George Orwell and 1984 – A Special Report by Visibility 9-11

EDITOR’S NOTE: Much of the information in this page was originally published in the November 2007 Visibility 9-11 Newsletter. Unfortunately due to time restraints, the newsletter was only produced for 3 months. However, the content here is too valuable to not have it’s own prominent place at this website. Therefore, the content with information regarding George Orwell, 1984, and how it applies to us today, is reproduced on this page.

Dear Friends,

Another month has passed and much has happened, even in the last 30 days to advance the cause for truth surrounding the events of September 11th. Be sure and check 911Blogger every day for all the daily 9-11 related news and happenings. If you don’t have an account there, create one. Then you can host your own blog and post 9-11 related information that you either create or come across. With many visitors/bloggers contributing, it can better be insured that nothing important will get by us. It’s a team effort and thanks to the 911Blogger team and all of its contributors!

Each month brings us closer and closer to our goal of realizing a new and truly independent investigation which will hold those responsible for their crimes, not only those crimes of 9-11 itself, but the crimes of the cover-up of 9-11, the subsequent assault on our freedoms, and the lies and un-Constitutional wars we have been dragged into. More and more activists are carrying the torch of 9-11 truth and are becoming educated and aware of just how out of control our government really is. All across the country, and indeed the world, truthers are picking up the banner for 9-11 truth and hitting the streets. Check out the photos of dedicated activists and consider joining them in your town for the 11th of Every Month Action Campaign. Thanks going out to Cosmos and everyone over at truthaction.org!

I recently watched the movie Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. I have seen the film several times and also read the book and always get something new from watching or reading this work. I highly recommend first, the book, but secondly, the movie is also very well done. As with any book vs. movie, the book is always much better and generally contains far more detail than the movie can provide. This is certainly true in this case…get the book! Perhaps easier than getting the book, you can hear an audio recording of the book here. If you don’t have time or for whatever reason and the book is not an option, you can watch the film production of the book here. Lastly, I put together a program some time ago which consisted of a recording of a radio broadcast from 1948, the year Nineteen Eighty-Four was published, and featured an NBC University Theater production of the work starring David Niven as Winston Smith.

As you look around our world today, after reading Orwell, you cannot help but see this vision taking place before your very eyes. From the perpetual, non-ending war waged by the Ministry of Peace, to the torture emanating from the Ministry of Love, to the prosecution of thought crime by the Thought Police, we see evidence of the methods of control used by Big Brother all around us today. One such Orwellian method of control is vividly illustrated in this month’s newsletter in the article below by Arabesque titled Disinformation and the Misleading and False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy. Albeit subtle and unrecognizable to most people, this article highlights a stunning example of what Orwell called Newspeak.

To better understand how the terms known as LIHOP and MIHOP can be seen as examples of Orwellian Newspeak, it may be helpful to review exactly what Newspeak is to Orwell. In Oceania, where the events in the book take place, Newspeak is the official language of “The Party”. Successive editions of the Newspeak dictionary, rather than getting larger with each edition, got smaller. This was an active and ongoing revision of the language conducted by Big Brother and Ingsoc. Ingsoc is the name of “The Party” ruling over Oceania and itself a Newspeak word meaning “English Socialism”. What is the purpose of Newspeak? To limit individuality by making changes in the language designed to diminish the range of thought, rather than to advance it. By deliberately and gradually eliminating the choice of words, Big Brother could therefore control the people better by eliminating crimethink, the Newspeak word for thought crime. Thought crime was punishable by death in Oceania and Newspeak made it possible to eliminate crimethink by eliminating words in subtle and not so subtle ways. Some words were eliminated altogether; others changed by combining two words, or by using abbreviations and acronyms such as FEMA and Nazi. Speaking of, this use of abbreviations and acronyms is and has been a common tendency of totalitarian regimes.

A real world example of Newspeak can be found in an organization known as Communist International. Just the mere mention of this phrase conjures up images of totalitarianism and all of its manifestations. Want to change people’s perceptions of this organization? Simple. Reference the 11th edition of the Newspeak dictionary and call your organization Cominter. You have effectively removed any thought process that would bring about such negative associations and connotations and for all intents and purposes, changed the language.

Orwell put it best through Winston’s comrade Syme, who worked in the Research Department at the Ministry of Truth, when he spoke about Newspeak saying:

“The Eleventh Edition is the definitive edition. We’re getting the language into its final shape – the shape it’s going to have when nobody speaks anything else. You think our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We’re destroying words – scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We’re cutting the language down to the bone. In the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. The great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good’, for instance. If you have a word like ‘good’, what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well – better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good’, what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning; or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. In the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. The whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words – in reality, only one word.

