So Stewart, let’s jump right into our shared passion of debunking the
so-called 9/11 debunkers shall we? You have put together some great videos on the subject including,
9/11 Debunking for Dummies, as well as putting out,
9/11 Cheney Connection rebuttal. Where you address the small amount of debunking that was attempted in regard to the piece, and most recently you explained,
Why Debunkers Make Lousy Cops!
I love your work
because while you tackle the physical anomalies surrounding 9/11, you
also put much focus on the non-scientific issues. I believe these issues
get brushed to the side far too much by “debunkers” for the simple
reason that so many of them are just plain public knowledge and
un-debunkable. I have often pointed out that even if the
9/11 truth movement were to concede the issue of
controlled demolition, for arguments sake, the case for complicity is still very strong.
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, in
an open letter to the 9/11 Commission, reported that there was
“specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden,” that mentioned
major cities, airplanes, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US. This was reported by FBI agents to
“Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office,” but was subsequently ignored.
Show Editor’s Note: »
The FAA received 52 pre-9/11 warnings, including five that
“specifically mentioned Al Qaeda’s training or capability to conduct hijackings,” and two that
“mentioned suicide operations.”
Facts such as these are often glossed over, or downplayed. In regard to
the FAA warnings a “debunker” would likely focus on the fact that the
suicide operations mentioned were
“not connected to aviation,” while ignoring that the FAA warned airports that
“the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners,
but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking
would probably be preferable.” In your video “9/11 Cheney Connection” you point out similar and even more damning facts.
So, please speak to these points, and give the readers a run down of
some of the facts you expose in this and other pieces that “debunkers”
don’t like to tackle much, at least not honestly.
Stewart Bradley-A:
The case that the debunkers try to avoid, and what I believe to be
the 9/11 Truth Movement’s best hope for getting a new investigation, is
the
LIHOP
evidence that key members of the Bush Administration knew the attack was
coming and took measures to ensure it’s success for the very purpose of
building the long sought after oil pipeline through Afghanistan,
starting a war in Iraq by falsely connecting Iraq to 9/11, thereby
implementing the “
Pax Americana” plan purposed by the
PNAC while vastly expanding executive secrecy and power.
The evidence to back this claim can be laid out in a thirteen point timeline based on readily available
public records
easily found by an internet search. Each point taken alone could be
brushed off as coincidence, but when taken together presents an
incriminating case that only the most thick headed debunker could deny.
1.
The Trans-Afghani Pipeline:
Shortly after the end of the Cold War several major American
energy companies
began buying up oil supplies in the Caspian Sea region, but without a
way to transport this oil to the market these companies could not recoup
their investments worth billion of dollars. So in 1997 Dick Cheney led a
consortium of energy companies, including Unocal and Enron, in an
effort to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to
the Pakistan coast. The problem was the Taliban, who were in power in
Afghanistan refused the pipeline deal, and a Unocal spokesman is quoted
in the 1998 Congressional Record stating that the pipeline could not
happen until the Taliban are removed from power.
2.
The PNAC Plan:
Also as a result of the end of the Cold War the Pentagon’s funding was being
cut
because they no longer had an enemy to justify their massive budget. In
response Dick Cheney’s conservative think tank “The Project for a New
American Century,” (PNAC) submitted their manifesto, “
Rebuilding America’s Defenses“.
This report suggests that although “the United States faces no global
rival,” (p.i) the U.S. military should prepare “to rapidly deploy and
win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars,”(mission outlines) and set
up “an enduring American military presence” (p.74) in the Persian Gulf,
including Afghanistan and Iraq. Chapter 5 admits this would take a long
time,”absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl
Harbor.”
3. First Actions as Vice President:
Dick Cheney then
selects himself to run as George W. Bush’s Vice President in
a campaign largely funded by Enron. Shortly after the Supreme Court’s intervention made Cheney the VP, he reopened
the pipeline
negotiations with the Taliban but the original financial offer was now
accompanied by threats of military action if the pipeline was not
allowed. The Taliban was told, “
You either accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs!”
According to Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, in their very first
National Security Council meeting Bush and Cheney began brainstorming
ideas for how to start a war in Iraq, and
Judicial
Watch has exposed secret maps drawn up by Cheney’s Energy Task Force in
March of 2001 detailing Iraq’s oil industries size and estimated value.
4.
Ignored Warnings:
The Bush Administration received dozens of detailed warnings of an
impending al-Qaida attack, which included method, likely targets, and
names of people involved, from many international and domestic
intelligence agencies. Yet all of these warnings were systematically
blocked, suppressed, or ignored by the Bush Administration.
5.
Obstructed Investigations:
Instead of investigating these warnings President Bush signed
presidential directive W199I protecting members of the Bin Laden family
and telling FBI Agents and defense intelligence officers to back off
from al-Qaida related investigations. Although debunkers will argue the
validity of the W199I directive, the testimonies of FBI counterterror
chief John O’Neill, field officer Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry
Samit of the Minnesota FBI, translator Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer
of Able Danger, and prosecutor David Shippers indicate a concerted high
level effort to protect domestic terrorists.
6.
Wargame Drills Scheduled for 9/11:
In May, 2001
President Bush put Dick Cheney in charge of the “Office of National Preparedness”
charged with protecting America from domestic attacks involving weapons
of mass destruction, and managing training exercises throughout all
military agencies in preparation for such an attack. It was later
revealed that multiple military exercises, remarkably similar to the
9/11 attack, were scheduled for the morning of September 11, 2001.
Although military officials refuse to confirm who managed to schedule
these drills during the very time of the real attack, these drills would
clearly fall under Cheney’s jurisdiction.
7.
Changes in Military Procedures:
There were already Standard Operating Procedures set in place well
before 9/11 concerning how to respond to the hijacking of commercial
flights. As soon as any flight goes off course or looses contact with
the controllers, the FAA immediately contacts NORAD who scrambles
fighters to intercept. This happens on a regular basis. From September
2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course.
All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should,
and interceptors were launched.Yet in June of 2001 these procedures are
altered to require approval from Secretary of Defense before NORAD
could respond with “potentially lethal support”, ( launching combat
aircraft ), to an emergency call.
8.
Afghan Invasion Plans Finalized:
Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, was told by senior American
officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go
ahead by the middle of October despite having no Congressional approval
for any military action. September 9, two days before the attack, the
final plans to go to war against the Taliban to begin in October were
ready for President Bush to sign in to action. It is critical to point
out that without the 9/11 attack the Bush administration would not have
had justification to use this plan, yet they continue to claim they had
no advance warning about 9/11.
9.
Connection to 9/11 Sponsor:
According to the FBI the chief of ISI -Pakistani Intelligence, Gen.
Mahmoud Ahmed, approved over $100,000 in wire transfers to lead hijacker
Mohammed Atta as payment for the attacks. During the week of the attack
Gen. Ahmed is visiting Washington where he had meetings with Colin
Powell, Richard Armatige, CIA Director George Tennant, Porter Goss and
other Bush administration officials. The media and the 9/11 Commission
both refuse to acknowledge this man who funded the attack or investigate
his meetings with Bush officials.
10.
Day of the Attack:
While the 9/11 Commission fails to mention the military wargame
drills in progress during the attack or the changes in NORAD’s hijack
interception procedures, they also ignore or distort the many other
anomalies concerning the day of the attack including the absence of top
officials from their posts, the contradicting stories from NORAD and the
FAA,
the arrival time of Dick Cheney to the PEOC bunker, and the time that shoot down authorization is announced.
11.
Afghanistan Invasion:
The September 11 attack gave Bush and Cheney the very pretext they
needed to use the awaiting war plans under the pretext of getting Osama
Bin Laden for the attack. Although the Taliban agreed to apprehend Bin
Laden on the condition the U.S. would provide evidence of Bin Laden’s
involvement in 9/11, the Bush Administration ignores this request and
the invasion starts right on schedule in October.
According to the FBI, to this day the Bush administration
has yet to present any hard evidence connecting
Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attack. This means that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified and violates international law.
Despite the claim that the invasion of Afghanistan was to apprehend Bin Laden, the
U.S.
military allows Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan while
many al-Qaida soldiers are allowed to escape capture by a Pakistan
airlift.
The Taliban was quickly overthrown and the
Bush Administration picks Afghanistan’s new president, Harmid Karzai, who was a consultant for Unocal. Less than a year later the
3.2 billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan began construction.
12.
Obstructed Investigations:
For 14 months the Bush administration was able to hinder and obstruct
any public investigation of the attack. According to Senator Tom
Daschle, both the President and the Vice President lobby him for no 9/11
investigation. Dick Cheney even threatens Congressional Democrats with
“interfering with the war on terror” if they press for a 9/11
investigation.
When the 9/11 Commission was finally formed, it was rife with
conflicts of interest and severely underfunded.
Bush and Cheney refuse to testify unless they are questioned by the
commission together, behind closed doors, without being taped, without
taking an oath, and with no records kept.
The final report is filled with dozens of factual omissions and distortions.
13. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has used 9/11 to
justify it’s policy of military aggression along with an unprecedented
level of power and secrecy.
They then used false evidence to expand the war into Iraq.
All of this information taken together builds a compelling case that
members of the Bush administration, namely Dick Cheney, at the very
least knew the 9/11 attack was coming and took steps to insure it’s
success for personal and political benefit. Dick Cheney had a clear
motive for the attack, was in a position to facilitate the attack, and
is
implicated by evidence and witness testimony of involvement. One must only ask why this information is not public knowledge and why formal charges have yet be made against him.
JMT-Q:
Very compelling stuff, and shockingly only a portion of the
non-scientific evidence publicly available. We also have the issues of
insider trading,
FAA tapes and
CIA interrogation tapes being destroyed on purpose,
dubious evidence relating to the hijackers, the fact that
Hani
Hanjour, who is said to have flown flight 77 into the Pentagon, and
pulled off the most complex maneuvers of the day, was a terrible pilot,
the un-Islamic behavior of the hijackers,
reports
of the airplane black boxes being found at ground zero, which
contradicts the official story which says they were not found,
reports that the father of alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta spoke to him on September 12th,
9/11
family member Patty Casazza stating that whistleblowers told her the
government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets, it is just staggering. And I could go on for a bit with more points still.
Shifting gears a bit, I’d like to touch on the issue of the ongoing importance of the attacks. We have
Noam Chomsky saying “who cares,”
and I have seen many people contend that 9/11 is a distraction from
more important issues. Could you address this, and also speak to how
these events have global repercussions?
Stewart Bradley-A:
Yes, I have been very puzzled and distressed by the comments about
9/11 made by Noam Chomsky, who has an almost cult like following among
progressive intellectuals and was one of my personal inspirations to
study political corruption in the first place. This is a man who, in
response to his own work being called “
conspiracy theory“,
said that the term conspiracy theory is “something people say when they
don’t want you to think about what’s really going on.” So to hear
Chomsky repeatedly use this term to describe
9/11 research
exposes his conscious attempt to prevent any serious discussion of 9/11
anomalies among the very progressive establishment that 9/11 Truth
would benefit the most.
Unfortunately I have seen firsthand how this obstruction has been
effective when talking to many otherwise brilliant political activists
who reject any 9/11 evidence simply because Chomsky speaks out against
it. And while Chomsky claims that he has never seen any evidence to
support the theory of a conspiracy, in the book “
Towers of Deception“,
Barrie Zwicker discusses Chomsky’s stubborn refusal to actually review
any credible evidence from leading 9/11 researchers. So of course he
cannot see what he refuses to look at.
But as to why Chomsky, after encouraging people for decades to
question authority and dig for the truth, would suddenly turn around and
ask people to simply ignore the many 9/11 anomalies is still a mystery
to me. In the statement you refer to Chomsky starts by suggesting that
although the Bush administration, and other authoritarian governments,
will use 9/11 as a way to expand a tight control over their populations
under the guise of fighting terrorism, they wouldn’t be able to hide
such a conspiracy. That is, unless they can hide the conspiracy under
the guise of fighting terrorism as Noam just indicated.
Then he sweepingly dismisses all the anomalies, inconsistencies, and
evidence of 9/11 conspiracy as mere naturally occurring coincidence
without addressing a single fact or explanation for how such an
improbable number of coincidences could happen simultaneously.
And he finishes by saying that even if the Bush administration was
involved in the attack, “who cares?”, which contradicts his point that
if a conspiracy was found it would destroy the Republican party and put
the involved officials in front of a firing squad. Chomsky’s “who cares”
attitude is not only incredibly insensitive to the many heroes and
victims of 9/11, but is an almost hostile betrayal of the truth and
justice he and his loyal followers claim to hold so dear.
To address the argument that 9/11 research is a distraction from more
important issues we need to acknowledge some of the important issues
that have been created, both domestic and global, as a direct result of
the 9/11 attack:
1.
War in Afghanistan:
Although most people agree that the war in Afghanistan was justified,
as I have already pointed out, to this day we have been given no hard
evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attack.
Compounded with the Taliban’s rejected offer to apprehend Bin Laden,
and our military’s reluctance to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora, it is
clear that the true reason behind the invasion of Afghanistan was never
made public as the war now continues costing lives and tax dollars.
2.
Loss of Constitutional Rights:
In the wake of the attack the American public, fearful for the safety
of their families, were convinced to trade their liberty for security.
The “Patriot Act
and Homeland Security Bill” were passed nullifying many Constitutional
rights and protections while granting the federal government an
unprecedented level of secrecy and un-accountability. And as Chomsky
pointed out, now all authoritarian governments can take similar action
under the guise of fighting terrorism.
3.
War in Iraq:
I have often heard the argument that despite the false intelligence
used to sell the Iraq war, the war is legal because it was approved by
Congress. What is not being acknowledged is that Congress violated the
Constitution when they passed
HJR114,
supposedly giving President Bush the power to wage pre-emptive war
against any country vaguely defined as a threat to American interests.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow one branch of government to
give away the responsibility it was assigned. And now other nations can
justify launching pre-emptive war based on our example.
4.
War Profiteering:
On September 10th 2001, the day before the attack,
Donald Rumsfeld announced in a now forgotten speech that the Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 trillion, and the
related CBS article exposed a policy of Defense Department book cooking that “loses track” of a full quarter of the Pentagon’s funding.
Since 9/11 Defense spending has far surpassed the Cold War budget, draining funding from vital social programs sending our nation into unfathomable debt as
no bid contracts are handed out to politically connected companies
known for fraud and corruption. This amounts to a wholesale looting of
American tax dollars protected by the very high ranking government
officials that profit from war spending. Considering the financial
crisis our country now faces this blatant criminal activity adds insult
to the injustice.
5.
Human Rights Violations:
Despite the GOP talking point during the run up to the Iraq war that
Saddam Hussien had to be removed because he was torturing people, the
obvious act of a despicable monster. But now we are told that torturing
people is a necessary part of the war on terrorism despite violating
the Geneva Convention. We are not just talking about water boarding here. Our
government policy of kidnapping, holding people without charge or legal representation, and
secret overseas prisons where suspects can be
beaten, sometimes
to death, has endangered our own troops and citizens in if they are captured. If we can justify torture, then so can our enemies.
There are many more examples I could list but the fact is that the
Bush administrations response to 9/11 has violated both U.S. and
International law, squandered our military and financial resources, and
ruined America’s “good guy” reputation in the world community. (Click
HERE for the latest news on this subject.)
JMT-Q:
Very good points, when I recently made
a short blog post about Chomsky’s comments, this comment was made…
“Um… I do not see anything mentioning Peer review in your
so-called scientific section. My guess is they are a self-selected group
of people who knew what they wanted to find before they “found” it.
That is not good science.
And one of your articles is actually a link to something else on your own website! That’s not biased at all, is it?
Sorry. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and this isn’t it.”
To which I replied…
“You want peer-review? Here ya go…
http://www.journalof911studies.com
I have no clue what you are talking about when you say “one of
your articles is actually a link to something else on your own website”.
Everything on this post links to outside sources.”
I also pointed out that
influential conservative, and father of Reaganomics, Paul Craig Roberts,
has stated that
false-flag events are actually pretty mundane. This is demonstrated very well in the film
TerrorStorm…
And as an article entitled,
Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories” from
GateCreepers.com points out…
“Just because someone says a claim is extraordinary does not make
it so. People often label any theories that are contrary to the
government’s version as ‘extraordinary’, thus implying that the
government and it’s associated media have a monopoly on what is
considered reasonable.
Claims are only extraordinary if they have no historical
precedent. Therefore, all that is needed to prove that the theory can be
proven with ordinary evidence is to point out to a similar case that
has happened before.”
When debunkers get the type of evidence they say they are looking
for, and still deny it, I think it demonstrates that the issue at hand
is
cognitive dissonance.
Shifting gears a bit again, I’d like to get your thoughts on whether
you believe we will be able to manifest a new investigation, and if so
do you think it will be effective?
As I’m sure you know there is a
push for an international investigation taking place. We have
Japanese MP, Yukihisa Fujita, calling for a global body to investigate alongside British MP, Michael Meacher, as well as
UN Human Rights Official Richard Falk.
Do you think this would be more effective than a new US investigation?
Also, what are your suggestions for people that would like to get involved in a calling for a new investigation?
Stewart Bradley-A:
It’s funny that you mention the debunkers issue of cognitive
dissonance. While some 9/11 Truthers will debate endlessly with
debunkers about the evidence of controlled demolitions in the WTC, I
have found that path to be futile. Even after directing them to the WPI
Study, cleverly buried in
Appendix C of the FEMA report,
which details the WTC steel being “melted like swiss cheese” by
temperatures impossible by burning jet fuel in a diffuse environment,
the debunkers still stubbornly insist that does not “prove”
the use of a thermite type demolition charge.
Although they can offer no alternative hypothesis to explain this
phenomena, trying to convince them of any foul play on 9/11 is like
banging your head against a wall.
So in my own experience at debating 9/11 with debunkers, a list has
developed of common debunker tactics, which I call the “Four Ds of
Debunking”:
1. Deceive – Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 researchers into “Straw Man” issues that are easily knocked down.
2. Dodge – Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you cannot explain away.
3. Deny – Refuse to acknowledge that any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 argument.
4. Discredit – Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 researchers.
But I don’t think that debating 9/11 in a chat forum is a futile
effort. I have had a fair degree of success arguing with skeptics which I
attribute to keeping the discussion respectful and constructive. You
see,
9/11 Truth contradicts many patriotic beliefs
that Americans hold dear which is why the concept is so offensive to
them. So I sympathize with the idea that nobody wants to believe our
leaders would allow something as terrible as 9/11 to happen, but facts
are facts. And it is because I’m sympathetic and civil that people are
more receptive to evidence I present and, as a result, I have changed
the minds of many skeptics and made some good friends in the process.
And don’t forget about the people who are listening in to the debate.
Even if the debunker still doubts you, if you make a strong and
convincing case you may have won over many of the audience following the
thread.
As far as how to fix it, I have heard the possibility of an
International investigation. I would be curious what evidence they could
present and if anyone in America would take the findings seriously or
just dismiss it more anti-American sentiment. The best possible scenario
for exposing 9/11 would be an American criminal investigation, open to
the public, and with subpoena power.
But of course the first step is to try to inform the American people
of the need to re-open the 9/11 investigation. And with the mainstream
media unwilling to discuss such topics, then we must become the media.
There are many ways to do this.
I started by writing editorials to my local paper with my questions
about 9/11, then downloaded flyers from the net and began handing them
out at local events. I’ve also handed out free DVDs that I made, held
public meetings and screenings of
9/11 movies at the local library, and circulated
petitions for people to sign supporting a new investigation. I have even started my own local chapter of 9/11 Truth to
help organize an awareness campaign in my area.
Still the most efficient way to spread the word is by simple one on
one conversations with your friends and family. People have become
suspicious of the media but they will still trust the opinions of
friends. Keep the message simple: “We have not been told the whole truth
about 9/11, and considering how it has changed all of our lives, we
need a new investigation to find the whole truth or we risk loosing our
democracy.”
It may seem overwhelming, but you know how these things spread. You
tell 2 people, and they tell 2 people, and so on. Before long there will
be enough public support that the media and politicians will have to
respond, peacefully and according to the law.
JMT-Q:
How do we curve the cynicism out there regarding a new investigation?
I often point to the second JFK investigation known as, the
United States House Select Committee on Assassinations. The Committee found that…
“Two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy”
“Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F.
Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The
third shot he fired killed the President.”
And that…
“President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.”
The problem however is that they didn’t pinpoint the extent of the
conspiracy, and only years later did the lead counsel conclude that the
CIA wasn’t being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation. No,
the CIA not being forthcoming?! You’re kidding!
So you can see why even this can be viewed as a whitewash in that
while it acknowledges the conspiracy, it then downplays it and still
only pinpoints blame on Oswald.
So, what steps do you think can be taken to ensure that a new US
investigation will not just be another whitewash, or semi-whitewash?
And as you may know when
Obama was asked by Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth if he would join
Congressman Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in calling for a new investigation, he stated…
“Yeah, okay, I think that we need to investigate a whole range of
options, although I have to admit that, some of the issues that I
understand you guys have raised I’m not as entirely confident are the
case.”
Then in
a letter to one of his constituents who raised concerns to him he stated that…
“While I do not believe the U.S. government was complicit in the
attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable
mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day.”
So perhaps he is not a lost cause? He says that
“we are the ones we have been waiting for,” and I couldn’t agree more, now we just need to convince him to join us!
So my questions concerning him are one, is some of this maybe just
election time posturing, and might he be even more open to this than he
seems? Two, does he even need to be in the equation, or are things the
route of the
NYC 911 Ballot Initiative more of what you think is needed?
Stewart Bradley-A:
I certainly don’t blame people who are skeptical that even if a new
9/11 investigation would be allowed, that it would expose the true
criminals or hold them accountable. While the unspoken purpose of
“officially endorsed” investigations are normally to appease public
demand while reinforcing the fabricated version of the crime, I think it
heavily depends on if the group in charge of the investigation is truly
impartial and if they have legal power to obtain incriminating
documents and question high level officials under oath.
Although I have not given up hope on Barack Obama to try to change
Washington politics if he is elected, I understand that our corporate
controlled political and media system would never allow someone, anyone,
to rise to his level of power if there was a genuine danger of him
actually wresting government control from our corporate masters and
return it to the common man. Prime example is Ralph Nader who has run
for president five times now, yet the media intentionally ignores his
campaign, excludes him from polls and debates, and only ever mentions
him in reference to the futility of his efforts. If the media had
treated Obama like this then I would be more inclined to believe Obama
was really going to change things.
Not that Obama’s endorsement of a new investigation is really
necessary. Sure Obama’s blessing would be helpful in gaining public
support, but I think the
NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative
is a much more effective way to get an investigation started. But all
of that still depends on educating people on why a new investigation is
necessary. If we can build a “critical mass” of public demand then the
media will be forced to address the issue and our elected
representatives will be forced to react.
JMT-Q:
Yes people really need to post the
NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative link as many places as they can think of, and not let up on Obama either…
http://obama.senate.gov/contact/
Getting back to the “debunkers” for a second, one thing many of them
do is try to paint everything with a black and white brush, never
considering complex scenarios, such as this…
“The most robust way for insider masterminds to stage 9/11 and
get away with it is to arrange for their agents to infiltrate among
“real foreign terrorists.” Let them come up with their own plots (or
plant plots among them), choose a plot that will produce the results
desired by the masterminds, and see that through to fruition. At some
point, the masterminds and their agents will hijack the plot from the
would-be hijackers, to make sure it happens. You won’t risk the whole
game on the ability of amateurs to get away with it, you will help them
along or even replace them (with a remote control hijacking, for
example). But it’s best to have “real terrorists” in play. They leave a
more solid trail of evidence internationally. Cops and agents and
academics of two dozen countries can honestly confirm the existence of
an al-Qaeda network. That way there is less need to initiate outside
observers into the plot and you don’t have to hope they are all stupid,
as they would have to be to fall for a complete fabrication of “Qaeda.”
(Qaeda at this point is just a term of convenience for the Islamist
extremist networks.) – Nicholas Levis, summeroftruth.org
Have you too seen that many debunkers ignore possibilities such as these?
Stewart Bradley-A:
If debunkers are masters of anything it is finding ways to ignore and
deny any possible conclusion that contradicts the official story. They
are capable of the most unreasonable twists of logic, the least credible
of scientific methods, and the wildest leaps of pure speculation to
defend their fragile ideological worldview. Then they have the audacity
to accuse 9/11 Truthers of engaging in the very intellectual dishonesty
that they have developed into an art form.
The worst is when a debunker becomes so smug and over confident in
their misinformation it becomes a matter of stubborn pride to discredit
any fact, no matter how irrefutable, in order to maintain a self serving
reputation as a “master debunker.” I will confess that occasionally in
debates about 9/11 I have been proven wrong, such as figures I had
mis-quoted or assumptions I had made without adequate evidence, yet I
was able to concede the argument with dignity and even thank my opponent
for correcting my information. But debating for the hardcore debunker
has become a game they cannot admit to loosing, even if they are faced
with hard evidence of a factual error. Indeed, how can you win an
argument with someone who refuses to admit when they are wrong?
JMT-Q:
To wrap up, please point out some of the places that people can find
your works, and any specific things, or upcoming projects you would
really like them know about. Beyond that, make any final statements that
you would like to. And of course thanks for doing the interview and all
of your hard work, if only everyone was as dedicated as you are, we
would be much further along.
Stewart Bradley-A:
Even with all the different degrees of
9/11 Truther, ranging from the reserved skeptic, to the political based LIHOPs, to the scientific based
MIHOPs, to the
wildly speculative fringe,
the one underlying theme that unites us all is the justified call for a
long overdue legitimate investigation. I even try to convince debunkers
to back a new investigation by pointing out that if a genuine
investigation proves the “official story” to be correct then it would
effectively end the 9/11 Truth Movement. Of course the debunkers usually
reject the investigation, I believe, because they know if a genuine
investigation proves the “official story” to be false then it would
vindicate the 9/11 Truth Movement. Debunkers just don’t want to take
that chance.
One final thought for my fellow Truthers on successful tactics for
winning people over. I like watching video clips where high profile
politicians are ambushed with questions about 9/11 like, “
Do you support the victims families call for a new investigation?”
or,”What is the hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11?”
These questions, when respectfully asked, put the person on the spot to
explain their position. What is not helping is shouting comments like,
“You are New World Order scum!”, or calling them traitors, criminals, or
murderers. This not only allows the person to simply reject our
questions but makes Truthers look like disrespectful and raving bullies.
Mudslinging tactics will only ruin our credibility. If we expect to be
taken seriously then we must keep the name calling out of it and stick
to relevant questions.
I really want to thank you for this chance to share my views, and
hope I have helped you and your readers develop winning strategies both
in debates and in the fight for a legitimate 9/11 investigation. I am
currently working on a new feature length video which simulates a
criminal inquiry into 9/11, which is scheduled to be released by
December. But till then you can check out my videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/stoobradley. And check out my “Mayhem”conspiracy research, “BrainLab” science/spirituality research, music, art, and more at:
http://bradleyinfotainment.com
Peace, Truth, and Justice……… Stewart Bradley
This blog entry can also be viewed on
9/11truth.org and
visibility911.com.
