Discussion about 09/11/2001

red_gonzo · at 9/05/2006 04:51:00 AM

This is Thomas P.M. Barnett's informative video lecture National Security Strategy where he gives a presentation on national security strategy and military transformation to officers and analysts at the National Defense University in Washington on 18th August 2006. He talks about the changing nature of warfare in the post-Cold War era, the impact of globalization on security threats and potential responses, future military force structures and strategies, as well as current threats from various regions of the world. Following his remarks he answered questions from the audience. Thomas P.M. Barnett was a senior strategic researcher at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, and a former strategist in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation. He was also the author of The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century and Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating. Find out how American forces are simply the best when it comes to war but are uncapable of handling peace. 80 min. long. A must see for everyone. Note: First 10 min. are missing but the rest is there.

Barnett-Thomas.P.M.-National.Security.Strategy.08-18-2006-partial.wmv (168.9 MB)

Also see his other lectures:

CSPAN-Thomas.Barnett-Pentagon's.New.Map.XviD.avi (699.09 MB)

Thomas.Barnett.on.CSPAN.Dec.2004--Pentagon.New.Map---PPT.talk.and.call-in.rm (149.37 MB)

Also see other related videos:

The.911.Issue.-.Key.to.Stopping.World.War.3.(Webster.Tarpley).(2005).wmv (227.5 MB)

TerrorStorm.(2006).Re-encoded.avi (680.39 MB)

9-11.The.Greatest.Lie.Ever.Sold.(Anthony.J.Hilder).avi (695.01 MB)

911.-.The.New.Pearl.Harbour.(David.Ray.Griffin.at.Santa.Rosa.Oct..2004).wmv (111.94 MB)

David.Ray.Griffin-911.and.the.American.Empire.wmv (149.45 MB)

911.In.Plane.Site-Directors.Cut.(HQ.DivX).avi (1.12 GB)

America.in.Peril.3.-.The.Storm.Upon.US.part.1.of.2.(Mark.Koernke).avi (42.91 MB)

America.in.Peril.3.-.The.Storm.Upon.US.part.2.of.2.(Mark.Koernke).avi (372.76 MB)

America.in.Peril.-.How.NWO.is.taking.over.USA.wmv (424.78 MB)

Confronting.The.Evidence.-.A.Call.To.Reopen.the.911.Investigation.rm (247.26 MB)

Great.Deception.-.War.on.Terrorism.-.An.Alternative.View.(Zwicker.Vision.TV).avi (238.09 MB)

Hijacking.Catastrophe.2004.DVDRip.XviD-LisaB.avi (541.62 MB)

Loose.Change.(911.lies.exposed).rm (131.04 MB)

Rep..Paul.Findley.Dares.to.Speak.Out.-.Again.-.A.22-Year.Veteran.U.S..Congressman.Exposes.Israel's.Lobby.wmv (110.18 MB)

Alex.Jones-Martial.Law.911-Rise.Of.The.Police.State.(Part.1.of.3).wmv (75.66 MB)

Alex.Jones-Martial.Law.911-Rise.Of.The.Police.State.(Part.2.of.3).wmv (86.66 MB)

Alex.Jones-Martial.Law.911-Rise.Of.The.Police.State.(Part.3.of.3).wmv (95.62 MB)

Please share this video with others, add links on other forums as I don't know many of them.

Wokeman · at 9/05/2006 04:49:00 AM

Nila Sagadevan tells of a hardcore skeptic who absolutely refuses to believe that 9/11 was a hoax despite his reading books on the subject and watching DVDs. According to Nila this skeptic wrote:

Please do a simple mind calculation and estimate how many people would be involved with all aspects of the 9/11 scheme as you describe it. Now calculate what percentage of those people are NOT in the Federal Gov't (a wild assumption that the Feds CAN keep a secret). Then do something that you can't learn in a physics class. Be honest with yourself in regard to whether all of those people could live in silence about what they (or those that they know) had done?
In reply we can say, firstly, if this person thinks of himself as a skeptic, why does he accept the official story with all its holes and total lack of supporting evidence?

Secondly we can question his request for "a simple mind calculation". There is almost no calculation involving 9/11 that is simple, so our skeptic asks for what is impossible, and is merely urging agreement with his own (unsupported) view.

Thirdly we can reply that the higher-ups in the conspiracy (such as Cheney and Rumsfeld), and some at a lower level, certainly have a motive to keep silent, since they are well-known to the public, and have their careers, their reputations and their necks at stake.