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. There’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak.

By the year 2050 – earlier probably – all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron – they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of The Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

The whole process of translating Oldspeak into Newspeak was a conscious effort which combined words into easily spoken utterances which could be rapidly spoken and provoked little to no thought in the mind of the speaker. The intention here is to make speech independent of thought, which is what I see in the use of the terms LIHOP/MIHOP. It is essential to understand that thoughts and ideas harmful to Big Brother, especially political thoughts and ideas had to be unclear in the minds of the party members. Newspeak achieved this by naming these harmful thoughts in broad terms. Again, the LIHOP/MIHOP fit these Orwellian Newspeak tactics of language, and in turn, thought processes.

Newspeak worked because it eliminated countless words such as freedom, honor, justice, religion, and other concepts of liberty and equality and brought them all under the single word crimethink, or thought crime. How could the word freedom be understood if its concept was not even known? Similarly, the concepts of rationalism and objectivity were replaced with the word oldthink, a word that became synonymous with the discarded and undesirable past of individual thought. Using words of greater detail and meaning would have been dangerous to anyone in Oceania.

With all this said, I think it important that we examine the work of George Orwell and have the courage to face the similarities of today head on. It goes without saying that we are not quite where Orwell envisioned us to be in the year 1984, however, much of what Orwell had “predicted” is being manifested before our very eyes today. I encourage everyone to read or listen to the book, and to watch the movie. You will be more enriched as a result and will be able to see things from a different perspective. A healthy study of Orwell is a healthy study of society today and will equip you to better recognize the techniques of control which may be being implemented against our activism and ultimately, our society and way of life.

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face …forever.”
— The character O’Brien speaking to Winston Smith, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Fight Orwell’s vision, or get ready for a boot in your face!

— Michael Wolsey

9/11 Pentagon Attack – Small Hole Damage DEBUNKED

(Video) hy.poth.e.sis with Dr. Steven E. Jones

‘hy.poth.e.sis’ is a documentary film that follows physics professor Steven E. Jones during a pivotal point in his life. In 2005, Steven went public with a controversial theory regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. His assertion that the collapse was likely the result of pre-positioned explosives rather than the hijacked planes resulted in a backlash from the community and even threatened his standing as a professor at BYU. Despite hate mail, threats, and even bribery to end his research, Steven refused to give in to overwhelming pressure and continued his pursuit of the truth.

 

 

AE911Truth: The Experts Speak Out (Full Movie)


ikoni

Richard Gage’s Asterisk

Richard Gage’s Asterisk
by Michael Wolsey
www.visibility911.com

March 29, 2011

Anyone who knows Richard Gage, AIA very well or has worked with him, knows that Richard insists that when you cite his name anywhere, whether  in voice or print, that you include his title AIA, which stands for American Institute of Architects.  I assume it’s much like a Dr. following his name with the letters PhD and is obviously important to Richard for whatever reasons.    Those of us who know, always include the AIA tag when formally referring to Richard.   We know that if we do not, Richard will be quick to correct us!

Unfortunately, Richard now has another inclusion in his title; an Asterisk.

In early 2009, I learned that Richard Gage, AIA and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth had given a written endorsement of a new documentary about the September 11th Pentagon attack titled National Security Alert.  This film was being aggressively promoted by two people, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis who call themselves the Citizen Investigation Team or CIT.  Craig and Aldo were apparently seeking written or verbal endorsements of their film from high profile members of the 9-11 Truth Movement.[1] At some point, they had approached Richard and he agreed to give them a statement.    Richard’s written endorsement reads as follows:

“The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for.  The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD “National Security Alert” deserves serious attention – particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day.”

Prior to Richard’s endorsement of CIT, I knew about Craig and Aldo and their kooky theory that speculates that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon.  I confess that I didn’t really pay that much attention to them.  I consider CIT’s work to be counter to the truth and believe that unsubstantiated claims of truth based on dishonest research and methods and speculation actually hurts our efforts at achieving a new 9-11 investigation.   It was also a highly held belief that in most cases, it’s best as a movement to ignore disruptions such as these, which is what I did with CIT.

With much fanfare, CIT boasted their high profile endorsers to as much of the movement as would listen and used these peoples’ names as an appeal to authority [2] to further promote their film.  I saw this behavior as extremely dishonest and was very disappointed in Richard and the others. [3]  I considered this a tipping point and a place where 9-11 activists could no longer ignore CIT.  Since then, we have published several podcasts as well as articles on the topic at visibility911.com. [4]

In response, I personally contacted Richard and some of the other endorsers with polite, yet firm emails asking them if they knew the whole story behind CIT.  I urged them to look further into Aldo and Craig if they had not done so in the beginning, and reconsider their endorsements of what I considered to be the worst disinformation in the 9-11 movement history.    I also had a chance to sit down with Richard face to face when he was in Denver in August of 2009.

My biggest concern was that Richard’s endorsement of CIT was helping CIT’s credibility and hurting his own.   It is my opinion that there is very strong evidence to support the Controlled Demolition hypotheses at the World Trade Center on 9-11.  Richard and his organization AE911T had gained much credibility over the years in this area.  I did not want to see this hard work discredited by association with CIT and I saw this as a real possibility.  I informed Richard of my concerns, as well as why I believe what I do.  I was certainly not alone in my critique of CIT and I know Richard was hearing from many others on this topic.  After spending over an hour and a half talking on this, Richard admitted to me privately that he had probably made a mistake with regards to CIT but still failed to fully retract his endorsement.

In December 2009, Richard issued a “clarification” of his CIT statement, and in February of 2011, after educating himself about who Craig and Aldo really are, issued his “complete withdrawal of support” for CIT and their film.

Personally I welcomed this withdrawal of support by Richard, although I wished he hadn’t given them the statement in the first place.  I argued for a long time that the damage had been done, and that even if Richard took back his support from CIT, that they would never remove his name or words from their website.  This was even a prediction I made privately after Richard issued the withdrawal;  repeat, that CIT will NEVER remove his name or endorsement from their website.

Since then, I have from time to time checked back to the “Praise for Citizen Investigation Team” webpage to verify my prediction.  It is no great surprise to me, nor should it be to anyone familiar with CIT’s methods, that Richard’s endorsement continues to be posted at the CIT website along with the others.  The only difference now is that Richard’s words are now followed by a big red Asterisk which is actually a link to another page at the website which contains a long and wordy response by CIT to Richard’s withdrawal of support.  The link is neither prominent or easy to see.  It is linked only to the Asterisk itself and unless you are looking for it, you won’t see it.

The reasons that CIT will never remove Richard’s statements are not hard to understand.  It’s not because of pride or ego or anything like that.  The main reason, and one of the main goals of disinformation is to discredit good information with bad .  Since Richard and AE911 promote solid information, one way to undermine them is to discredit them.  When Richard, and all the other endorsers gave their names to CIT, they all in one way or another discredited themselves by associating good information with bad; some have called it the “turd in the punchbowl”.  The endorsements provide a strong tie between the good and the bad and these ties will never be broken; they are actually the goal.

Dishonest?  Heck yea, but what else is new with CIT.

Endnotes:

[1] It should be noted here that in my experience in the movement which goes back to 2003, I have never known any film about 9-11 to seek or even need endorsements.  The movement has at times been hungry for tools to use on their friends and new video’s about the 9-11 attacks are no exception.  The success or failure of a film was based on the films’ own merits.

[2]  Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[3]  This list includes David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Aidan Monaghan, Barrie Zwicker, Sander Hicks, Kevin Barrett, Peter Dale Scott, and Ed Asner.

[4]  It is not my intention in this essay to discuss the relative dangers in disinformation/ misinformation as it relates to CIT.  This topic has been extensively covered on our podcast and at my blog.

Colorado 9/11 Visibility.org, Colorado Citizens Concerned Over What Really Happened on September 11, 2001

Mar. 4, 2011 (PR Newswire) —

From the iStockAnalyst website.

DENVER, March 4, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Colorado citizens are among the nation’s leaders in pursuing the growing questions of what really happened on September 11, 2001.

Two developments are of particular interest:

1)  On Sunday March 6, 2011, Colorado citizens will sponsor a debate at the University of Colorado at Boulder exploring the question, “What brought down the three World Trade Center Towers?”

At 5:00 PM, Richard Gage, AIA, a 23-year architect and founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, squares off with Chris Mohr, a Denver investigative journalist.  See http://colorado911visibility.org/ for event details.

2)  On May 20 last year, the Colorado Democratic Party (CDP) adopted its 2010 Platform (http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf) that includes a resolution calling for a new, independent investigation of the events of, and related to, September 11, 2001:

“WHEREAS many disturbing facts were consciously ignored by the 9/11 Commission; Be it resolved, therefore, that the CDP calls for the establishment of a truly independent Grand Jury and public investigation into these and other anomalies in order to find the truth of the September 11, 2001 attacks, so that we have a greater probability of preventing attacks of this nature in the future.”

Colorado citizens, some of whom are signatories to the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Petition (http://www.ae911truth.org) which calls for a new forensic investigation into the events of September 11th, raised the issue for adoption at their respective precinct caucuses and county assemblies. The state platform committee then discussed, finalized and voted on the resolution and forwarded it, along with many other proposed positions, for adoption by the state party.

For supporting evidence and analysis, see:

Building What?  (http://www.BuildingWhat.org)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth  (http://www.ae911Truth.org)

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice  (http://stj911.org)

The Journal for 9/11 Studies  (http://stj911.org/journal.html)

911 Press For Truth  (http://www.911PressForTruth.com)

911 Truth (http://www.911Truth.org)

911 Research WTC 7  (http://www.911Research.wtc7.net)

911 Review  (http://www.911Review.com)

Hundreds of high-level military and intelligence officers, government officials, pilots and aviation professionals, scientists, journalists, 9/11 survivors and family members have called for a new independent investigation of the events surrounding 9/11. Their collected statements at Patriots Question 911 (http://www.patriotsquestion911.com) give weight and credibility to the call for a new, independent investigation.

Colorado 9/11 Visibility  (http://www.Colorado911Visibility.org)

2010 Colorado Democratic Party Platform (http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf)

SOURCE Colorado 9/11 Visibility.org
(Source: PR Newswire )

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

Via e-mail, 2/8/11 
Friends and Colleagues –  below is my statement regarding my complete withdrawal of support for CIT.    -Richard Gage

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Sincerely,
Richard Gage, AIA

–end of Richard Gage’s e-mail

Editors Note: Thank you to Richard Gage for taking the time to properly look into CIT and withdraw your endorsement of misinformation.  Your information and presentations are much too powerful to be associated with sloppy, agenda driven misinformation like that found in the film “National Security Alert”.

Dr Frank Legge on Visibility 9-11: Mounting Evidence Shows Boeing 757-200 Impact with Pentagon Probable

In this podcast, Dr Frank Legge discusses his new paper which was co-authored with Warren Stutt and has been published at the The Journal of 9/11 Studies, titled Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon ( http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf ).

In this lengthy and detailed discussion, Dr Legge is careful to lay out his way of thinking on the Pentagon issue and why it is so important to the 9/11 Truth Movement to not make unsupported claims about the events there. Legge looks at this issue from a purely scientific perspective and is only interested in what he can prove to be true based on hard evidence. It is clear to Legge and to the vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue, that while the Pentagon is a mystery to a degree, it is most likely that AA Flight 77, a Boeing 757-200 did hit the building based on the physical evidence available.

We now have the correctly decoded digital flight data from Flight 77 and it’s time for more people to get behind the call to reason on the Pentagon issue leading up to the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 Attacks!  There is nothing wrong with supporting the parts of the “official story” of  9/11 that are most likely true.   The team at Visibility 9-11 believe, as does Dr legge that it actually helps the interested public and especially the scientific community to see us as reasoned and balanced truth advocates when we do exactly that.

Lets stop being what we are labeled as “conspiracy theorist’s” and become “conspiracy factulist’s”!

For other instructive reading on the Pentagon please see related items below-

What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

Music by Root1, also known as Three Shoes Posse.

To listen to this program, click Play in the embedded player below. Click download if you would like to download the file for your media player or iPod.

(video) The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later, A Citizens’ Response: Did the Commission Get it Right?

This is the video documentation of this historic event in FOUR parts. Speakers included Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, victim family members Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg, John Judge, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Mel Goodman, John Newman, Marilyn Rosenthal, Peter Dale Scott, Michael Ruppert, Ray McGovern, among others. We regret to say that we have not preserved the very beginning of these events which includes an introduction by Congresswoman McKinney and the beginning of Lorie Van Auken’s speech. Fortunately, we have a written transcript which can be found here.


[Read more…]

“Debating” by Exaggeration, Namecalling and Threats by Gregg Roberts

January 8, 2011
Author: Gregg Roberts

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
-Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844 – 1900)

This article is a response to “Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?”, credited to “staff writers” at the Rock Creek Free Press, November 2010 edition, available at: http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV4No11-Web.pdf

The “leading 9/11 Truth site” being referred to is 911Blogger.com. The authors of the article critiqued here chose to remain anonymous, and the article’s title doesn’t lend itself to an easily pronounceable acronym. Therefore I will refer to the article’s authors, along with their vocal message board sympathizers and Barrie Zwicker, as The Complainers. We will abbreviate Citizen Investigation Team as “CIT” and their video National Security Alert as “NSA” (noting the irony).

