Media will misdirect with emotion while 9/11 anniversary events explore actual evidence

911 memorial at night
September 8, 2015
By Craig McKee
It’s that time of year once again, when the public’s interest in 9/11 propaganda is resuscitated for a few days and the volume of lies is ramped up to meet the demand.
The members of the general public who pay any attention to the 14th anniversary will sit in front of their TVs watching mainstream coverage that tells them to “Remember 9/11” but deceives them about what they should remember. One thing the media will never do is encourage viewers to question what they’ve been told about what actually happened and who was really responsible. There may be some mention of the effort to declassify the famous 28 pages that allegedly point to Saudi involvement in 9/11, but only because that does not challenge the idea that America was attacked by external terrorists. It goes without saying that there will be nothing said about U.S. or Israeli involvement in the “attacks.”
What media focus there is will be on courage, loss, heroism, and emotion. There will be no time for thinking at all. There will be no real journalism. Nothing will be challenged or challenging. Nothing will be investigated. It will be “poignant” and “inspiring” and vapid. That is not to say that real tragedy isn’t being commemorated or that genuine heartbreak isn’t being recognized. There were victims: those killed that day; those who worked at Ground Zero who have died of cancer in the years since, and the millions worldwide who have been killed in the bogus war on terror and the real wars that it has instigated and fueled.
All the while, outside of the media’s selective gaze, dedicated truth activists who don’t just think about 9/11 when the media tells them to will be holding conferences, screening films, and commemorating the greatest deception of our time in a variety of ways. Most hold out hope that their family and friends and other ordinary people might take a look at the evidence, even just the basics, even just for a few minutes, and that they might open their minds just a crack. The dream is that people will slowly awaken to the fact that 9/11 was a blatant false flag operation designed to start foreign wars, kick start the police state at home, and generally advance the New World Order agenda.
Most of the people I know have refused to seriously question anything about 9/11. They not only accept the official narrative, but often they stand with the real perpetrators in ridiculing any suggestion that we’ve been lied to for the last 14 years. Yes, some will express doubts about whether we’ve been told the whole truth and offer some friendly encouragement, but then they will go about their business as usual, content to continue seeing the world just as they always have.
So, as we begin year 15, we continue the fight to expose the truth about 9/11 and the horrific injustices it has spawned. Here are some of the events of note going on across North America this week. Undoubtedly there are many more.
Global online conference by Canadian truthers
On Sept. 11 and 12, there will be an online conference coming out of Canada called “9/11 Global Interactive Broadcast to expose lies of the 9/11 Attacks and the War on Terror” that will feature some impressive scholars and researchers. The lineup includes Barrie Zwicker, Graeme MacQueen, James Corbett, Cynthia McKinney, Kevin Ryan, Daniele Ganser, and David Johnson. The moderator will be Bev Collins, the host of the Internet radio show 9/11 Talks. For details about the speaking schedule and to watch a live stream of the event, go to
9/11 Symposium in New York
On Sept. 12 between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. EST at the West Park Presbyterian Church, located at 165 West 86th Street , there will be a 9/11 Symposium called “Declassify the Truth: 9/11 Transparency on the Rise” that features an impressive list of researchers and some interesting panel discussions. Among those speaking are Wayne Madsen, Lance De Haven Smith, Barbara Honegger, Bob McIlvaine, Frances Schure, Russ Baker, Sander Hicks, and a number of others. Tickets are $25.
AE911Truth billboard across from New York Times
Once again this year, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth will have a very visible presence in New York City in the month of September. Last year it was a video screen in Times Square and this year it will be a billboard directly opposite the New York Times building. This was the original plan last year but had to be changed when the location became unavailable at the last minute. AE911Truth estimates that the billboard will be seen by 100,000 people a day and 3 million over the course of the month.
Beyond Misinformation booklet available
HELP US BREAK THE CYCLE OF MISINFORMATIONIn time for the 14th anniversary, AE911Truth has also released its 50-page color booklet called Beyond Misinformation. I was privileged to be one of the contributing writers on this project, which was headed up by Ted Walter (who I think did an incredible job). Every word in the booklet was vetted by an expert panel put together by AE. I hope to do a full article on the project soon. For more information or to order, go to
New film exposes myths
The new 90-minute film Firefighters, Architects & Engineers Expose the Myths of 9/11, a joint presentation of Richard Gage of AE911Truth and Erik Lawyer, the founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, will have its premiere on Sept. 11 in New York City. The film addresses several of the myths surrounding the destruction of the WTC and the failure of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to comply with the requirements of the national guideline for fire and explosion investigations. The screening takes place at 7 p.m. EST at the West Park Presbyterian Church, located at 165 West 86th Street. Both Gage and Lawyer will be on hand.
Pentagon gets attention at film fest
The 9/11 Truth Film Festival, this year called “9/11: The Myth and the Maintenance,” is taking place again this year at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland and will feature an assortment of films, videos, and speakers. The event, organized by Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, runs between 1 p.m. PST and 10 p.m. PST (4 p.m. to 1 a.m. EST) on Sept. 10. Tickets are $15 at the door, and the event can also be live-streamed at in return for a donation.
The Pentagon gets particular attention from the festival with a screening Barbara Honegger’s Beyond theSF film fest poster Smoke Curtain and a preview of Ken Jenkins’ unfinished film The Pentagon Plane Puzzle. Jenkins, who is the main organizer of the festival, has made it his mission to push the plane-impact position despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Also taking that puzzling position is David Chandler, who will deliver a talk called: “Going Beyond Speculation: A Scientific Look at the Pentagon Evidence.” I will have a great deal to say about the Jenkins and Chandler presentations in an upcoming post. But I can’t resist a comment on the presumptuousness of the title of Chandler’s talk: “Going Beyond Speculation…” Apparently Chandler is the first researcher in 14 years to look at the evidence; everybody else was just “speculating.”
We’ll see the premiere of Robbie Martin’s film A Very Heavy Agenda as well as an excerpt from the documentary Shadow Ring dealing with false flags. There will also be videos that feature Peter Dale Scott and Cynthia McKinney. Other speakers will include radio host Kevin Barrett, the editor of the new book We Are Not Charlie Hebdo; and Peter Phillips and Mickey Huff of Project Censored.
Other NYC events
AE911Truth will also be outside the National 9/11 Museum handing out their alternative guide to the museum. That will be at the corner of Church and Vesey streets between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST.
There will be a ceremony for the reading of the names of 9/11 victims starting at 1 p.m. on Sept. 11 outside St. Paul’s Chapel at the corner of Church and Vesely streets. The victims being honored include those killed on 9/11 and the millions who have died as a result of 9/11. There will also be a candlelight vigil at the 9/11 Memorial Plaza Survivor Tree at Ground Zero starting at 8:30 p.m. EST on Sept. 12.


  1. I have very mixed feelings about this 9/11 and I do not know what to say now that we are passing into the 15th year since this disgusting lie was pushed on us. I will say more later on I guess but thank you Craig for the article and the reminder of the good things happening this year.

      1. Yes Craig, I too have such mixed feelings. I try not to invest too much hope in any official resolutions of the 9/11 matter. I do not think it will ever happen. Well “ever” is a long time, perhaps sometime in the future when society has restructured itself on more sane grounds.
        Good reporting as always!

