President Bush makes remarks on the transition, Thursday, Nov. 6, 2008, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, as Vice President Dick Cheney looks on. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
October 2, 2017
On ruining America and the world: new book marks a return to 9/11 for Truth Movement’s most prolific author
By Craig McKee
It would have taken a miracle. A bunch of them, actually.
For the official story of 9/11 to be true, numerous physically impossible things would have to have taken place that day. This is the case made by prolific 9/11 researcher David Ray Griffin in his latest book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. It is the 12th Griffin-penned volume that takes on the official government claims of what happened—and did not happen—on 9/11. It also marks his return to the subject for the first time since 2011’s 9/11 Ten Years Later: How State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed.
While the first part of Bush and Cheney focuses on the broader issues suggested by the title (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the proliferation of Islamophobia, the shredding of the U.S. Constitution, and the advent of drone warfare) the second part is devoted to Griffin’s detailed research into evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11.
Griffin ties what happened on 9/11 to actions, or non-actions, by the “Bush-Cheney administration,” although he gives the former vice-president greater weight than he does the former president. Nevertheless, Griffin is clearly stating that the decisions made by this administration on 9/11—and in the years that followed—have had devastating consequences for the world.
In this article (which was written for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth), I’ll restrict myself to examining two chapters that deal directly with the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers. The chapters are entitled “The Miraculous Destruction of the Twin Towers” and “The Miraculous Destruction of Building 7.” Other 9/11-related chapters include “Why Bush and Cheney Should Not Be Trusted on 9/11,” “The Miraculous Transformation of Mohamed Atta,” and “The Miraculous Attack on the Pentagon.” (The latter will likely be the subject of a future article, as I have issues with Griffin’s treatment of the Pentagon in the book. And, no, his position that no 757 ever hit the building has not changed.)
In the course of these two chapters on the WTC, Griffin dismantles the official claims piece by piece until nothing of substance remains. Much of the ground he covers will be familiar to long-time 9/11 truth activists, although his overview of the science will still be helpful to any reader seeking ways to educate the uninitiated.
After going through the impossibilities of the official scenario, Griffin finishes each chapter with a list of “miracles” that would have to have taken place for the events to have unfolded as claimed by the official story. It is the methodical and detailed nature of Griffin’s 9/11 research and presentation that makes the book—in fact, all of his 9/11 books—so credible and so persuasive.
The Twin Tower ‘miracles’
Griffin sets the stage with this statement: “Given the fact that a steel-framed high-rise building has never come down without the use of explosives, those who claim this happened on 9/11 should provide some evidence that such an event would even be possible. There could be no historical evidence, of course, because such a collapse would be unprecedented” (p. 249).
In addition to demonstrating how federal authorities tasked with investigating the WTC destruction—the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the 9/11 Commission—were not the “neutral” or “independent” voices they purported to be, Griffin examines the “miracle of free fall,” focusing on how the following statement from the 2005 NIST report contradicts the laws of physics:
“Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos (p. 252).
Griffin dismisses this claim by quoting structural engineer William Rice, who said that NIST’s account violates Newton’s law of the conservation of momentum, which dictates that the descent of the top sections would have slowed as resistance from each new floor was encountered.
Then Griffin points to the “additionally miraculous behavior” of the South Tower’s top section, which started to tip over as it began its descent. What didn’t happen, but should have happened, is explained in this quote from the book:
“As videos of the beginning of this building’s collapse show, this block began tipping toward the corner that had been most damaged by the airplane’s impact. According to the law of the conservation of angular momentum, this section should have fallen to the ground far outside the building’s footprint” (p. 253).
Not only did the top section not land outside the building’s footprint, it never landed at all. Rather, videos show it was blown apart in midair, surely a miracle if explosives were not involved.
Griffin finds a significant and shocking quote from 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton, who told the CBC’s Evan Solomon in 2006 that “the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse.”
How many times have we heard apologists for the official story tell us that it wasn’t necessary for the steel to melt, it just had to weaken? But, according to Hamilton, a man who should know, a fire ignited by jet fuel and fed by burning office furnishings was sufficiently hot to melt steel and bring the towers down in 56 minutes (South Tower) and one hour and 42 minutes (North Tower), respectively.
Griffin then chronicles the issue of explosions witnessed by first responders, journalists, and others prior to either of the Twin Towers coming down. While numerous reports on September 11 pointed explicitly to explosions having taken place in both towers, these reports soon disappeared from media coverage. Griffin writes:
“By that day [September 12], however, there were no more TV reports about explosions, and by the next day, September 13, there were no more such newspaper stories. Thanks to this cooperation by the media, the 9/11 Commission and NIST could ignore the reports of explosions and any talk about planned explosions” (p. 258).
Griffin looks at another Hamilton statement about the possibility that explosives were used to destroy the towers: “We of course looked at that very carefully—we found no evidence of that.” This is contradicted by NIST’s Shyam Sunder, who said that no effort was ever made to test for the presence of explosive residues in the WTC dust.
The chapter also addresses the horizontal ejections from the towers, the time it took for the towers to come down, and the presence of molten metal under the towers for months after the event. Griffin sums up his case by listing six “miracles” that would have to have occurred. Griffin writes:
- The Twin Towers, with their 287 steel columns, were brought down solely by a combination of airplane strikes, jet-fuel fires, and gravity—and hence without explosives or incendiaries.
- Besides being the first steel-framed buildings to come down without the aid of explosives or incendiaries, the Twin Towers came down in virtual free fall.
- The upper 30-floor block of the South Tower changed its angular momentum in mid-air.
- This 30-floor block then disintegrated.
- Steel columns from the North Tower were ejected out horizontally for at least 500 feet.
- The fire in the debris from the Twin Towers could not be extinguished for many months.
The chapter concludes with this powerful statement:
“Given how disastrous the official account has been for America and the world in general, perhaps some newspapers or TV networks will have the courage to point out that the Bush-Cheney account of 9/11, like the Bush-Cheney argument for attacking Iraq, was a lie.”
The Building 7 ‘miracles’
As Griffin argues in the second of the two chapters, Building 7 offers a particular set of problems for the 9/11 official story. The central issue is that there is no scientifically defensible explanation for how the building came down. This, he notes, might help explain how it took NIST until 2008 to come out with its final report on the subject.
As with the numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the Twin Towers, the destruction of Building 7 quickly disappeared from media coverage. It is clear, Griffin asserts, that Bush and Cheney did not want this subject to get any public attention for one simple reason: While the Twin Towers’ destruction could be pinned on the two plane impacts, there was nothing that could be used to even attempt to explain how this 47-story skyscraper was completely destroyed in 6.5 seconds.
In fact, the chapter begins by reminding us of the extraordinary fact that Building 7 is not even mentioned in the body of the 571-page 9/11 Commission Report. This fact was also probed by the CBC’s Solomon in the Hamilton interview mentioned above. At first Hamilton said that Building 7 was included, but, when challenged, he conceded that it may not have been, although he claimed it had at least been “reviewed” by the commission.
Griffin reiterates in this chapter that no high-rise building has ever come down without the aid of explosives or incendiaries. This he calls the “basic miracle,” and he goes on to chronicle several official attempts to make the miracle “not seem totally outrageous.” These include NIST’s final report on Building 7 and the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts. A link to the PM book (or just to the PM article that preceded the book) is very often relied upon by those who push the official story; they slap the link down on social media whether they’ve actually read the book or not. Griffin refuted the PM arguments in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking.
Griffin actually shows that NIST’s final report contradicts the two main pillars of PM’s attempt to explain Building 7’s destruction. One was the supposed damage done to the building by falling debris from the South Tower, and the other was the allegation that fires were fed by fuel tanks in the basement and on some of the floors. (See page 265.) As he points out, NIST itself stated that the falling debris had little effect on what happened to WTC 7, besides igniting the fires, and fuel oil fires had no effect at all. Griffin writes:
“The official account implies, therefore, that a very asymmetrical pattern of fires produced an entirely symmetrical collapse. If that would not be a genuine miracle, what would be?” (p. 266).
Things get even more interesting when the subject of melted iron is raised. Griffin tells the intriguing story of Deutsche Bank having its insurance claim turned down on the grounds that the damage to their building did not result from the destruction of Building 7. In response, Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group, which determined that an enormous quantity of iron microspheres had been found in the dust collected inside the bank building.
“Whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted (a whopping) 5.87 percent of the WTC dust. The existence of these particles, the RJ Lee Group said, proved that iron had “melted during the WTC Event” (p. 270).
Meanwhile, NIST reported that only three perimeter columns ever reached temperatures of 250˚C [482˚F]. Also, Griffin cites data from a study by the US Geological Survey, which found that molybdenum, the melting point of which is 4,753°F (2,623°C), had also melted.
Griffin goes on to explain that exceptionally high temperatures in Building 7 were further confirmed by three professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, who reported that a structural member from Building 7 showed evidence of “evaporated” steel. Griffin notes how such evidence is totally incompatible with the official story:
“So if one accepts the official account, according to which all the heat was produced by fires fueled only by building materials, then one must believe that these fires had miraculous powers” (p. 272).
Griffin ends his Building 7 chapter by recapping six more “miracles” necessary for the official account of the World Trade Center destruction to be true (p. 275). Griffin writes:
- WTC 7 was destroyed without the use of explosives or incendiaries;
- The collapse of WTC 7 perfectly imitated the kind of implosion that can ordinarily be caused only by a world-class demolition company;
- The building came down in free-fall for over two seconds, which by physical principles could happen only if explosives and/or incendiaries had simultaneously removed all 82 steel support columns;
- The WTC 7 fires melted steel, iron, and even molybdenum, all of which have melting points far higher than ordinary building fires can reach;
- Swiss-cheese-appearing steel from WTC 7 cannot be explained as resulting from an ordinary building fire, unless it had supernatural assistance;
- This Swiss-cheese-appearing steel had been sulfidized—a process that could not have been produced by ordinary building fires.
In just these two chapters, Griffin makes a compelling case that is scientific but also accessible to most readers who want to better understand what happened. While I question his use of terms like “the 9/11 attacks” on the grounds that it can have the effect of reinforcing the language of the official story (I would argue that most people assume an “attack” is coming from an external enemy), that drawback is minor compared to the overall strength of Griffin’s presentation.
His work is simply the best all-around resource for those wanting to understand why the evidence does not support the official story of 9/11. His books are rational and meticulous, and the information in them solid, well-sourced, and insightful. Most importantly, he makes the best evidence accessible to a wider audience than it would otherwise reach. And that’s something the 9/11 Truth Movement badly needs.
They are dark times if not we have collapsed the lie of 9/11.
It’s convincing the world that we have to do. We know what the lies are.
Just to be clear, any discussion that takes place on this post will focus on Griffin’s case that the official story would have required “miracles” to be true. In other words, it will be about how the official story cannot be true. It will not be excuse for another battle over which type of explosive was used to bring the three towers down. That means no DEW, no nukes, no explosive paint. I will delete comments that defy this directive. Thank you.
I did see the plans to bring down the buildings ..The explosive that was used is called SimTex and it is a plastic explosive ..the same explosive was used in the shoes of shoe bomber Richard Reed from London …also in 2004(i think not sure of date ) Gretta Van Sustern reported on news that a shipment of Sim Tex about 400 units or pounds was found on a barge in the Gulf of Arabia (?) i think cant remember but it was in waters near the “axis of evil” ..Nothing more was said about this intercept after this particular report on national news . I met Richard Reed personally by some fate and when i asked him “not to do the shoe thing ” he told me not to try to stop him or i would be killed ..He is still alive in prison and could probably testify as a witness to this same terror war game that i saw myself ..Please inform him if he does not already know ,,that he was set up as a mule by CIA ..to carry out the deed ..however the shoes failed to explode so he was aprehended …
Nice work, Craig!
Thank you, Elizabeth.
This is a good article, Mr. McKee. It is very well stated, to the point and easy to understand.
But, if I may, …it’s redundant.
There are almost 8 billion people on this planet. At least 3 billion (probably 4-5) people already know the official story is complete bullshit. The truth is 90% discerned on account of all the amazing work of everyone from scientists to flight attendants to curious teenagers digging into things, not simply accepting what we’re told. Everything that has happened since basically confirms it.
The truth is out. And it is so obvious, I posit that anyone who doesn’t already get it isn’t going to, either via their stupidity or reluctance to accept it. Forget about them. They are a lost cause, part of the problem, a waste of time. …at this juncture anyway.
I say it’s time to start consolidating organizations and taking action, whatever that may be.
As I have mentioned, I am seeing integral elements to this whole thing that virtually no one is seeing, that includes 9/11 but spans a much broader scope. What this tells me is that it is much more crucial than even the awake realize. We cannot afford to not step it up and take drastic actions where necessary.
If the brilliant of the movement were to invest the same eagerly effort into assisting me in proving my claims to the world, it will make a difference. If there are billions of people who can apply independent critical reasoning to what we already know, then I suspect there will be enough to see it, therefore enough of a mass revelation to kick things into gear and change things.
They put my name on it, among other things. That makes it my business and responsibility, as much or more so than any truther out there, and equal to that of the families of the dead.
Three- to five-billion know the official story is false? Wow, we’re doing much better than I thought.
No, I’m afraid you are overstating things greatly. A portion of the population knows the truth, but not enough. I’m all for taking action but I’m also for raising awareness and we have much to do on both fronts. Instead of accusing me, or Griffin, of being “redundant,” why don’t you figure out what action can be taken and take a leadership role? But it seems you are more comfortable talking in generalities and telling me that I’m ignorant and controlling because I dare to want a given discussion to have a degree of focus. I offered you a chance to inform me of your “claims to the world” by email and you declined. So, tell us what actions you propose?
“Three- to five-billion know the official story is false? Wow, we’re doing much better than I thought. No, I’m afraid you are overstating things greatly. A portion of the population knows the truth, but not enough.”
3 billion easy. Don’t think the rest of the world aren’t paying attention. They know it’s nonsense. A lot of them are on the receiving end of it too, so you know they’re paying attention and/or know the difference. 30-70% of Americans don’t believe it to one degree or another. And foreigners don’t have the same issues with cognitive dissonance as patriotic Americans do.
Oh yeah, they see it.
“I’m all for taking action but I’m also for raising awareness and we have much to do on both fronts.”
Not that it is bad to keep pushing the message, but raising awareness is close to maxed out.
“Instead of accusing me, or Griffin, of being “redundant,” why don’t you figure out what action can be taken and take a leadership role? But it seems you are more comfortable talking in generalities and telling me that I’m ignorant and controlling because I dare to want a given discussion to have a degree of focus. I offered you a chance to inform me of your “claims to the world” by email and you declined. So, tell us what actions you propose?”
I have no issue with Griffin. And add dense and stubborn to that list. I have already explained more than once what I am dealing with here. IT AIN’T GONNA FIT IN AN EMAIL OR EVEN A SERIES OF THEM.
And it isn’t going to be realized unless you can think in terms entirely different than you’re used to. I tried introducing questions like how many patterned coincidences before something is no longer reasonably considered a coincidence or introducing the notion of causality in reverse or the complexities of reasoning a paradox and applicable qualifiers, etc…but we see where that went.
And it has consequences that need to seriously be considered. Need I remind you that you are the one that mentioned being careful with truth? People have died over things like this.
Ignorant? Yes, absolutely. Most are. There are elements to reality that virtually everyone is missing. Once you see it, it explains a few things, …things like the anomalies of 93 or why this or that person was assassinated, or why this or that blew up. 9/11/01 is only part of it.
Spread the message far and wide, organize with foreign governments and peoples and experts of this or that kind and pist off Americans and whoever wants to join in. Make the case and have the modern equivalent of the Nuremberg trials. Make a long list of people and round them up and hang them from lamp posts like Mussolini.
…and you will still have missed the core truth to it, and therefore it will continue unabated.
Great article. The sad thing is I’ve seen people dismiss Griffin, claiming he`s not qualified due to being a theologian. Yet these same people think their views are correct, even though they have no credentials of their own.
I look forward to your Pentagon article. I’m curious to see where you and Griffin differ.
You don’t need to be a chef to make a great hamburger. Delegitimizing the source as a response to the position is called a straw-man.
Whatever their credentials, the lead organizers and intellectuals of the movement nailed it. There is no question. One side explained it, the other didn’t. Billions see it.
Now what?
Yup, the credentials are only an issue when they disagree with what is being said.
Christopher Bollyn comes to mind. Whether or not he is a racist or a saint or whatever, he still connected a lot of dots. Watch the media smear him at about the 27 minute mark. That they needed to respond is somewhat telling, or at least suggestive.
https://youtu.be/pLWIV0TTcbI?t=1603
I don’t think that is what a straw man is. A straw man is when you set up a false argument and then attack that.
It’s either, …or anything other than addressing the position itself.
To clarify; technically it is called an ad hominem, which is attacking the source, which is one form of a straw-man argument.
The basic idea is that anything that is posited is the intended focus. Attacking the source is the same difference as responding to an argument that was not made.
I say 2+2=4. You argue that I’m not a mathematician. The premise/position is not my credibility but rather the equation. Thus attacking my credibility is a straw-man/ad hominem.
Griffin’s body of work speaks for itself. It is most valuable because takes all the evidence and examines it carefully, comparing it with other accounts. It is so well documented that it can be relied upon by researchers trying to spread the word.
It takes all of the CURRENTLY KNOWN evidence and examines it carefully, comparing it with others.
How’d they do it? How did they rig the buildings? That seems to be the one that stumps everyone.
When did they do it?
The explosives were traced to a laboratory in California to a batch produced in the late 1990’s. 1996-98 if I am not mistaken.
You can look at the footage of the buildings going down combined with the blueprints to map out the cut points..
By any ordinary standard with full access without the problem of secrecy, rigging a building to collapse takes a lot of effort and preparation. It’s a lot of work, takes time. It could take a year or so to take down an average hotel or parking garage. To rig the WTC, buildings of that size takes a more time, even with minimal requirements or parameters.
That doesn’t leave much of a window of opportunity. It is arguably nominal, if adequate. Compare that with records and footage of the interior. Therein lies a complication, a discrepancy.
I have done a lot of construction and remodeling, to include finish work in large office buildings and high-rises. That is a lot of finish work. A big project in and of itself. And it’s a rather odd notion that that many occupants would need that much work done in all of those particular areas in that particular time frame.
I posit that the time it takes to manage a demolition combined with the time it takes to do that much work, with the complications of a secret plot, doesn’t fit, nor does any standard of normalcy for typical demand of that kind of work.
To access an iron support beam behind cabinets and drywall and panels and what have you, then put it back as a finished product, entails a process, ..multiplied by that many cut points, and consider all the scheduling and moving and/or storing of materials, etc etc.., and in addition to rigging incendiaries and explosives, wiring, drilling holes and making cuts etc etc.
It doesn’t fit.
Either the explosives were from a batch of an earlier date, or they were moved to one.
Has Mr. Griffin seen this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALq3ewgaKE0
Who are you asking? And why?
It is an open question. The supposed deathbed confession is interesting as it answers some of the the ‘miracle’ question.
Government-god says terrorist in caves did it. Truthers (like Griffin) say “‘That doesn’t make sense because of XYZ. …Looks more like it was rigged with explosives.”
CIA operative says ‘I did it. This is how’
Anything that fits into the “too good to be true” category should be examined very carefully. In this case, how did this writer get this statement? When and where was it made? When an article doesn’t answer those questions then I get suspicious.
I agree, hence the use of the word “supposed”.
I think it is worth looking into though. I cannot say for sure, but I think there’s a recording somewhere. I didn’t take the time to go digging for it.
It is nonetheless interesting and pertinent.
It is only interesting and pertinent if it’s true.
It would be more convincing if we heard the confession straight from Malcolm Howard himself.
We don’t even know if this person is real, let alone a CIA operative.
It might be complete nonsense, hearsay or obfuscation to confuse the truth movement. It is nonetheless interesting considering it corroborates the demolition ‘theory'(facts), and may be worth checking into.
If it has any merit to it, there will more than likely be at least something to support the claim.
Honestly though, my guess is that the CIA and their associates would say or do anything, ruin whoever they need to, even destroy itself, in order to hide the element of time travel.
Reblogged this on THE ONENESS of HUMANITY and commented:
Some of the many editorial reviews of “Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World” by David Ray Griffin…
Contrary to popular opinion, at least in liberal circles, America did not abruptly turn Orwellian once Donald Trump set up his business in the White House by which time that nightmarish transformation had already taken place. Although it arguably started on November 22, 1963, the transformation was completed decades later by the Bush-Cheney administration, using 9/11 to make this roughly democratic nation unmistakably like Orwell s Oceania, a lawless state devoted to eternal war, whose subjects have no real rights, and where words like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ bear no relation to reality. The history of how Bush and Cheney pulled that off and how Barack Obama continued it is the all-important subject of this brilliant, necessary book by David Ray Griffin.
Mark Crispin Miller, Professor of Media, Culture & Communication at New York University; author of Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform
David Ray Griffin not only confronts our unspeakable history. He lays it out from Bush and Cheney through Obama into the Trump administration and our teetering now on the edge of nuclear and ecological holocaust. Is the most critical origin of our terminal plight the transparent lie of 9/11? It is exposed here brilliantly by the incisive analysis of David Ray Griffin, who tells the truth needed for human survival. Will we hear and act on it?
James W. Douglass, author of JFK and the Unspeakable
In this devastating critique of the enduring harm done by the Bush/Cheney presidency, Griffin provocatively links an informed account of American foreign policy failures to a definitive critique of the official version of the 9/11 attacks. All who regard themselves as responsible citizens should expose themselves to Griffin s arguments set forth so lucidly, persuasively, and imaginatively in this indispensable book.
Richard Falk, Emeritus Professor of International Law, Princeton University
A clear, cogent, and scrupulously non-sensationalist and non-ideological presentation of the simple chronological historical and scientific facts, by one of our generation’s most cogent and systematic thinkers. This book should convince any honest and objective person with a political and scientific I.Q. above room temperature that we Americans, along with the rest of the world, have been systematically lied to by the leaders of both of our major American political parties. We have been lied to not only about the facts concerning the American military invasions in the Middle East but also about the events leading up to, during, and in the aftermath of, the events of 9/11.
Daniel Sheehan, Visiting Professor of Constitutional Law, UC Santa Cruz, and Chief Counsel to the U.S. Jesuit Headquarters’ National Office of Social Ministry
Passing this on…Important message please watch.
Deep State Globalists Want to Destroy US Constitution – Catherine Austin Fitts
[“Published on Sep 30, 2017
Investment advisor Catherine Austin Fitts contends the Deep State swamp creatures do not want to give the $21 trillion they have stolen over the last two decades back to “We the People.” This is why there’s a big push by the Deep State Globalists to tear up the U.S. Constitution. Destroy it, and they get to keep all those trillions of stolen dollars…”]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-57aexDfLk
The constitution is an antiquated inadequate piece of paper and a framework for violent coercive government. It needs to be retired, replaced, corrected by defining and reasserting inalienable rights.
The declaration of independence is a declaration and an explanation why. The premise of the why starts with natural inalienable rights, based on truth/reality as god made it.
The constitution, the bill of rights, deviates from that premise by improperly defining and protecting rights, and thus works to allow or assist in systematic violation of those rights.
You don’t have things like gun rights. You have property rights and the right to defense, and it is not limited to anything but what is rightful, be it rightfully acquired property or whatever means of defense are necessary and available. And it is not dependent upon paper and magic words or the state’s needs.
So correct it. Start by defining the government’s authority to use force being limited to defense of the people and never to impose an edict regulating nonviolent behavior. Correct things like the 2nd by defining explaining and asserting the right to defense of your self family property and community by any means necessary or available. Correct the fourth and define rightful property and explicitly state that the government cannot violate it unless it is an act of defense of the people in the event they use their property to violate. Define privacy and why it can’t snoop, or tell people how to live, etc. Explicitly limit government to a non-coercive service to the people with no authority to force edicts.
Problem solved.
I’ll keep this short. Another reason why the official story cannot be true, imho, is that the perpetrators do not really want us to believe it. I still think that Vince Salandria’s theory of “transparent conspiracy” applies to 9/11 even more than to the JFK assassination. I’ve put this in a book (The Transparent Conspiracy) so I’ll just summarize. To use Griffin’s terminology, the “miracles” were transparently attributable only to God (aka the Deep State) because they want us to know they have us under control and that resistance is futile. That message is for the minority (small in the case of JFK, much larger in the case of 9/11) willing to receive it. The rest of the population either accept the miracles without question or will wallow indefinitely in a sea of “false mysteries” (the title of Vince’s collection of essays on JFK) and missing or incomplete evidence, and lies.
The strategy has been very successful so far. The “war on terror” continues unabated, and the “truth community” wallows on, with some even supporting the official lie re the Pentagon.
I have had almost no feedback on this, which is admittedly speculation, but I believe the facts are long since in, and they warrant this conclusion.
“transparent conspiracy”
That’s exactly what it is. Government is a big gang, a violent religious cult. A bunch of people organize to hire other people to go to religious ceremonies with seals and stamps and magic quilts and say magic special words and write on paper what everyone in a claimed territory are going to do and be, then hire an army of people with weapons to make everyone do what the paper says or be stolen from caged assaulted or murdered for disobedience.
They write on paper that they are like gods and control everything. And the people keep demanding more of it.
There is no secret conspiracy. They do it in your face and tell you that you can’t see what’s behind closed doors in order to prove the obvious.
The people are so brainwashed into a false reality that they think they need government and media to tell them what reality is. …as if it is some kind of required filter.
In faux media paper and guns world, physics don’t count and people who value truth are crazy or racist or whatever.
I think we agree.
It’s demonstrable truth.
Everything is presented to the masses as a faux contextualized reality, everything from ‘gun rights’ or social standards or boogie-man terrorists hiding in people’s underwear at the airport.
You cannot opine reality. So when I state it in a simple and pure factual form, it breaks that faux contextualized perspective. That’s why I do it.
Clear your mind of all the garbage you’ve been taught and see everything in it’s most pure and simple obvious form, …such as from the perspective of a 4-6 year child who has not yet been brainwashed.
David Chandler (who’s worked with children) made an interesting point on one of his videos of the towers coming down. He pointed out the obvious and simply asked what does it look like. It looks like a controlled demolition. When all the evidence is collected and analyzed by scientists and various experts(like Griffin and AE911), the hypothesis is explained.
What does the media say about how faux-world physics works?
Chandler is ok on the towers, but not on the Pentagon. I believe what I see, and I haven’t seen any photos showing plane debris at the Pentagon — or anywhere else for that matter.
I thought Chandler did excellent work, if for no other reason than because he has a keen eye and thorough scientific analytical process.
There is an interview where he mentions noticing things out of place, not right with how they moved. Here you have a man who teaches children the fundamentals of Newtonian physics, a job description that entails regularly calculating motion, watching things move ‘incorrectly’.
His answer was that of a scientist; Mathematics. Measure it. He did and showed it to other experts and they see it too. Their expertise says what his does. I give him credit.
As far as the flight 77 is concerned, I think he applied the same scientific reasoning and found what is supported by many others’ findings. The pilots say that it couldn’t be done, virtually impossibly maneuvering. The witnesses say there were planes flying low, the footage and wreckage supports it. And I personally think a flight attendant named Rebekah Roth nailed it, solved some of how they did the shell game and controlled the planes.
My guess is they essentially played a shell game with remote control planes and people and wrecked at least one of them into the pentagon. It fits.
Additionally;
One method of hypnotic induction is to subtly split or confuse focus or reason while redirecting it, providing an answer asymmetric or antithetical to the line of reasoning.
There is an inherent element of hypnotic induction in the very system of human social organization:
We humans begin socialization, the learning of social skills, at around 3-5 years old, starting with family, then friends and community. We are taught all the basics of peaceful coexistence through an ethical standard that is ultimately based on respecting basic natural rights shared by everyone. We teach our children to not lie or steal, to share and not judge, to not hit or hurt, all the basics of coping skills and virtue and respect as to take their rightful place in society and successfully coexist.
Then, as they grow and mature and are sent out in the world, their success and being is dependent upon their ability to perform the antithesis, which is a system of social organization whereby they are taught to categorize themselves into some kind of demographic and divide against others in a system that is premised on the use of force to exploit and impose various forms of violence on themselves and everyone and pretend it’s something else through various forms of media and social control mechanisms.
In other words, we are taught very young to get along through ethics and respect and virtue, taught not to lie steal or hurt, then are immersed into a system that is wholly reliant on being selfish and judgemental and supporting lies and theft and hurting people.
The rationalization in order to process and accept this is a direct conflict, a thesis-antithesis combo shot on the brain. People come up with all kinds of things to rationalize how reality is something else or why we need to force this or that nonsense onto anyone.
We live in a mass confusion of values.
One of my values is I like to know who I am speaking with. Who are you?
I am your average poor white trash american suburbanite slob insignificant nobody who happened to have a heap of chaos dropped into my lap at a very early age for various reasons that I am still trying to figure out.
Who are you?
I use my real name. You can google it or go here: https://sites.google.com/site/michaeldavidmorrissey/
Nice to meet you, Mr. Morrissey.
Studies of the use of various verb forms in the Romance languages to indicate doubt and politeness, semantic theory, …9/11; willingness and desire of conspirators to make the nature and consequences of their actions transparent…
..tells me I am speaking to the choir, so to speak.
Yes, I imagine everybody here is in the choir, except maybe re the Pentagon, so I am looking forward to Craig McKee’s take on that. I haven’t been keeping up, but it seems that “no planes” is still the main source of division amongst “truthers.” I have seen nothing to convince me that the Pentagon or Shanksville involved airplanes, and the video “evidence” of planes hitting the towers is still very suspect. I stopped trying to follow the “discussion” when I realized that there would be no end to it, and no conclusive answers, so I just rely on what I see — which does not include those videos.
@ Michael Morrissey
Re: Flight 77/Pentagon
…and for anyone who is unfamiliar with the basic function of a typical cruise missile;
A cruise missile can be fired from land sea or air and can be programmed to fly at high or medium altitudes or hug the ground. They function using radar, GPS, mapping indexing software and a computer on board what is a missile that functions as a small jet airplane.
They can be programmed to go to different way-points and perform different functions at either. Their mode of flight is generally as the basic structure of an airplane with fuel efficiency and range as a primary consideration in their overall design, hence “cruise” missile for their subsonic cruise speeds. They’re ideally launched from ships to do damage far inland, up to approx. 1000-1500 miles.
Their function and design relies on the same/similar systems and avionics as aircraft, only designed to perform a mission of hitting a target that may be shooting at it.
One of the key features of a cruise missile is that it has a mode that functions with consideration to enemy defense radar and surface to air missile systems. It hugs the ground during it’s flight below enemy radar. It has a special feature called a “pop-up” function that evades any close range missiles fired from the target area by popping up into the air and hitting the target from the zenith, ..or it can continue ground-level flight to the designated target.
Later models, if I am not mistaken, include a redirect or holding pattern feature that tells it to go to another target or holding pattern.
According to the research of an experienced flight attendant Rebekah Roth, there are programs/systems developed to harness the guidance systems and controls of airliners and land them as an emergency contingency to a hijacking or an incapacitated pilot.
If they can do that, they/someone can make an airplane do an amazing circle and hit the pentagon at low altitude.
I see Craig has already covered this here: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/how-we-know-an-airliner-did-not-hit-the-pentagon/. I took a quick link at Chandler’s site and his link to “photo evidence” of plane wreckage at the Pentagon, and innumerable “eyewitness” testimonies about seeing a plane. I did not and will not waste more time on that. If a plane hit the building, we would not be wondering about it. It would be obvious and the photo evidence (not to mention the 50 or so videos) would be plentiful. Ditto the WTC and Shanksville.
Maybe the way it was done can be explained as a way to accommodate a cryptic message as I previously mentioned; a big metaphor layered with information corresponding to people and the context of their lives, like a big connect the dots puzzle.
Question for Craig: I confess that I have not read this book by Griffin, partly because I agree with everything he has ever written and don’t feel I will learn anything significantly new, and partly because it is not available as a Kindle, which is how I read these days. My question is if he says anything about possible video fakery re the WTC. I know Jim Fetzer is here (and he may not be speaking to me, but hi anyway), and I am wondering if there has been any progress at all in the last few years on that score. Or is the subject still taboo? I assume Griffin avoided the subject entirely because it is so controversial. Now I see that the same people who were most upset about questioning the video imagery are the same people who are now apparently defending the official story about the Pentagon hit, primarily Hoffman and Ashley, and with the same basic argument — that too much speculation gives “the movement” a bad name. I fought them on that and defended Fetzer, but we fell out on another point which I won’t mention though I have written about it and it is the same point where I part ways with Chris Bollyn (who is mentioned above), so you can guess what it is. I have nothing against speculation and have put my own speculation in print (see above), and frankly am glad I have no “evidence” because otherwise the elephant in the room could easily stomp me.
Haven’t read his books. Its Obvious who is most responsible, if you go to Websters Encycolpedia & define 2 words. Law & Enforcement to see who did 9/11. 9/11 truther’s have no clue of what makes a terrorist or terror event. This is why Mueller, FIBer, Dir. of 9/11. calls all 9/11 truthers terrorist !