I normally prefer the high ground when it comes to accusations regarding intentions. However, since the Complainers routinely impute sinister motives to their critics, the reader must consider whether that behavior is more consistent with an intention to support or subvert the overall agenda of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Contents

The Complainers’ article, like NSA itself, is fraught with logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty. Examples are discussed in the following sections:

A Running Ad Hominem…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

A Key Exaggeration………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

False Statements and Exaggerations………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

“There was no [plane] wreckage at the Pentagon”…………………………………………………………………………… 4

“CIT came along and proved [that] the plane flew away”…………………………………………………………………… 7

“The leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence”…………………………………………………….. 8

“Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements.”……………………………………………… 9

“Many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without

explanation or cause”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

Refusal to Acknowledge Rational Criticism and Respond to It Rationally……………………………………………… 10

Appeal to Popular Opinion………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

“Authorities Would Blame Controlled Demolition on Al Qaeda”…………………………………………………………… 11

A Severe Non Sequitur: Poor Political Analysis……………………………………………………………………………… 12

Deceptive Mentions of NSA “Endorsements” or Reviews………………………………………………………………….. 13

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13

Page numbers refer to the attached PDF.

A Running Ad Hominem

Most of the article consists of a running ad hominem attack, accusing people who run one of the admittedly “leading” 9/11 Truth websites of wanting to cover up mass murder. The Complainers correctly state “it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement”, but knowing this alone does not help to identify the infiltrators.  Sorting out the cast of characters requires close examination of the devilish details in order to distinguish among knavish infiltrators, simple fools, and sincere truth-seekers who have been fitted into a well-designed “snitch jacket” in the spirit of COINTELPRO.  The implicit assumption of the Complainers is that criticizing the investigative quality of CIT’s work is the same as working to cover up 9/11 – a manipulative appeal to emotion. The accusation of disloyalty echoes the McCarthyists and their modern-day brethren. It comes from the same playbook used by those who defend the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, for which 9/11 served as the pretext, by calling 9/11 activists “terrorist sympathizers.”

The Complainers drew warnings from 911Blogger moderators, for their vicious and divisive attacks on other researchers, the real cause of the banning of which the Complainers … complain. A moderator told them that this was one of the reasons that they were banned. Yet this explanation brought no humility or lessened outrage to the Complainers. Is their reaction simply an inability to see their own misbehavior as others see it, or something more? Does it perhaps come from the idea that the best defense is a good offense? (Readers with a well-developed sense of consistency will understand my indulgence in some questions regarding the Complainers’ intentions, given that they “went there” first.)

Whatever the reason, many comments supportive or critical of CIT/NSA that violated 911Blogger rules were allowed to stand because of the overwork that is endemic to the 9/11 truth movement. Whatever inconsistencies there might have been, in terms of who was allowed to get away with what, say little or nothing about the moderators’ intentions.

A Key Exaggeration

The Complainers write as though the evidence against a large airliner having flown into the Pentagon were strongly in their favor, and they make vastly exaggerated claims for the power and the clarity of that evidence. Jim Hoffman’s essay, The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics, published in October 2004, finds that much of the evidence regarding what hit the Pentagon is inconclusive, and is incapable of being made much better than it is. Since the 9/11 Truth movement is working to uncover the truth about 9/11, against a backdrop of blatant lies that constitute an orchestrated coverup, it is important to deal very cautiously with facts.  Deviating from the official story carries a heavy burden of proof, especially in the mind of the public. Speculation lays us open to debunking. Speculation that appears outrageous, and is proved wrong, can paint the whole 9/11 Truth Movement with a broad brush as crazies. We could lose all the hard fought ground we have gained, rendering our solid accomplishments moot. On these grounds, the question of what hit the Pentagon is a self-defeating choice as the focus of any demand for a new investigation. In one of his later analyses Hoffman concludes that “[the] evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757.” He added that while “the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77”, “that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.” We need to be willing to let the official story stand unless the proof to the contrary is extremely solid.

For critiques of the deceptive tactics used by CIT, see:

* Victoria Ashley, “To Con A Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’

* Chris Sarns, “Summary and Analysis of ‘National Security Alert’

* Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods by Erik Larson

* Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson

Here are three essays and a shorter but very recent piece describing what the Pentagon evidence actually shows. They also contain explanations of the severe disadvantages of focusing publicly on the question of what hit the Pentagon, and the benefits of focusing on the evidence that many other key aspects of the official account of what happened at the Pentagon are demonstrably false:

* Jim Hoffman, “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

* Michael Green, “How They Get Away With It.

* Frank Legge, “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth

* Kevin Ryan, “A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t

[Read more…]