  2. “Media will misdirect with emotion?” Correct. But this in itself hardly matters. Much more disturbing is the very long list of institutions who are going to emulate the media. CodePink will use 9/11 as a fundraiser against the wars inspired by Osama bin Laden’s savage terror. So will the OathKeepers, emphasizing the oathkeeping lapses excused by Osama bin Laden’s successes on 9/11. The Syrian and Venezuelan rulers will lament the paranoid U.S. drive to subjugate the whole world to prevent Islamic fanatics from repeating 9/11.
    Not everyone within the 9/11 community understands that just about all opinion-makers, all around the world, seem committed to their failure. It is ironic that some of the 9/11 events listed in the article feature prominent 9/11 censors such as Baker, Hicks and McKinney. With friends like these, 9/11 activists need no enemies.

    1. I’m not sure how you can say it hardly matters that the media is using this kind of emotional misdirection – even if there are other reasons to be disturbed also. Most people gain their perceptions of world events through the media, so how they present 9/11 is very important.

    1. I used to hold out hope for such a scene happening. Not anymore.
      Nothing short of massive MSM coverage of 9/11 from a pro truth POV will trigger such numbers.
      When the media succeeds at making people angry, people do get out into the streets and protest, or at least get passionate online in viral numbers. Think about the scandal with the University of Oklahoma fraternity and the racist chants on the bus. The MSM covered the heck out of it, and even though the video had gone viral prior to the MSM covering it, there are many other viral internet videos that the MSM never acknowledges at all. Anyway, people got out into the streets holding their protest signs over that one. Look at the killing of Cecil the lion, where people are standing outside the dentist’s office holding signs demanding he be extradited to Zimbabwe. The people do get passionate about what the media wants them to get passionate about. Another case in point: TV commercials —> Black Friday.
      But as long as the media do what Craig delineates in his article, you won’t find those million New Yorkers in the streets demanding an investigation.
      Popular interest in the movement peaked in 2006 because anti-Bush and anti-war sentiment was so high, and the Bush administration was known to have lied about just about everything else. There must have been 2000 truthers at Ground Zero on the fifth anniversary. I was one of them. At the time, I naively thought to myself, “if this is how many people are here on the 5th anniversary, and so many more people will wake up between now and the 10th, just imagine how massive the turnout will be on the 10th anniversary! The whole thing will be blown wide open!” but I couldn’t have been more wrong. The turnout at the 10th anniversary was dismal. I couldn’t be there because I had to work and I know a lot of other Truthers were in the same boat, but the larger issue is that 9/11 was much further in the rear view mirror by the 10th anniversary, and after all the Bush administration was out of power and we had our Progressive, soft spoken black Democrat president in office, so many people began to regard 9/11 as ancient history and old hat. My own mother even made that point when I went to do my first street action after Obama was inaugurated. She actually said, “well Obama is in office now. So isn’t all of this investigate 9/11 stuff a bit old hat at this point?”
      I will end on this related note: how bitterly ironic that disgraced NBC News anchor Brian Williams is the one and only human being in the world who has been punished for lying about Iraq.

      1. Adam,
        Good points all… Thanks. While reading your response, the thought of an Occupy-like internet blitz across the United States calling for a million people to show up in New York came up. The thing about it is it wouldn’t cost a penny, and certainly couldn’t hurt. “Spread this message: 9/11 Truth In New York – 12 Noon” or similar. Just a thought.

      2. Brian Williams is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations so I assume he did something to annoy his masters, hence his public humiliation.
        On another topic: Craig, I know you don’t like the phrase “LOL,” but your opening sentence in this post really did make me LOL! Well done!

    2. As a NYC resident who experienced the event first hand, I have attended every 9/11 anniversary since 2001 (as I will this Thursday).
      Sadly, there were only a handful of people at last year’s anniversary. Definitely not more than thirty-fourty people at any given time, in small groups or individuals, scattered around the neighborhood.
      They were more like silent (and defeated looking) protesters as hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers walked by, some of them just carrying on with their business, and some making huge efforts not to make eye contact with the protesters just the way they do when they walk by a homeless person. The latter is definitely a sign of guilt. A fearful guilt of knowing, but not daring.
      If we need one million this year, I suspect we will be one million short.

      1. I will spare you any sentimental commentary…. Just a quick report about the state of affairs at Ground Zero on this 14th anniversary…
        Number of protesters (of any stripe) has gone down to under 20
        • 1 individual, who stood alone on a corner, holding up a sign that read “Nanothermite” with no commentary… No one looked at him, no one spoke to him
        • 6 people with matching – and now really worn and washed out looking – “911 was an inside job” t-shirts, smoking and chatting among themselves
        • 1 guy who was wearing a “Architects and Engineers” t-shirt who stood silently by himself
        • A couple (a man and a woman) I have grown accustomed to seeing at these anniversaries holding multiple hand-written building 7 signs
        • And a few people, like myself, who lingered around without engaging in any active protests or messaging
        • No long lines of “family members” waiting to go into the memorial
        • No police band, fire brigades, or any other ceremonial groups
        • No TV crews besides a couple of Russian and Korean reporters
        • No more commemorative 9/11 newspapers being handed out
        • No more people walking around handing out small American flags and/or DVDs
        • Official memorial held annually at the small St. Paul Chapel half full at best
        • No more parade of flag bearing Harley Davidsons
        • No more We Are Change or any other similar organized Truther groups…
        • No more heated sidewalk discussions between “theorists” and opposing passers by
        • An army of volunteers dispersed around the streets handing out “free” gospel bracelets,
        • A group of thirty quaker ladies with their apron and bonnets singing hymns on the sidewalk
        • A team of three Jehova’s Wittness sales people handing out “literature” with posters like “Does God really care?” “Can there be life after death?
        Lastly, a quick something I overheard as I sat on a bench less than half a block away from 9/11 memorial (100% true to the last word)

        Man1 – Why is there so many cops around?
        Man2 – It is the anniversary of September 11
        Man1- Really?

        Happy anniversary everyone.

        1. “Man1 – Why is there so many cops around?
          Man2 – It is the anniversary of September 11
          Man1- Really?”
          Hahahaha!! Utterly pathetic.
          Thank you for the on site report Lilaleo, Very sad indeed.

    3. 80,000 New Yorkers bagged for a new investigation. Twice the amount required. Shot down by none other than Michael Mukasey. That’s a great idea though. I’m curious to see when Obama will stop lying to the victims family members and releases the 28 redacted pages. It’ll be epic.

  3. I am really looking forward to Chandler’s presentation regarding the Pentagon plane impact. I have been sorely waiting in my decade as a Truther for someone to give a strong, cohesive, and persuasive argument in favor of the plane crashing into the building. In fact, I have to give Chandler credit for having the courage to argue this position in a public venue. Frank Legge did this at a conference in Australia in 2009, but his arguments were unsustainable. Dwain Deets likewise did this at a conference in 2013, but not only was his case unconvincing, he himself acknowledged it was not a very strong case.
    However I realize that a tsunami’s worth of evidence might have surfaced between 2013 and now. Perhaps more photographs have been released along with video cameras, and maybe numerous previously unknown eyewitnesses have come forward to Messrs. Chandler and Jenkins.
    I anticipate with great interest Chandler showing us over 60 tons of airliner wreckage, whether large pieces or confetti, whether outside the building or in. I am looking forward to him showing us a previously unreleased security video clearly showing the impact. I await with great interest Chandler’s scientific argument as to why over a dozen witnesses to the plane north of the Citgo are all wrong. I really do hope this argument is rock solid and convincing. And most especially, I’m looking forward to seeing Mr. Chandler’s on-field interviews with many witnesses within the land basin just to the west of the Pentagon, who clearly and independently corroborate the official flight path. I look forward to seeing these flight paths marked with a permanent marker on aerial photographs of the area.
    After seeing all of this compelling evidence, I will indeed be willing to revise my position on the Pentagon and admit I was wrong all these years and possibly even taken in by disinfo artists.

    1. “But the two most pertinent questions and anomalies in regards to the Pentagon and the ‘official story’ the public has been fed have nothing to do with investigating grand conspiracies or tracking down mis-represented evidence. They have to do with unreasonable suspensions in basic logic. The first is the fact that while almost all the victims of the attack were positively identified through DNA and dental records, we are also told that there is no significant remaining plane debris within the Pentagon because the intensity of the inferno after the crash wholly incinerated the aircraft and its component parts. These are two completely different and irreconcilable narratives.
      To be explicitly clear, this is what the public has been told: On one hand, in response to the complaint that there is no verifiable plane debris to positively ID Flight 77, the government claims the fire in the Pentagon was so hot that the virtually indestructible titanium engines were melted, enormous metal wings incinerated, detachable vertical tail fins swallowed whole, seats and luggage consumed, every inch of metal framing obliterated, landing gear gone, a whole enormous Boeing 757 essentially vaporized into molten rubble and dust. And yet that same raging, all-consuming inferno spared enough body parts and DNA of 184 individual human beings made of a carbon based material significantly less rugged than titanium, called skin and bone, somehow survived said firestorm in tact enough for positive identification. How is this possible? And why is no one asking this question and shining light on what should be a most distressing and absurd fabrication?”

    2. Did I sense a little sarcasm in your comment, Adam?
      Adam Syed said:
      “I am really looking forward to Chandler’s presentation regarding the Pentagon plane impact…..I have to give Chandler credit for having the courage to argue this position in a public venue”
      Do you mean courage or chutzpah?
      “I anticipate with great interest Chandler showing us over 60 tons of airliner wreckage…..I await with great interest Chandler’s scientific argument as to why over a dozen witnesses to the plane north of the Citgo are all wrong…..And most especially, I’m looking forward to seeing Mr. Chandler’s on-field interviews with many witnesses…..who clearly and independently corroborate the official flight path. I look forward to seeing these flight paths marked with a permanent marker on aerial photographs of the area”
      All excellent points, Adam; I also look forward to all those things, but what I am mostly looking forward to is Chandler presenting a Pentagon Police officer with eyes in the back of his head.
      That would be the “clincher” for me!

          1. Unless, of course, you’re a spy from the NSA who’s actually watching me while I type, in which case it’s creepy. Haha.
            And no I don’t seriously suspect that. Just engaging in humor…

          2. I missed my chance, Adam; when I replied to your comment by saying “Yeah…..that is kinda funny!”…..I thought…..dang!…..I should have said “Yes…..I know…..I’m watching you”
            Oh, well… time.

    3. You make a very strong point, Adam, when you say that no one has given a presentation that makes a strong case for a plane impact at the Pentagon. I will be very interesting to see how Chandler deals with this challenge. Does he have new evidence? We do know he can’t explain the old evidence.

    4. 9/11 is a highly emotional subject. And people react to it in a highly emotional way. If all we have read and/or seen about September 11 are the images fed to us by the mass-media, and all we know about the story that those images tell is the framing of the events offered by the U.S. Government, then it is perhaps reasonable to think that 19 Arabs, under the direction of a crazed lunatic in a cave in the Middle East, used box cutters and guile to thwart a multi-trillion dollar defense apparatus. But any thorough consideration and investigation into the hard facts of 9/11 will unearth evidence that makes the 19 Arab hijacker narrative a wholly unreasonable consideration. But even so, this highly emotional subject proves difficult to discuss rationally and seriously. There seems to be some kind of emotional investment we have in believing what we have been told by our ‘leaders’, by the people in positions of authority over us. Or, perhaps, we do not have the emotional fortitude to bear the implications of being lied to and duped so easily and horrifically.
      A typical example of the common reaction people offer on the subject of 9/11 comes from a professor of physics from BYU. Steven Jones, perhaps the leading scientist actively involved in researching and debunking the government’s official 9/11 story, presented to one of his colleagues for review a paper he wrote detailing a mountain of evidence suggesting U.S. government involvement in 9/11. The colleague responded by saying to Professor Jones, ‘I do not believe in conspiracy theories and UFO’s.’ This type of strongly opinionated, demonstrative response is common. Perhaps even understandable.
      Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
      By Dr. Steven E. Jones

      1. The best we can hope for is that someone in the audience could put some hard questions to him if there is a Q&A session. I would also like to see somebody confront him We Are Change style, over his full blown assault on CIT and his refusal to acknowledge their rebuttal.

  4. Craig wrote “Most of the people I know have refused to seriously question anything about 9/11. They not only accept the official narrative, but often they stand with the real perpetrators in ridiculing any suggestion that we’ve been lied to for the last 14 years.”
    Reminds me of the saying “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” And if people can’t see the official 9/11 story as the obvious lie it is, they sure won’t be questioning any of the subsequent hoaxes e.g. Sandy Hook.

    1. Quoting, “if people can’t see the official 9/11 story as the obvious lie it is, they sure won’t be questioning any of the subsequent hoaxes e.g. Sandy Hook.” Indeed. Activism on Sandy Hook is bound to be much harder than on 9/11. Hence one of several key findings of 9/11: the futility of activism on other causes. 9/11 makes life so much simpler!

  5. Did you consider interviewing Christopher Bollyn?
    He covers what many 9/11 truthers have been afraid to touch, Israel’s ties to 9/11.
    I think their role was more than what I had originally thought.
    Bollyn’s book Solving 9/11 was given a 5+ review by Robert D. Steele, a veteran CIA intel officer and the biggest reviewer of non-fiction on Amazon.
    I began delving into Israel’s role more deeply after I read Gilad Atmon’s book on the the politics of Jewish identity. Coming from a Jew I took him more seriously than if it came from the likes of David Duke. His book was widely acclaimed and after reading it. I now understand why and why both the right and especially the jewish left detest him.After I came across Atzmon and Bollyn complimenting each others work I decided to pay more attention to Bollyn.
    Robert D. Steele’s 6-Star rreview of Bollyn’s book:

    1. Michael, I haven’t interviewed Bollyn one on one, but I was part of a special conference call of the 9/11 Truth Teleconference (now called the 9/11 and Other Deep State Crimes Teleconference) a couple of years ago where he was the guest. I own a copy of Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, and I think it is a very important book.

    2. Michael,
      I think that Israel’s part in 9/11 is well established, if not well understood by the general public. However I think it is a simplistic analysis that leads to the assertion “Israel did 9/11”. Once the larger analysis of the architecture of modern political power is grasped, one begins to comprehend that both Amerika and Israel are simply garrison states for a Global Empire. Often this empire is euphemistically referred to as, the New Word Order.
      So in my view, the perpetrators of 9/11 are the elite circle of this global cabal who effectively control all military and intelligence organizations on the planet. by effectively controlling all national governments on the planet. This global “Power Elite” is often seen as a financial elite and that is the major tool of influence: Finance. But wealth is not the ultimate goal, the ultimate goal is political power.
      The global oligarchy is here and now. If one reframes what is referred to as the American Empire, and notes that the US occupies the entire planet under the auspices of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’, maintaining military bases in virtually every state on every ‘corner’ of the globe, one sees that ‘fruition’ is at hand for the New World Order. It is a done deal.

  6. The MSM is tightly controlled, which is why alternative media is flourishing and will continue to do so. People are turning away from the MSM for good reason. That said, the gubmint did a fine job of marginalizing those of us who were onto them soon after 9/11/01. More than actually holding Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, Wolfi, et al, accountable, my hope is that by being open and unafraid and by pointing our collective middle fingers at the naked empire, we might just discourage them from foisting another false flag on us. Just maybe. In any event, I do believe that people are sloooowly waking up.

  7. What sort of commemoration involves dishonoring the victims by refusing to question the circumstances of their deaths? The media that finds this sort of thing acceptable also has no problem suggesting that anyone who does question 9/11 is somehow disrespecting the victims. This is like saying murders should not be investigated because detectives are insulting the victims by trying to find out what happened. Tortured logic.

  8. 14 Years Later: A Mantra for 9/11 — Tom Engelhardt — Editor,
    Reposted at Huffington Post
    Here we find an example of “soft porn propaganda”, the kind the left gatekeepers compose to mollify the legions of dingbats and slithy bantersnatchers of Mediocre Lane. Although presented as a “hard hitting squall, it’s final message is gollomps of petrified bullshit.
    A taste:
    “Fourteen years later, thanks a heap, Osama bin Laden. With a small number of supporters, $400,000-$500,000, and 19 suicidal hijackers, most of them Saudis, you pulled off a geopolitical magic trick of the first order. Think of it as wizardry from the theater of darkness. In the process, you did “change everything” or at least enough of everything to matter. Or rather, you goaded us into doing what you had neither the resources nor the ability to do. So let’s give credit where it’s due. Psychologically speaking, the 9/11 attacks represented precision targeting of a kind American leaders would only dream of in the years to follow. I have no idea how, but you clearly understood us so much better than we understood you or, for that matter, ourselves. You knew just which buttons of ours to push so that we would essentially carry out the rest of your plan for you. While you sat back and waited in Abbottabad, we followed the blueprints for your dreams and desires as if you had planned it and, in the process, made the world a significantly different (and significantly grimmer) place.
    Fourteen years later, we don’t even grasp what we did.”
    . . . . .
    Fourteen years later, and poor Engekgardt can’t even grasp he’s one of the biggest fools of all.

    1. Man, fuck the Huffington Post, from the bottom of my heart. I still have not forgotten when the editors deleted Jesse Ventura’s exclusive article encouraging everyone to check out architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. This was after Arianna Huffington head repeatedly invited Jesse to be a guest columnist. Jesse’s article was up for a few hours and then taken down because it apparently violated the editorial policy where buy the newspaper doesn’t entertain conspiracy theories.

      1. Yes Mr Syed,
        Parallel oinkage from the gatekeeping left on the web as on TV. Tom Engelhardt plays the modified limited hangout (likely out of ignorant bias). Huffington Post is calculated disinformation,

  9. I am just re-reading (for the first time in awhile) the 2011 Chandler-Legge paper which insists the plane impacted the Pentagon. This is a disinformation piece of the absolute highest order. I assume Chandler is going to put forth some of its arguments tomorrow at the Grand Lake Theater.
    Kevin Ryan shopped around trying to find a pilot to endorse this paper so he could say it passed “peer review” and be fit to publish in the Journal of 9/11 Studies; he made the mistake of choosing Shelton Lankford, who read it and said it was fit for a shredder. Ultimately Chandler and Legge were unable to find a pilot to endorse it. They just ended up publishing it at the STJ911 site.

    1. Yes indeed Mr Syed,
      You will likely recall I was in a long and arduous email with Legge as he was writng that “Refutation” paper on the Pentagon. That exchange ended very badly with my firm conviction, and accusation against Legge personally by email that he was a fraud and mole in the 9/11 community.
      His assertions during that exchange became so ludicrous that I thought he may be suffering from Alzheimer’s syndrome. I am still not convinced that he was indeed loosing his reasoning abilities at that time. He is either crazy as a shithouse rat, or a double agent.
      One correction, the Pilots site is addressing Frank Legge begging for peer review, not Kevin Ryan; although as we all know Ryan supports Legge’s scurrilous assertions as per the Pentagon.

      1. I encourage all here to read the Pilots4Truth page Adam links to above. It proves beyond the slightest doubt what lying sacks of sheeit Legge and his cohorts are. Bravo Mr Syed!!

    2. Just to debunk a very small snippet of the Chandler/Legge paper: they offer several names of witnesses who they claim are supportive of the official flight path. One such name is Deb Anhaulf. She was on the 14th floor of the Sheraton.
      Hotel’s location:,-77.0695237,18z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x48f28238e419eca9
      You can see how it’s a bit west of Ed Paik’s auto shop.
      Legge/Chandler: “Among the eyewitness testimonies we find several key witnesses who locate the plane south of the Sheraton hotel and the Navy Annex as it approached the Pentagon…”
      And then right below that:
      “1. Deb Anlauf, [26] from her room in the 14th floor of the Sheraton Hotel: “Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window,” “You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible.””
      Click on the [26] and it takes you to Hoffman’s site, which has the source for the quote… the original link is now a 404 but it is archived…
      Well first of all, there’s the fact that this is a printed quote in a paper, not the quality/strength of a first person interview. CIT’s research forum indicates that they did attempt to contact this witness for an independent interview, but the phone call was never returned.
      Then there’s the fact that the printed newspaper testimony, at minimum, is too general. She doesn’t mention anything in particular about what side of the Pike it was on. The hotel is on the north side of the pike, meaning if she had a window that was facing south toward the pike, “so close you could almost touch it” could be interpreted as supportive of the plane being over, not south of, the pike, making the crossover from south to north of the pike, and then over the Annex.
      Next, what room was she in? Was it definitely a room with a window facing south, and the pike? What if the room was on the eastern edge of the building with a room facing east, and she actually saw the plane going over the annex?
      There’s no confirmation of her exact location in the hotel.
      There is one part of her testimony that could indeed be strongly interpreted in favor of the non-official, NoC flight path. In a portion not quoted by Hoffman and Legge, she says:
      That plane had to purposefully swoop around our hotel to hit (the Pentagon).
      THAT is most definitely NOT consistent with the official, straight, SoC and South of Navy Annex approach at all, but VERY consistent with Over the Navy Annex/NoC approach.
      While Anlauf, being a 3rd hand printed witness in a paper, does not have the strength of a first person, independent interview, preferably on location and on camera, her testimony, at the least, is certainly too general to definitely support the official flight path, and at most, a portion of it would seem to support the alternative flight path.
      Here’s why this is so tedious. It took me a good half hour just to research and debunk this one witness name, including the time it took me to type this comment. This is for just one name offered up as an “official flight path witness.” And look how long my comment is. Look how many characters, words, paragraphs. People who don’t do the digging will accept Legge’s and Chandler’s disinformation at face value. Example of the logic: “Well, CIT interviewed some witnesses who contradicted the official flight path but other investigators interviewed others who confirmed the official one, so… [throwing hands up in air in confusion]… I just don’t know. The witnesses seem to be all over the place. And eyewitness testimony is the first type of testimony to get thrown out in a court of law, blah blah blah blah blah…”
      It’s truly a morass of disinfo. I look forward to being able to analyze the Chandler/Jenkins presentation that will occur later today.

      1. Adam, I discussed Anlauf with Legge extensively – the thing one must discover as I finally did, was that Anlauf was in a room directly facing the Navy Annex, which means it flew directly over her position, which would mean she certainly could not see the pike from that room. She saw the plane fly directly over the Navy Annex from her position, she is definitely a North Path Witness.
        By the time we had gotten to this point in our email exchange Legge was simply beside himself in fury. When I pointed out where Anhaulf actually was he nearly had a stroke attempting to deny it.

          1. I did discover it on my own Adam, and as you know I have been through 2 computer sense that time, and I have lost all my notes I had taken at the time. I don’t even have the emails between Legge and I as that was at least 3 email addresses for me.
            The only hope we might have is that I mentioned this on T&S around that time.

          2. No, at the time there were still views shown from the rooms on the website for the Pentagon City hotel, I found an image of the view from the 14th floor that looked out directly toward the Pentagon, and Navy Annex. There were no 14th floor rooms that looked out over both the pike AND the Pentagon.
            I went searching for that site with the room views just a moment ago, and the sites have been totally changed now.

          3. Well okay. But what about rooms that only viewed the pike? of course her testimony never mentions the pike, so that she was facing south is a major ASSumption on Legge’s part anyway.
            Reading all her words from the original article, it does sound like she was facing the Pentagon and annex because she clearly talks about the fire ball and not just merely the explosion. And the fact that her husband was on the second floor, with the Navy annex blocking his view long distance and only felt the explosion but didn’t see the fireball, and did not realize about the alleged crash until his wife told him about it. this strongly implies that she did not merely deduce the fireball that actually saw it. that would of course be inconsistent with a window view facing south.

          4. Yes Adam it was Legge’s assumption that she could see the pike from her room. That is why he was so infuriated, he had made an ASSUMPTION that is proven false by her actual testimony. She saw the plane fly over the Annex and directly toward the Pentagon. That hotel is on the North path itself, just like the Annex is. Anlauf is a North Path Witness, without the slightest doubt in my mind because of my view from one of the hotel’s 14th floor rooms looking over the Annex with the Pentagon in the distance; and her own testimony.

          5. One thing is certain Adam, if Chandler is still trying to frame Anlauf as a South of CIT witness, he is bongo bozo bogus as a copper quarter.

  10. Modern Popular History is a Myth That Prevails Against All Evidence.
    This myth is upheld with 3 false conceptualizations:
    1. Coincidence Theory
    2. Incompetence Theory
    3. Blowback Theory

  11. @ Craig McKee quote ” Wright, please explain why someone who believes the 9/11 official story, which is maintained by virtually every mainstream media entity in the Western world, would spend YEARS on a blog like this telling people their “theories” are inane, blah, blah, blah. Tell me why I should believe that you are anything but a troll. And tell me what is to be gained by me allowing you to continue regurgitating your disingenuous crap.”
    I think I’m just about the only person who posts here that disagrees with the ‘inside job’ theory that practically everyone else here buys into. Given that you think the mainstream media try to marginalise and largely ignore the 9/11 truth movement , I don’t see why you would object as you seem to do ,to someone challenging you and others here on this blog. At least I’m not ignoring you.
    -to quote from this article here “There will be no time for thinking at all. There will be no real journalism. Nothing will be challenged or challenging.”
    Your theories should be able to stand criticism and examination if they are true and if they are not in fact true, then you should have no problem at all in accepting it, since you are looking for the truth. That is the idea after all, to find the truth -that is what ‘truthers’ are supposed to be looking for. No one who is looking for the truth should be disappointed to find it. If it isn’t what they thought it was that should be of no consequence to them, since they were looking for the truth.
    I don’t suppose there is any point in pointing out what I have said before , that I’m just an ordinary person like yourself who has taken an interest in this topic , probably since before you did – when I see this ‘agent’ stuff it just amuses me, just like I’m sure it amuses you when someone accuses you of something similar for promoting this ‘plane flew over the Pentagon’ idea. I think I have rarely if ever questioned the sincerity of most of the people who post here so why there is need for accusations of being disingenuous I don’t understand.

    1. “…so why there is need for accusations of being disingenuous I don’t understand.”~A Wright
      Well, that is actually giving you the benefit of the doubt Wright. Because if you ARE genuine in the arguments you propound, that would mean you are cognitively dysfunctional.
      At least if you were an agent you would have an excuse for making the senseless arguments you do. And If or one have always given odds that it is a toss-up as to whether you are simply irrational or an agent.
      But for now, I will accept that you are just and irrational, brainwashed dupe.

    2. @A. Wright: I actually find your answer to be disingenuous. How ironic. It’s certainly slippery.
      You write: “Your theories should be able to stand criticism and examination if they are true and if they are not in fact true, then you should have no problem at all in accepting it, since you are looking for the truth.”
      But then a few days back (Sept. 6, 5:42 a.m.) you were less generous in a response to Daniel Noel: “Unfortunately like many others you think 9/11 was an inside job and so, working backwards, any inane idea that has to believed in order to preserve your belief, will be believed. Simple. Change your ‘world view’ until the implausible and inane becomes credible.”
      It doesn’t sound like you think Daniel is “looking for the truth.” But this time you chose to answer my question by going the “reasonable” route.
      Theories and evidence should indeed be able to stand up to scrutiny. That is essentially what the comment section of this blog allows readers to do, to challenge what others have to say and to present useful information and points of view. As to whether I or others accept when something is not true, that’s the slippery part. It’s all well and good to say we must accept when our theories are not true, but do YOU accept when your positions are shown to be unfounded?
      I don’t think you do. You argue that the official story is right no matter what element is being discussed. It is clear to me that it is YOU who starts with your conclusion and argues in support of it regardless of what the facts say. It’s inconvenient to have audible explosions as part of the story? Pretend they didn’t happen! Ignore the videos where loud explosions can be heard. Ignore more than 150 firefighters who described hearing explosions. Ignore what doesn’t fit.
      I do not accuse you of being an agent, although I admit I have allowed others to do so. Like you, I don’t care what people call me. But I still am no closer to understanding why an ordinary person like you would spend years on a site that challenges the official explanation of this event Because you have an interest in the subject? I don’t buy that. Of all the people I know who tell me I’m crazy for thinking 9/11 was an inside job, not one of them would spend more than a few minutes of their life arguing about it—certainly not years writing dozens and dozens of comments on a forum like this one. Why do you care? Why do you do it? Please give me a real reason.

    3. By the way “Inside Job” is not a theory it is a fact. Just considering the cover-up alone there is plenty of proof of an inside job. The CD of three towers and the obvious staged crime scene at the pentagon is a slam dunk closed case. The only reason it hasn’t been prosecuted and punished by now is that so many in control of our government are in on the crime and cover-up itself and their corrupt cronies protect them from prosecution. Simple: the fox is in charge of the hen house.

  12. Rain had come down long and hard on the night of September 10th, clouds finally clearing late at night. It had sucked up all the humidity out of the air. The sky was big, the air was crystal clear, the temperature was just right, and the city had just taken a shower, smelling like rain and ocean instead of urine, beer and garbage… For New Yorkers, it was arguably as perfect as a Tuesday could get.
    Since most of the 9/11 energy very understandably goes into the whos and whats and whys of this grand conspiracy, since most of the discussions are about the technical and forensic aspects, I thought I would attempt to bring forth the human element of the event, just for the day, in remembrance of the day the world took a sharp turn. Possibly irrevocably…
    Below video is a wonderful, intimate and street level witness to what the New Yorkers experienced that day with brief windows into their immediate reactions and chatter.
    I suspect many of you have already seen it. But it’s definitely worth seeing again.

  13. Some Dare Call It Conspiracy: Labeling Something a Conspiracy Theory Does Not Reduce Belief in It
    Michael J. Wood — Article first published online: 6 AUG 2015
    “Conspiracy theory” is widely acknowledged to be a loaded term. Politicians use it to mock and dismiss allegations against them, while philosophers and political scientists warn that it could be used as a rhetorical weapon to pathologize dissent. In two empirical studies conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk, I present an initial examination of whether this concern is justified. In Experiment 1, 150 participants judged a list of historical and speculative theories to be no less likely when they were labeled “conspiracy theories” than when they were labeled “ideas.” In Experiment 2 (N = 802), participants who read a news article about fictitious “corruption allegations” endorsed those allegations no more than participants who saw them labeled “conspiracy theories.” The lack of an effect of the conspiracy-theory label in both experiments was unexpected and may be due to a romanticized image of conspiracy theories in popular media or a dilution of the term to include mundane speculation regarding corruption and political intrigue.”
    Since the mid-1990s, a growing psychological research tradition has generated a great deal of knowledge about the antecedents and consequences of beliefs in conspiracy theories. The term “conspiracy theory” itself, however, has received little explicit attention in the psychological literature, despite considerable interest from philosophers and political scientists in its precise meaning and implications (Bratich, 2002, 2008; Coady, 2006; deHaven-Smith, 2010, 2013; Husting & Orr, 2007). Calling something a conspiracy theory (or someone a conspiracy theorist) is seen as an act of rhetorical violence, a way of dismissing reasonable suspicion as irrational paranoia. For deHaven-Smith (2013), the conspiracy-theory label comes with such negative baggage that applying it has “the effect of dismissing conspiratorial suspicions out of hand with no discussion whatsoever” (p. 84). Husting and Orr (2007) likewise argued that applying the label “discredits specific explanations for social and historical events, regardless of the quality or quantity of evidence” (p. 131). Byford (2011) has lamented what he sees as a broadening of the meaning of “conspiracy theory” in recent decades: While the term once denoted speculation about secretive cabals controlling the course of world affairs, it has come to include “broader discourses of suspicion” (p. 151), such as routine mistrust of authority and concerns about the digital panopticon.
    The intellectual stigma of conspiracy theorizing is not limited to academia. Wood and Douglas (2013) found that online commenters mostly used the term to characterize an opposing belief; commenters were strongly motivated to counterargue the label when others applied it to them, and very few (even among those who believed that the U.S. government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks) were willing to apply the term to their own views. Politicians are clearly aware of the term’s connotations: Both British Prime Minister David Cameron and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have recently deflected accusations of impropriety by branding them as conspiracy theories (Benen, 2014; Helm & Boffey, 2011). It seems to be widely assumed, then, that labeling something a conspiracy theory makes it seem less believable—perhaps through association with a stereotyped view of conspiracy theories as paranoid and unfounded (Bratich, 2008)…
    Read full article here:

  14. I find it convenient to have this document on hand when dueling with shills:
    . . . . .
    Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
    Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5
    ,Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3
    Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
    destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
    this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
    resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
    The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
    dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately
    100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation
    of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum
    are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring
    at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich
    spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these
    chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic

  15. A Wright said“Unfortunately like many others you think 9/11 was an inside job and so, working backwards, any inane idea that has to believed in order to preserve your belief, will be believed. Simple. Change your ‘world view’ until the implausible and inane becomes credible.”
    A. Wright has it ass-backwards. What he needs to understand is that many of us initially believed the official story. We became truthers when presented with evidence that contradicts the official version.

  16. Regarding the Pentagon: To me, the biggest red flag is the government’s refusal to show video of the “crash”. George Bush himself said “let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories”. Then show us the damned tapes! What better way to discredit the truth movement than proving us wrong with clear, proper footage of the impact?!!

  17. Just “celebrated” the anniversary by re-watching all three parts of Massimo Mazucco’s A New Pearl Harbor. At the same time I was trying to urge some online friends to watch by summing up each part at its conclusion. So far only one comment. “It never ceases to astound me that you continue to dredge up fresh BS about this.”
    Hybridrogue, re the typical controlled demolition explosions we discussed on another thread, while Mazucco wouldn’t satisfy Mr. Segar’s criteria exactly, he comes pretty close and echos much of what you said. First he shows how there were explosions in the buildings, the random ones I talked about but then he said how most professional video shot was shot from far away so the sound is not clear and that and the amateur video we see masks the CD bang bang band with the screams and talking at ground level. And there is, in fact he shows, some bang bang bang, well, boom boom boom, we can hear just as Building 1 begins to collapse. Whatever, the film proves it was something other than fire and gravity that brought the buildings down in what he calls “some kind of controlled demolition.”

  18. I get an regular email alert from Common Dreams to check out their new edition, which I rarely do, when an article title catches my eye, Mantra for 9/11: Exceptional Pain Dispensed by the Indispensable Nation. I think of Greg and this article and wonder how on this anniversary this premiere progressive site will handle 9/11 truth. And the article is a killer attack bitch against the government and lists like ALL the shit we’ve gotten ourselves into since and as a result of 9/11. But 9/11 itself. Yup, Bin Ladin did it. Sigh.

  19. Hold the phone. it just hit me what the 9/11 events most closely resemble: a miracle. Yes, just like in the bible when walls came tumbling down, drops of oil burned for a week, armies were slain with an ass’ jawbone, seas parted, plagues plagued and a man walked on water. All ‘dat. All this science and investigative journalism, cast it aside bros and hos. God did 9/11. How did those buildings come down? God. And who blinded the US Air Force? God. Who guided that plane into the Pentagon? That’s right. All ‘dat. God.
    Have a nice day.

  20. Being the anniversary, the floodgates have opened of shills and stooges, especially on “Social Medaia”. I ran into an old timer most are familiar with if they have been around the block a few times, the infamous Agent Smith (first name redacted for security reasons). He was haunting 9/11 Youtubes – I think he has been banned from almost all regular 9/11 blogs.
    . . . . . . . .
    14th Anniversary Shill Biz
    “Your Sacred Tower 7 wasn’t targeted in the 9/11/2001 al Qaeda suicide attacks”~Agent Smith
    By the same token neither were the other two towers, the Pentagon, nor Flt 93, Anyone who knows the real history of the era from Reagan forward knows that al Qaeda was a creation of Western Intelligence, a “cut out”, a subsidiary used for certain purposes when the US didn’t want it’s participation revealed. Therefore; al Qaeda used as a patsy in the PSYOP of 9/11 is a perfectly logical application in the Machiavellian machinations of Western Intelligence. Also, anyone who knows who Philip Zelikow is, realizes he is a champion of “the Public Myth’, and that as the author of the 9/11 Commission Report, that is exactly what was produced, a public myth, a mythological tale to bind the public to a single persuasive false paradigm.
    But these are things that those who grasp the nature of modern political power understand, not the average brainwashed dolt who buys into any bullshit story authority hands them.
    And Agent Smith … yes, you are part of the Public Relations Regime, and your job is to reinforce such bullshit stories as the official narrative of 9/11. You are a stooge, a shill, and an accessory after the fact, for mass murder, obstruction of justice, and the war crimes that led from the initial events.

    1. Agent Smith would be none other than Assberry Smith. As soon as Israel gets mention Anti semitic shit flows like lava from him. He uses the same old government regurgitated crap and the “Al Qaeda hero” bullshit. He absolutely hates the fact that Iraq was attacked to protect Israel per Philip Zelikow. It doesn’t jive with his fable.

  21. Mr Syed,
    I agree, the article you offer above, is rather fair and balanced, and gives a remarkable amount of actual information compared with most pieces of this nature.
    I was interested in this very short part;
    “Political scientist Michael Barkun, an expert on conspiracy theories, has explained their appeal as both endlessly fascinating and strangely comforting.
    “[C]onspiracy theories claim to explain what others can’t,” he said in an interview with New Internationalist 11 years ago. “They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents.”
    . . . . . .
    So I followed the link to:
    I thought Barkun’s statement curious that: “[C]onspiracy theories claim to explain what others can’t,”
    I was wondering what “other theories” Barkun meant in this quote. Do these “other theories” NOT “appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing”?
    Do these “other theories” NOT “do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness”?
    I would say that the theory of “The War on Terrorism” certainly does “make sense of the world… in an appealingly simple way”. And I would add that it is a deceitfully simple way, and certainly divides “the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.”
    And does not the War on Terrorism Theory NOT, “trace all evil back to a single source, the terrorists and their sponsors”?
    I would urge anyone who wants to find out whether Michael Barkun is actually “an expert on conspiracy theories”, who can clarify the questions I posit above, to read the entire interview by Chip Berlet at the link I give above.

  22. From Chip Berlet’s interview with Michael Barkun in New Internationalist:
    New Internationalist: What is the appeal of conspiracism to people trying to understand how power is abused? How can someone tell the difference between conspiracism and rational criticism of the status quo?
    Barkun: “The appeal of conspiracism is threefold. First, conspiracy theories claim to explain what others can’t. They appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Finally, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters’ deceptions.”
    As I have already commented on the first propositions that Barkun offers in this paragraph, let us delve into his sentence beginning with “Finally”:
    Continuing, he says, “conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others.”
    This is generally not actually the case. Most of the arguments I make are from readily available public sources, those sources hardly attempt to keep their knowledge “secret..or..”unknown”. Of course this knowledge certainly can be said to be “unappreciated by others”. Like Barkun himself who has misrepresented that “knowledge” as in someway esoteric, when it is in fact in the public arena.
    He continues with: “For conspiracists, the masses are a brainwashed herd.” Yes, this is certainly true, and I think that this theory that the masses are a brainwashed herd, is a well made and well established argument by those who study media. It is especially telling that the propagandists themselves have made no secret as to the techniques they have used to brainwash the masses into a confused and baffled herd; Bernays was very clear in his work, PROPAGANDA, in-which he writes the following:
    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
    Now it may be argued that this is in a sense esoteric and hidden knowledge, as Bernays is barely known to the baffled herd, because he is rarely if ever mentioned in mainstream media dialog, despite the enormous influence he has had on society in the development of the PR machine that IS the mainstream media.
    I suspect that Barkun is hardly ignorant of the works and of Bernays and the influence it has had in engineering modern society. Which brings us to the focal point of all of this, that Barkun is in fact himself, like Bernays, a propagandist who’s intent is to further baffle the confused herd.

  23. Interestingly, just after I read your post, Willy, I thought how you, Willy, having what sound like facts, and more importantly perhaps, a forceful writing style, make me want to believe you no matter what you expressing. You do have a commanding writing voice. Are you as tough when you simply converse?

    1. “I thought how you, Willy, having what sound like facts…”~Jimbo
      This is a curious construction Jimbo; “having what sound like facts”?
      You do realize that the term “Propaganda” in it’s initial and classic meaning is neutral, it merely means to propagate a point of view. In that sense, each of us here are “propagandists” as we attempt to make the strongest arguments we can to persuade others to see our points as valid.
      You add; “more importantly perhaps, a forceful writing style, make[s] me want to believe you no matter what you expressing.”
      This is an attempt to frame what might normally be a compliment into an accusation. Is it not my dear Jimbo? grin
      You ask; “Are you as tough when you simply converse?” I do not go in for trifling chit chat, and rarely have the patience for such in other than a few words at the counter with clerks as a matter of being personable and friendly. I have had no problem in dismissing “friends” who are incapable of rational discourse when it comes to matters of import. Unlike the fellow in the interview Adam offered a few steps up, I do not “tear up” and plead “loneliness” as a “truther” who cannot get my message across to ‘friends’. I am content with a large degree of solitude.
      As an artist I always sought out situations where I had the time and solitude to concentrate on my work. I do not appreciate an overabundance of meaningless chatter. I enjoy and need the time to have long and uninterrupted thoughts.
      So to answer your question more briefly, ‘Yes’, I am likely to be as tough when I “simply converse”.

  24. “This is an attempt to frame what might normally be a compliment into an accusation. Is it not my dear Jimbo?”
    No, it is an observation which you may take as a compliment. I salute your style.
    When talking about my proxy nemesis, “Mr. Segar,” I noticed that you noted he is wrong but does have a certain writing flair. Maybe you noticed a kinship, a similarity in styles. He comes off as tough but knowledgeable as well. His Democratic Underground opponent wildbilln, whom I relate to, comes off weaker, even wusssier in comparison. Segar sounds surer (manlier?) arguing his side of the 9/11 narrative. Wildbiilln mainly whines that they’re not really watching the 9/11 videos he posts. I am easily swayed. (I find myself agreeing with Donald Trump, god help me.) One look at the “Where’s the Plane” video 13, 14 years ago I knew something was wrong. A little later I was taken in by the hologram and space ray narratives as well. And now I am on the NOC team. Oddly, I am immune to the MSM, Rachel Madow progressive anti-truther propaganda. (We are lucky Glenn Beck and Limbaugh never came over to the truther side but we do have Alex Jones.)
    Why has 9/11 got such a grip on me? Why am I moved to learn more about 9/11 than a market bombing in Iraq? What give 9/11 its weight? And then, quoting 3 Dog Night, how can people be so heartless and not give a shit about it? Am I under some spell? Am I a dupe, a conspiracy theorist?
    I appreciate Craig indulging me, letting me examine my motives for hanging on to this obsession. No one in my real life wants to talk about 9/11 and I could talk about it for days.
    You know the A&E line about did you know a third building fell that day, have you ever tried that line on a newbie or a skeptic?
    It’s very late here and I’ll stop this. G’night.

    1. You know the A&E line about did you know a third building fell that day, have you ever tried that line on a newbie or a skeptic?”~Jimbo
      Yes, and I have found that many never heard of the destruction of Building #7. More so in real world conversation, but some on the web as well.

  25. Listening to podcast of Ground Zero Media “IV YEARS OF THE 911 LIE” from Sept 11 this is no soft soap job. There are some revelations the host brings up I’d never heard like a cop radio recording of NYC cops who’d stopped a van that day with a mural of a plane crashing into the NYC skyline. The two passengers had fled but were caught and there were explosives that may have gone off during the stop. It is a little confusing as to the details but the mural is mentioned a couple of times in the recording. The host stresses that there were things from the day but were never mentioned again for that would ruin the narrative we’ve all come to love or hate. He also breaks down the PNAC document and show how so much of what they wrote in their manifesto came to pass. An inspiring and brave show.

  26. I listened to the video of the Friday, September 11th, 2015 Broadcast last night. I have mixed feelings about the presentations. I felt the first speaker gave a cogent and prescient presentation, and I give him high marks. As far as the remainder of the talks, I found them scattered and hard to follow, especially the one by the guy promoting “9/11 REALITY”, I found his presentation jittery and chattering and incoherent. I think all of the speakers have important information, but I don’t think they necessarily have good presentation skills.
    The Presentation of September 12th comes off much more coherent and professional. Of course James Corbett has a particularly professional demeanor, poise, and articulate manner of speech. His talk was as clear and well presented as the rest of his work has become.
    I know that Kevin Ryan isn’t well received in there here parts…grin, but he does have a good presentation style, and does give a coherent presentation.
    I am still in the middle of Ryan’s presentation, so I still have some to hear before my final opinions can be formed.

    1. I would have liked to have asked Elizabeth Woodworth of the ‘Consensus Panel’; why she will not respond to questions about the panel’s refusal to discuss the Pentagon event. The panel seems to be stacked with anti-CIT — North of Citgo path of the airliner as witnessed by those best situated to identify the approach of the aircraft. The blog that I attend on the 9/11 issue is Truth & Shadows. We have attempted to dialog with Ms Woodworth, as she will drop into the blog from time to time. However she has never taken the opportunity to answer the question on the Pentagon controversy.
      The information from CIT, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth is conclusive and beyond reasonable doubt that an aircraft did NOT impact the Pentagon.
      Perhaps Elizabeth, or someone else from the Consensus Panel will read this, and just perhaps they will finally address our concerns.
      Willy Whitten aka HybridRogue
      Posted on the YouTube channel’s version of, RethinkSeptember11 Saturday Sept 12th Global Broadcast

    2. Well, it is my opinion that James Corbett and Kevin Ryan and the first speaker on the first conference gave the best presentations on the “RethinkSeptember 11” global conference.
      Elizabeth Woodworth gave a good presentation as well, although I disagree with “consensus” for fundamental reasons; she was nevertheless articulate and well spoken.
      I am personally sorry to give our friend Barrie Zwicker low marks on his presentation, it was certainly not one of his best.

  27. It is a shame that during the Elizabeth Woodworth segment, no one called in a question about the Pentagon issue. It would have been a great opportunity to finally get some sort of answer from her.

  28. Clint Eranovic, has made a comment lacking in substance about the lack of air defense on 9/11 on the YouTube version of RethinkSeptember 11 Saturday.
    He has a Google page, where this can be read as his short profile:
    Clint Eranovic
    Worked at dunkin doughnuts
    Attended The Chinese Circus school
    Lives in Budapest
    _____________________Now isn’t this a strange coincidence? Mr Wright’s profile also says he worked at Dunkin Donuts. Seems like a small world for 9/11 stooges…don’t it?

      1. Either Clint and Wright are one of the same, or Dunkin Donuts is as ridiculous a secret code as Hillary’s stupid “gefilte fish”.
        Usage example:

        Tell those Dunkin Donuts execs to make sure the gefilte fish gets taken care of before the shish kebab is delivered, wink wink…

        1. It is hard to say Lilaleo! This counterespionage game gets wiggly as soon as you glance beneath the surface. On a Youtube thread, I have some anonymous fruitcake telling me he is a retired structural engineer and air-force pilot. Yet his so called “physics and math” is utter nonsense.
          An example of his junk:
          +Curtis Smale You don’t understand the WTC structure; Willy has nothing that is true, thus there is nothing to source; the video is total nonsense.
          A floor only holds up 29,000,000 pounds max; that is equal to 11 to 12 floors in mass. Thus the top failing will make the lower floor fail because the lower floor can’t hold the mass.
          Remember, the core and shell hold up the floors, the floors only hold up themselves. This is why the WTC collapsed when the top floors failed in the biggest office fires..
          Yup, that is “science” for ya…Lol

    1. Yes Fremo, As you found: BB18 – POWR Busbar Series are electrical fuse bars, not fuses for explosives as one might imagine at first glance. However such fuses and these arrays may indeed have been used for the electrical ignition of nanothermates for the sequencing of the detonations.

  29. This is a relatively balanced article that gives a fair amount of the dissenting views on 9/11:
    The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute
    Thursday, September 17, 2009
    If the scientific fight over the World Trade Center was not so hugely important, it might be viewed as simply ridiculous that core elements of an event could be so severely disputed by people equally pledged to the scientific method. But with the stakes so immense, the vastness of the gap is far from ridiculous and is, in fact, of such magnitude that it is almost certainly going to take wide public understanding of the elements of the dispute to force re-examination of the evidence in a manner that would win the trust of both the public and the experts.
    For the record, here is a summary of just some of the technical areas in dispute and what the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and its building trade and science allies on one side and its equally credentialed science, professional and licensed critics (building and structural engineers, architects, physicists, chemists) on the other side, put forward as their cases. It was compiled from NIST’s official report and from analysis that included papers and reports by independent professionals or members of groups representing each side of the argument, as well as from some other independent technical experts who have not taken sides.
    The dispute takes place in a context that no other high-rise steel buildings ever collapsed in such a manner without the use of explosives. NIST alleges that in this special-circumstances case the buildings, like the “unsinkable” Titanic, did just that. NIST’s independent critics believe that what is “titanic” here are NIST’s scientific mistakes, evasions and willful refusal to examine all evidence.
    “As the NIST report itself concedes, “It [the report] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.” The critics insist that such an admission itself invalidates the report.
    NIST counters that, to the contrary, once the collapse started, the fact that the lower floors gave way is proof enough that the initiating events were sufficient to cause them to give way. As spokesman Newman said: “In the towers we believe we understand the physics of what happened and it’s a fairly simple conclusion after that. There was no need to build computer models after that as the results were already explained.”
    One member of AE911Truth counters, “That is science by imperial fiat, reminiscent of the Catholic Church in the time of Galileo.”

  30. Its the ‘fairly simple conclusion’ as classic example of language ‘misdirection by media’ we can watch happen every day, Written into ‘common thought’. Projecting an earth shattering scientific event (demolition of such scale/complexity) around a ‘fairly simple conclusion.’ Like the commission not following 911 finance money trail because it was ‘ultimately of little practical significance.’
    And Zelikow not putting Able Dangers finding ATTA in the Brooklyn cell a year earlier in the OCT narrative because “it was not historically relevant’ . Not historically relevant. Pure Historic forensic fact not historically relevant !! odium. A total abrogation of responsibility. Soaked thru limp media hackery and sprinkled over the splintered bones of 911.
    Galileo’s speed of decent becomes 911’s speed of deceit.’

  31. Tequila, Painted Pearls, and Prada: How the CIA Helped Produce ‘Zero Dark Thirty’
    On April 21, 2011, Mark Boal called the CIA to tell them he was going to Afghanistan.
    The previous year, the screenwriter had been at a dinner when CIA director Leon Panetta asked Boal to alert the agency if he ever traveled to the country. At the time, Boal was working on a movie called Tora Bora, about the CIA’s failure to capture Osama bin Laden in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The title referred to the region in eastern Afghanistan where the US felt it had let bin Laden slip through its fingers during a battle in December 2001.
    But less than two weeks after Boal made the call, a team of Navy SEALs raided the al Qaeda leader’s compound in Pakistan and killed him. Boal would not be going to Afghanistan after all.
    Instead, he stopped writing the script for Tora Bora and began writing a different screenplay about what one lawmaker called “the most classified mission in history” — the killing of bin Laden. That movie, which Boal would work on with director Kathryn Bigelow, would become the 2012 Oscar-winning film Zero Dark Thirty. And the CIA would play a huge role in the creation of the script.
    * * *
    The previously undisclosed detail about Boal’s phone call to the CIA was included in more than 100 pages of internal CIA documents obtained exclusively by VICE News in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The documents contain the most detailed information to date about the controversial role the CIA played in the production of Zero Dark Thirty (ZDT).
    Included in the trove of redacted agency records is a March 2014 CIA Office of Inspector General report titled “Alleged Disclosure of Classified Information by Former D/CIA” — D/CIA refers to the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta — and a separate September 2013 report from the inspector general’s office titled “Potential Ethics Violations Involving Film Producers.”
    The ethics report contains remarkable details about how Bigelow and Boal gave CIA officers gifts and bought them meals at hotels and restaurants in Los Angeles and Washington, DC — much of which initially went unreported by the CIA officers — how they won unprecedented access to secret details about the bin Laden operation, and how they got agency officers and officials to review and critique the ZDT script.
    And of course anyone who knows the actual history of this affair, this is a fable made of whole-cloth. bin Laden was not killed in the raid by the Seals, he died back in December of 2001 of renal failure. This is another Zelikovesque, “Public Myth”.

      1. Lilaleo,
        Of course, this is why nowhere is the VICE article is mentioned the fact that the whole bin Laden thing with the Seals was a media burlesque.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *