick Leahy, say they're satisfied with the Kean commission's 9/11 report. That's why, says Leahy, he has no intention of urging further investigation into 9/11 [see post below].
Now this is remarkable, considering that that report is incomplete.
The 2004 report never mentions the collapse of World Trade Center 7 hours after the collapses of the twin towers. Why? Well, as several top federal investigators have said, no credible explanation has been found for the collapse. The NIST is still working on it but, says the NIST's lead investiagtor, Shyam Sunder, the NIST just doesn't have a good handle on how it could have happened.
But, apparently the Kean panel knew what the outcome of any WTC7 probe would be, so the commissioners didn't feel it necessary to get into that matter.
Or maybe Leahy and other key lawmakers, along with 9/11 panelists, have agreed to a national security blackout on WTC7's collapse. It did house the CIA's New York station. And we know that a public TV website deleted footage of trade center owner Larry Silverstein's remark that officials had decided to "pull" the building.
But even supposing Leahy is party to a national security blackout on that aspect of the events of 9/11, the Kean panel was also neglectful in the matter of collapse times.
The Kean panel report gives a collapse time of 10 seconds for WTC2. If you dropped a stone from the top of WTC2, it would take 9.2 seconds to reach the ground -- in a vacuum. That is, a collapse time of 10 seconds implies almost no structural resistance, which is consistent with the use of explosives.
So it seems that the Kean panel's science advice was rather poor, whether it came from FEMA, NIST or the FBI. Later, we are told (but I can't find the citation), the NIST lengthened the time to 12 seconds. As I show at kryptograff.blogspot.com, even 12 seconds is good cause for profound suspicion.
But anyway, how is it that leading lawmakers are happy with a seriously deficient report?
One more thing: Much of the commission's narrative is based on the "testimony" of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was grilled by CIA interrogators at a secret jail overseas. The commission was given redacted copies of statements and summaries but was not permitted to interview him nor pose specific questions to be asked by the CIA.
So this evidence is largely untestable and we cannot be sure of what Khalid really said, or meant, or in what context. Some of the statements attributed to him are quite suspect.
This is what some top Democrats are satisfied with?
Aren't they the same Democrats who decry the use of extra-judicial means against CIA captives? Who object that the Bush tribunals are intended to block an effective defense against secret evidence?
Leahy lets a big sleeping dog lie
January 21, 2007
Sen. Patrick Leahy, a liberal Democrat, told a Vermont newspaper that he has no intention of urging a re-opening of the 9/11 investigation. Ditto, say Vermont's other federal lawmakers. Hooray! says Noam Chomsky. At least Leahy won't be draining enormous energy away from the liberal-left agenda!
The Burlington Free Press question came as it became apparent that Burlington voters will be asked whether they think their federal lawmakers should demand a new probe.
Leahy said that, though it's understandable that some would come up with their own theories of the events of 9/11, he's satisfied with the Kean commission investigation.
Leahy and politicos like him won't budge because they think that, in the main, the news media are under control on this matter. These politicians won't defy the Powers That Be. Nor do they respect the one-third or more of their constituents who believe -- based on some pretty good, old-fashioned American investigative reporting -- that the 9/11 report whitewashed a story of treason most foul.
However, 9/11 is one sleeping dog that won't be allowed to keep lying. We will keep pushing.
Sure it may be that Rep. Ron Paul's presidential bid is quixotic, but at least that Texas politician speaks candidly about a continuing 9/11 cover-up. These days, the people who deserve the most respect are the ones most likely to be cast out.
Another exception is British MP Michael Meacher, who raised a hue and cry for daring to say that Blair's war on Iraq was a consequence of a U.S. covert op to make 9/11 happen. He's now getting "the treatment" for defying the Big Lie.