So the skeptic is really positing a number of unknown auxilliary figures, perhaps hundreds, all potential whistle-blowers like Sibel Edmonds. But (fourthly) this is mere supposition, and the number of operatives involved may well have been much less than a hundred. Professor A. K. Dewdney gives an estimate for the minimum as 36 — see http://www.serendipity.li/wot/operation_pearl.htm.

And the Finnish military expert who published the report providing evidence that small H-bombs were used in the WTC demolitions, estimates that thirty men were needed to install the cutting charges in the twin towers — see http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier1.htm. Of these thirty at least half would not have known what was really going on and could easily be disposed of immediately after (or even before) 9/11, along with other low-level operatives. Those who planned on killing several thousand people in the collapse of the twin towers would certainly think nothing of killing as many low-level operatives as was needed to avoid exposure.

So, apart from the public figures who knew in advance that 9/11 would occur (even if they were not involved in the detailed planning), there may be only 20-30 operatives who remain alive. They are not likely to talk of what could bring them a death sentence if they were ever tried and convicted. And if they are the products of many years of (military or otherwise) training (or mental conditioning, or even mind-control) then it is not surprising that they do not talk.

Also it is erroneous to think of these operatives as, in our skeptic's words, "in the Federal Gov't (a wild assumption that the Feds CAN keep a secret)." Since the 9/11 hoax was crucial to the NWO plan to dominate the world, it is likely that the best and most committed operatives from the secret government were involved, not your ordinary federal employees.

Moreover, perhaps we are mistaken if we think of these operatives as people, capable of feeling guilt or shame as ordinary people are. If they are the products of twenty years of mind-control (their training beginning in the Reagan years) then they are more like zombies.

Or if not zombies then perhaps they are like cult followers, believing in a higher mission, perhaps to save their bloodline or secret society from the catastrophes that are predicted (or are planned) to befall most of the human population of the planet in the coming years.

As David Ray Griffin has remarked recently, we are dealing with demonic evil. Its instruments keep silent because it is in their interest to do so; unless they decide to say something designed to mislead, confuse or deceive.

Annie · at 9/05/2006 04:41:00 AM

This came through from David Ray Griffin today.

In case you haven’t seen yet.

MESSAGE: To hell with the evidence. As long as we have a psychological explanation for why people need conspiracy theories, we can ignore it---as long as we can ignore the fact that the official theory is a conspiracy theory.

But the main thing here is that for such a story to appear in TIME means that, as the writer says, the 9/11 truth movement is no longer “a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.”

DG
-----

TIME
Sunday, Sep. 3, 2006
Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
Turns out, we need grand theories to make sense of grand events, or the world just seems too random
By LEV GROSSMAN

Take a look, if you can stand it, at video footage of the World Trade Center collapsing. Your eye will naturally jump to the top of the screen, where huge fountains of dark debris erupt out of the falling towers. But fight your natural instincts. Look farther down, at the stories that haven't collapsed yet.

In almost every clip you'll see little puffs of dust spurting out from the sides of the towers. There are two competing explanations for these puffs of dust: 1) the force of the collapsing upper floors raised the air pressure in the lower ones so dramatically that it actually blew out the windows. And 2) the towers did not collapse from the impact of two Boeing 767s and the ensuing fires. They were destroyed in a planned, controlled demolition. The dust puffs you see on film are the detonations of explosives planted there before the attacks.

People who believe the second explanation live in a very different world from those who believe the first. In world No. 2, al-Qaeda is not responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center. The U.S. government is. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial jet; it was hit by a cruise missile. United Flight 93 did not crash after its occupants rushed the cockpit; it was deliberately taken down by a U.S. Air Force fighter. The entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.

The population of world No. 2 is larger than you might think. A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality.

Although the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, it is flourishing on the Internet. One of the most popular conspiracy videos online is Loose Change, a 90-min. blizzard of statistics, photographs, documents, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony set to a trippy hip-hop backbeat. It's designed to pick apart, point by point, the conventional narrative of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

For all its amateur production values--it was created by a pair of industrious twentysomethings using a laptop, pizza money and footage scavenged from the Internet--Loose Change is a compelling experience. Take the section about the attack on the Pentagon. As the film points out--and this is a tent-pole issue among 9/11 conspiracists--the crash site doesn't look right. There's not enough damage. The hole smashed in the Pentagon's outer wall was 75 ft. wide, but a Boeing 757 has a 124-ft. wingspan. Why wasn't the hole wider? Why does it look so neat?

Experts will tell you that the hole was punched by the plane's fuselage, not its wings, which sheared off on impact. But then what happened to the wings? And the tail and the engines? Images of the crash site show hardly any of the wreckage you would expect from a building that's been rammed by a commercial jet. The lawn, where the plane supposedly dragged a wing on approach, is practically pristine. The plane supposedly clipped five lampposts on its way in, but the lampposts in question show surprisingly little damage. And could Hani Hanjour, the man supposedly at the controls, have executed the maneuvers that the plane performed? He failed a flight test just weeks before the attack. And Pentagon employees reported smelling cordite after the hit, the kind of high explosive a cruise missile carries.

There's something empowering about just exploring such questions. Loose Change appeals to the viewer's common sense: it tells you to forget the official explanations and the expert testimony, and trust your eyes and your brain instead. It implies that the world can be grasped by laymen without any help or interference from the talking heads. Watching Loose Change, you feel as if you are participating in the great American tradition of self-reliance and nonconformist, antiauthoritarian dissent. You're fighting the power. You're thinking different. (Conspiracists call people who follow the government line "sheeple.") "The goal of the movie was just really to get out there and show that there are alternate stories to what the mainstream media and the government will tell you," says Korey Rowe, 23, who produced the movie. "That 19 hijackers are going to completely bypass security and crash four commercial airliners in a span of two hours, with no interruption from the military forces, in the most guarded airspace in the United States and the world? That to me is a conspiracy theory."

It's also not much of a story line. As a narrative, the official story that the government--echoed by the media--is trying to sell shows an almost embarrassing lack of novelistic flair, whereas the story the conspiracy theorists tell about what happened on Sept. 11 is positively Dan Brownesque in its rich, exciting complexity. Rowe and his collaborator, Dylan Avery, 22, actually started writing Loose Change as a fictional screenplay--"loosely based around us discovering that 9/11 was an inside job," Rowe says--before they became convinced that the evidence of conspiracy was overwhelming. The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch?

But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses. (For what it's worth, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has published a fact sheet responding to some of the conspiracy theorists' ideas on its website, www.nist.gov. <http://www.nist.gov.> The theories prompt small, reasonable questions that demand answers that are just too large and unreasonable to swallow. Granted, the Pentagon crash site looks odd in photographs. But if the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, then what happened to American Airlines Flight 77? Where did all the real, documented people on it go? Assassinated? Relocated? What about eyewitnesses who saw a plane, not a missile? And what are the chances that an operation of such size--it would surely have involved hundreds of military and civilian personnel--could be carried out without a single leak? Without leaving behind a single piece of evidence hard enough to stand up to scrutiny in a court? People, the feds just aren't that slick. Nobody is.

There are psychological explanations for why conspiracy theories are so seductive. Academics who study them argue that they meet a basic human need: to have the magnitude of any given effect be balanced by the magnitude of the cause behind it. A world in which tiny causes can have huge consequences feels scary and unreliable. Therefore a grand disaster like Sept. 11 needs a grand conspiracy behind it. "We tend to associate major events--a President or princess dying--with major causes," says Patrick Leman, a lecturer in psychology at Royal Holloway University of London, who has conducted studies on conspiracy belief. "If we think big events like a President being assassinated can happen at the hands of a minor individual, that points to the unpredictability and randomness of life and unsettles us." In that sense, the idea that there is a malevolent controlling force orchestrating global events is, in a perverse way, comforting.

You would have thought the age of conspiracy theories might have declined with the rise of digital media. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was a private, intimate affair compared with the attack on the World Trade Center, which was witnessed by millions of bystanders and television viewers and documented by hundreds of Zapruders. You would think there was enough footage and enough forensics to get us past the grassy knoll and the magic bullet, to create a consensus reality, a single version of the truth, a single world we can all live in together.

But there is no event so plain and clear that a determined human being can't find ambiguity in it. And as divisive as they are, conspiracy theories are part of the process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events like Sept. 11. Conspiracy theories form around them like scar tissue. In a curious way, they're an American form of national mourning. They'll be with us as long as we fear lone gunmen, and feel the pain of losses like the one we suffered on Sept. 11, and as long as the past, even the immediate past, is ultimately unknowable. That is to say, forever.
_________________
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.

Discussion about 09/11/2001

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

[911_truth_DFW] TIME MAGAZINE COVER

Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away

The 9/11 Credibility Gap (Interview with D R Griffin)

Confessions of a Controlled Demolition Convert

"The NORAD Audiotapes: Real or Faked?"

Documentaries / Conspiracies :: National Security Strategy (Thomas P.M.

Articles :: Reply To A 9/11 Skeptic

FW: Articles :: Time Magazine's Oh So Sophisticated Psychological Explanatio

Father of 9/11 Victim: 9/11 was an Inside Job

Father of 9/11 Victim: 9/11 was an Inside Job

[UrukNet] - [Daily Information from Occupied Iraq] - [newsletter 03 Sep 2006]

About Me

Last posts