Thursday, November 18, 2010

Muddled Questions about 911 Truth Evidence: A Response to "avicenne" & Adam Corella's Comments regarding Ed Asner's Statements.

Understandably many people who question the veracity of the evidence revealing 911 was an inside job tend to come at the issues from a very uninformed perspective. This is understandable given the fact most of us live in a world polluted by the misleading and often simplistic official (read corporate media) portrayal of these events.

In this environment it is easy to see why people like "avicenne" on this blog, and Adam Corella (in an interview with Ed Asner), have picked up the wrong ideas about certain matters pertaining to 911 truth.

In a comment intended for avicenne I ended up answering some of the questions recently put to Asner; like why would you blow up the Towers to invade Iraq when you could "simply" try to plant WMDs in that country ? The answer, of course, is that it is unlikely 911 was simply about gaining a reason to invade Iraq. Hopefully the following responses to avicenne (see below) will deal with most of the confusion recently aired:

[Note:one must consider that not all criticism of 911 truth is necessarily bad. Many 911 truth claims have been shown to be false or unproven. The central point to remember is that the core arguments in the "truther" case rest upon proven scientific fact and documented evidence.]



I cannot help but be blunt....

Your response here, likely due to our society's conditioned "anti-conspiracy" mindset, reflects a shallow analysis of the specific issues raised and highlights a level of ignorance regarding the incidents covered.

Most importantly it appears, in your "research", that you have failed to grasp the significance of the physical evidence that has proven the 911 attacks involved a massive level of inside help.

Regardless of whether you think 911 "bears all the marks of the disorder/bleakness/randomness/ghastliness of a [genuine] terrorist attack" and that there are two many dumb mistakes, there is still no way past the forensic, literally smoking gun, proof that the WTC buildings were brought down using Controlled Demolition techniques. To believe the official story one must throw the physics text book out the window.

avicenne, there could have been a million incredulous mistakes and pink elephants dancing around to make the 911 conspiracy hypothesis look ridiculous, but that would not change the truth about the damning physical evidence.

The core physical evidence proving 911 was an inside job is straightforward. Steel framed high rise buildings, ones hit by aircraft (the Towers) and ones NOT hit by aircraft (WTC7), should never disintegrate into clouds of dust or drop at freefall speeds (leaving behind traces of high tech explosives) without them having been rigged for demolition.

It is because of this proof that we have thousands of scientists, academics, engineers and other professions joining the 911 truth groups. Are they all so misguided ? I don't think so.

avicenne, it is time to take a second look at some of the misguided/false assumptions you hold. It is likely you pigeon holed the evidence in question to fit some of your overarching false assumptions:

Assumption 1. The attacks were designed so there could be a War for oil in Iraq. [This is a big overarching assumption.] Why not plant WMDs ? !!??

Answer: The attacks were not simply about allowing for War in Iraq. Iraq was NOT the primary target and getting Iraqi collaborators into the mix as opposed to Saudi "Al Qaeda" terrorists is not as easy as you suppose. Planting credible WMDs in Iraq (if you wanted to specifically go after Iraq) would also have been very difficult and a distaster if uncovered by the Iraqi authorities. Plus consider the physical evidence that has exposed 911. It is likely that in 2002-2003 the perps would have been apprehensive about running another op that could have easily overstepped the mark a second time.

Avicenne, thanks to the renegade terrorist scenario that has played out we are now fighting an endless GLOBAL War on Terror. Simply targeting Iraq is very one dimensional (strategically limiting). A general War on Terror allows for enemies to exist everywhere such that they can never be defeated, especially when our own side (intelligence agencies) sponsors them or pretends to be them. In this scenario there is greater scope to "tear up the US Constitution" and apply domestic constrains on the fearful population. Watch or read "1984." This would be a more accurate summation of the situation.

Assumption 2. Why stage a Daylight attack on TV that would "expose" the evidence of building demolitions ?

Answer: It seems reasonable to conclude that the point of the 911 plan was always to bring the Towers down in a dramatic way to instigate a massive emotional response from the US people. The attacks were not ment to be hidden, only the means of demolition. Importantly the whole idea is to have the theatre of the Tower "collapses" well covered on national TV. Also, if you used explosives at night, even "quiet" thermite-based ones that limit the sound levels, you have a problem of explosive flashes. At night the demolition would be more obvious. Videos would show a lot of flash evidence that could not be explained. Lastly, at night, with the building empty, the death toll would be much less significant. A few hundred people killed versus a few thousand is something to consider in terms of propaganda purposes.

Assumption 3. Thousands involved would mean someone would have talked.

Answer: A few hundred may have been involved, not thousands. You can compartmentalise parts of the plan so that not everyone involved would know what is going on. Also, even if many thousands were involved in such a plan, why would any of them talk ? Why ? Conspiracy to commit murder, when such acts are followed through, bring about harsh penalties. Furthermore, anyone talking is likely to end up dead. Do you think the chief murdering scumbags are gonna simply let people say anything without facing the threat of torture and execution ?

Assumption 4. The secret Cabal has so much power they could have run everything differently to better hide what they were doing.

Answer: avicenne, these people are not all powerful. They do not control everything.They must manipulate the things they do not fully control as best they can. If you've played recreational war games you will realise the best plans, with the greatest levels of control over "all" aspects of the operation, are subject to MANY variables. Mistakes will be made. Furthermore, the more audacious and arrogant one is, the more likely the planner will make errors or take risks when going through a new scenario. Think of the Russians being massacred in Grozny during the first Chechen War- driving tanks and APCs through built up areas without protecting them with adequate infantry cover ! Thankfully, for these 911 murderers, we all live in a society that a priori dismisses the notion of the big conspiracy. ie. the attacks are impossible simply because they could never be done.

Assumption 5. The "dumb" "pull it"comments by Silverstein in relation to WTC7.

Answer: Silverstein is not stupid. Who knows exactly what he was thinking, but perhaps he was awkwardly trying to account for the very obvious Controlled Demolition of the WTC7 building by imply that the New York Fire Department was somewhat responsible. Perhaps he thought that the facts about the CD of WTC7 could not possibly be avoided. Who would be "stupid" enough to think that fire caused such a collapse ? If he screwed up then he screwed up. It does not change the fact about the physical proof we have regarding the demolitions.

Assumption 6. Holding War Games on 911 gives the game away. (Not at all. Hiding a diamond among fake diamonds is a useful tactic.)

Answer: How likely is the 911-aircraft-attack-plan going to succeed if the US defence system is operating normally ? We know USAF generals lied their asses off about their capabilities during the 911 Commission. Plus what happens if some aspects of the plan are discovered before the attacks ? If it is tied up with anti terror/anti hijack drills then you can cover for any mistakes that are made. You can tell people at FBI HQ that the terrorists they've uncovered are part of an intelligence drill or monitored operation and they must be left alone for the sake of National Security.
Avicenne, you need to get a level head on all this.

Now please consider that not all conspiracy claims have equal weight.

The voice morphings, the Satanic Dick, the assumptive labelling of the entire military industrial complex as a nefarious whole, that Bush 2 is a killer of women and children, the drones into the pentagon hypothesis, "advertising" the New Pearl Harbour plot, choosing patsies that can't fly etc** does nothing except to show that you have muddled so many different issues and then dismissed the lot. You must consider how each of these things stands on its own and consider the fact of the Controlled Demolition evidence. The WTC demolitions did occur. You must therefore take a second look at all this stuff you jumble together.

**The voice morphing hypothesis is contentious. Real calls may have been made. This does not diminish the WTC CD evidence. If the voice morphing is discounted the entire conspiracy case is not dismantled. That would be illogical.

**Satanic Dick ? He's a warmonger and has little problem sending people off to kill and be killed in unnecessary wars. He's likely to have little problem with overseeing the 911 attacks. The WTC CD evidence still stands. 911 is still an inside job.

**Obviously not all the military industrial complex would have been involved in 911. However, some of these folks are not exactly nice people. Certain strategically minded individuals in this complex did want to stage false attacks against US citizens in the 1960s- to be blamed on Cuba. Some in recent years may very likely have agreed to assist the 911 scenario for strategic reasons. Why not ? If the loss of life were to be controlled then okay. Endless semi-controllable conflict would result.

**Bush 2 IS a killer of women and children through his illegal wars.

**Drones into the Pentagon is contentious. There is evidence of airliner wreckage there. Witnesses saw a plane resembling an AA aircraft. Something did occur at the Pentagon, we are not entirely sure what. If the drone hypothesis is false this does not negate the rest of the conspiracy case.

**Writing about a "New Pearl Harbour" is not exactly advertising to blow up the WTC buildings. Regardless, the WTC buildings were blown up via CD and the people involved in the "advertising", the neocons, are the same people tied in to the 911 false flag.

**Patsies that can't fly. A significant detail but not one that can't be dealt with if the whole population a priori believes that 19 Arab hijackers took over 4 airliners for suicide purposes.

Avicenne, not everything is according to what you assume. Don't believe the propaganda you've been fed by the corporate press. You are the one holding the illogical position. The official story cannot possibly be true. The WTC buildings were brought down using Controlled Demolition. We have been lied to.