-- Rev. William H. Poole
Now there are claims that deserve no new investigation. For example, if someone tells a mathematician that she has found a way to square the circle with only compass and ruler, she deserves no further hearing. That is because the mathematician knows that that maneuver has been proved, to the satisfaction of many mathematicians, to be impossible.But, government-sponsored propaganda does not rank at that level of truthfulness. In fact, governments regularly resort to the Big Lie technique when they wish to control the political narrative. This can only occur when the mass media are tightly reined in, as they were in the 2020 presidential election. They unanimously repeated the Big Lie that no substantial election fraud occurred that day, and got away with it by silencing everyone who wished to present evidence of fraud. [See Appendix J: The Big Muzzle.]
Similarly, the Deep State and its press allies promoted a bizarre Hollywood-style conspiracy theory as to what happened on 9/11, ridiculing or silencing all who questioned that story. Their aim was to convince people to blow off the criticism by assuring them that the evidence provided by critics should not be examined. Don't look! was the Deep State's real theme, both on the 9/11 and 2020 election matters.
Even Wikipedia regularly parrots and promotes the Deep State's Big Lies.
Who are the 9/11 conspirators?
Among them are those who control AOL/Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom, Walt Disney, Liberty Media, News Corp. [see Appendix K. Fox News, trumpet of Israel's hard right], Gannett, Bertelsmann, Vivendi, Universal and Sony.
Our news media are largely dominated by these corporations.
Learn who really controls these companies and you'll know who has agreed to protect the conspirators. As you can see, it wouldn't take very many people to agree to a cover-up.
Of course, this isn't the whole story, but it will give you an idea of how it's done. An anonymous person comments,
Yes they must have been a MSM "arrangement." But the funny thing is that often the most fierce defenders of the official story are "left wingers" like Counterpunch or Democracy Now! Are they in on it? I doubt it. Likewise, when I discuss with American 9/11 truthers they usualy believe that 9/11 truth is mainstream over here in Europe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our media might be controlled as well, but I thing the real reason is a psychological one. The enormity of this inside job is such that basically nobody wants to get near it regardless of their political orientation.Conant responded,
So what we have, more than anything is a psychological problem. A mass psychological problem.
Yes, an element of the hard left is running interference for the neocons to blow off 9/11. What element do you suppose would make such an underhanded deal?The "psychological problem" is sometimes called cognitive dissonance, whereby the hearer cannot accept a potential reality that clashes with her or his comforting picture of "the way things are." Propagandists take full advantage of this human frailty, knowing that many people are very glad to receive some consoling lie rather than the ugly truth.
A perplexing incident
A reader writes,
Paul,That reader has "photographic memory" and is able to read entire pages of book text virtually at a glance.
Something very odd just happened when I clicked on the link to access your site [this blog, concerning the a 9/11 disclosure]. I have broadband now, I wait for the window to pop open. Well, it did pop open, but for a couple of blinks of the eye it wasn't your site -- it was a page that had a military or police type emblem in the middle with a four- or five-figure number underneath it, some lines of copy under that... but I'm giving you an impression of an impression. It definitely looked "official." Then the window went dark and your site popped open. I am not making this up. [Name withheld for privacy consideration.]
Posted Tue., April 24, 2007
In a probably related matter, I discovered a couple of years ago that my internet news articles had been blocked from the Pentagon's computer system, even forbidding veterans from viewing the pages on Veterans Administration hospital computers. The prohibited news articles contained no classified information and thus it made little sense to forbid Pentagon employees or military veterans from reading the articles.
Astonishing 'perfect storm'
Consider this: An amazing "perfect storm" of things had to go wrong in order for four World Trade Center buildings to collapse down to the ground (or lower) on that fated day. Ordinarily only bombs or demolition explosives can bring steel frame buildings all the way down.
Another point that should give pause: The current interloper in the White House never lifted a finger, or a voice, in condemnation of the Big Lie being told to America about 9/11. You may say that neither did many others who apparently didn't know much. Yet if the man was too feeble or disconnected to obtain the right information, if he was so foolish as to trust the Deep State intelligence services, how can he be trusted as chief executive and commander in chief? America doesn't need in that position a mediocre person who lacks courage to go up against the System and its press,
Why are Dems happy with incomplete 9/11 report?
January 22, 2007
Congressional Democrats, such as Patrick Leahy, say they're satisfied with the Kean commission's 9/11 report. That's why, says Leahy, he has no intention of urging further investigation into 9/11 [see post below].
Now this is remarkable, considering that that report is incomplete.
The 2004 report never mentions the collapse of World Trade Center 7 hours after the collapses of the twin towers. Why? Well, as several top federal investigators have said, no credible explanation has been found for the collapse. The NIST is still working on it but, says the NIST's lead investiagtor, Shyam Sunder, the NIST just doesn't have a good handle on how it could have happened.
But, apparently the Kean panel knew what the outcome of any WTC7 probe would be, so the commissioners didn't feel it necessary to get into that matter.
Or maybe Leahy and other key lawmakers, along with 9/11 panelists, have agreed to a national security blackout on WTC7's collapse. It did house the CIA's New York station. And we know that a public TV website deleted footage of trade center owner Larry Silverstein's remark that officials had decided to "pull" the building.
But even supposing Leahy is party to a national security blackout on that aspect of the events of 9/11, the Kean panel was also neglectful in the matter of collapse times.
The Kean panel report gives a collapse time of 10 seconds for WTC2. If you dropped a stone from the top of WTC2, it would take 9.2 seconds to reach the ground -- in a vacuum. That is, a collapse time of 10 seconds implies almost no structural resistance, which is consistent with the use of explosives.
So it seems that the Kean panel's science advice was rather poor, whether it came from FEMA, NIST or the FBI. Later, we are told (but I can't find the citation), the NIST lengthened the time to 12 seconds. As I show at kryptograff.blogspot.com, even 12 seconds is good cause for profound suspicion.
But anyway, how is it that leading lawmakers are happy with a seriously deficient report?
One more thing: Much of the commission's narrative is based on the "testimony" of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was grilled by CIA interrogators at a secret jail overseas. The commission was given redacted copies of statements and summaries but was not permitted to interview him nor pose specific questions to be asked by the CIA.
So this evidence is largely untestable and we cannot be sure of what Khalid really said, or meant, or in what context. Some of the statements attributed to him are quite suspect.
This is what some top Democrats are satisfied with?
Aren't they the same Democrats who decry the use of extra-judicial means against CIA captives? Who object that the Bush tribunals are intended to block an effective defense against secret evidence?
Leahy lets a big sleeping dog lie
January 21, 2007
Sen. Patrick Leahy, a liberal Democrat, told a Vermont newspaper that he has no intention of urging a re-opening of the 9/11 investigation. Ditto, say Vermont's other federal lawmakers. Hooray! says Noam Chomsky. At least Leahy won't be draining enormous energy away from the liberal-left agenda!
The Burlington Free Press question came as it became apparent that Burlington voters will be asked whether they think their federal lawmakers should demand a new probe.
Leahy said that, though it's understandable that some would come up with their own theories of the events of 9/11, he's satisfied with the Kean commission investigation.
Leahy and politicos like him won't budge because they think that, in the main, the news media are under control on this matter. These politicians won't defy the Powers That Be. Nor do they respect the one-third or more of their constituents who believe -- based on some pretty good, old-fashioned American investigative reporting -- that the 9/11 report whitewashed a story of treason most foul.
However, 9/11 is one sleeping dog that won't be allowed to keep lying. We will keep pushing.
Sure it may be that Rep. Ron Paul's presidential bid is quixotic, but at least that Texas politician speaks candidly about a continuing 9/11 cover-up. These days, the people who deserve the most respect are the ones most likely to be cast out.
Another exception is British MP Michael Meacher, who raised a hue and cry for daring to say that Blair's war on Iraq was a consequence of a U.S. covert op to make 9/11 happen. He's now getting "the treatment" for defying the Big Lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment