"911: Busting the Myths" Sunday Mail newspaper article

Third_Density_Resident

Jedi Council Member
It seems that of late, here Down Under, the PTB are going into serious damage control relating to 9/11, perhaps because they sense a loss of control in the public's opinion on this issue. Apart from this newspaper article which was published yesterday in the pathetic newspaper "The Sunday Mail" (a Murdoch-controlled News Limited piece of rubbish), there have been and will be several television programs shown here about the events of 9/11, all more or less reinforcing the usual nonsense about how Arab terrorists hijacked planes and then crashed them into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. These programs cleverly intertwine the human tragedy with the official version of events, seemingly to make it less likely that the viewers will separate the two issues, focusing more on the victims than on the terrible conspiracy that really took place. And then couple all this with the upcoming two movies about 9/11, and you have the complete damage-control package!

Anyway, here is the article. I have only added a few little comments here and there (it's by no means an exhaustive analysis -- I haven't had time to look at the article properly so I have merely commented on those parts which stood out.) Note the disingenuous placement of quotation marks around certain words (a technique used to immediately throw certain ideas or concepts into question in the minds of readers, even if the use of quotes is unnecessary or even inappropriate).

9/11: Busting the Myths

Adam Harvey in New York


Five years after September 11, more than one-third of Americans believe the US Government was complicit in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

This extraordinary reaction to one of the most widely witnessed, reported and investigated incidents of modern times has been fed by what adherents like to call the "9/11 Truth Movement".

Type "9/11 conspiracy" into Google and you'll be hit with almost 1 million links to sites such as 911truth.org and letsroll911.org that claim the "official" version of what happened that day is a sham.

A popular "theory" is that the US Government orchestrated the attacks so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq.

Many of the theorists claim to have uncovered hard evidence that "proves" the Twin Towers were hit by military jets and brought down by controlled demolition, a mysterious white jet shot down United Flight 93, and the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile.

Long ignored by mainstream media [gee, I wonder why that is??? Not because they're illigitimate as this writer seems to so gullibly infer.], the theorists are now having their moment in the spotlight, with two recent opinion polls saying that millions of Americans do not believe al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden had anything to do with the attacks of September 11.

An Ohio University poll found that 36 per cent of Americans believe the US Government was either an active participant or had advance warning of the attacks.

The theories have even become part of international politics, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hinting that the Bush Administration was involved in 9/11.

Some theories are based on claims that are easy to make but difficult to disprove: "Jews were warned to stay away from the World Trade Centre that day" or "FEMA (disaster relief) workers were sent to New York City the night before the attacks".

Others ignore the vast array of evidence that point to a terrorist attack [what evidence?] and focus on a handful of facts that don't seem to add up: Why was the hole in the Pentagon so much smaller than a passenger jet? How could barely qualified pilots execute such a complex series of manoeuvres on planes they had never flown before? And why was so little aircraft wreckage found?

Theorists who raise these questions try to appear legitimate with a selective use of science, like the temperatures at which steel melts and reproducing seismic charts to show evidence of a bomb detonation in Manhattan that morning. [And yet I fail to see the scientific evidence from the official version proponents. From what I've read, it is they who try so desperately to legitimise their claims by using highly selective science.]

A book called 911: The Big Lie that claims the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, not a plane, has sold 200,000 copies and been translated in 20 languages. Documentaries such as In Plane Site and Loose Change have become sensations on college campuses across the US with their claims that virtually nothing about September 11 is what it seems.

Loose Change began its life as a film about a fictional government conspiracy, but director Dylan Avery says his research led him to realise that there really was a conspiracy and he decided to scrap the film and make a documentary instead.

Those behind the theories aren't just self-interested film-makers and raving bloggers. There are physics professors, pilots, engineers, scientists, supposed eyewitnesses and a handful of celebrities. [Well, the fact that properly qualified experts such as physicists have questioned the official story speaks volumes, but clearly this poor excuse for a newspaper/journalist doesn't see it this way.]

The most famous adherent is actor Charlie Sheen, who told a radio interviewer in March: "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with boxcutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 per cent of their targets raises a lot of questions."

Perhaps the most relevant question is why so many people like Sheen have clutched on to the paper-thin claims of films like Loose Change, while dismissing the mountain of evidence cited in the 9/11 Commission report and other official investigations. [What, the "mountain" of evidence which comes from the very people whose interest it is to suppress the true events, namely the U.S. Government??? Of course official investigations are 100% trustworthy by virtue of the fact that they're official! What is this "journalist" guy on?]

Slow to react, government officials and politicians are finally waking up to the danger of uncontested conspiracy theories.

"They ignore the methods of science, the protocols of investigation and the dictates of logic," said US Senator John McCain. [Another obviously very trustworthy source.] "The 9/11 conspiracy movement exploits the public's anger and sadness, shakes Americans' faith in their Government at a time when that faith is already near an all time low." [Which is to say: don't bother seriously looking at the events of 9/11 independently, because it offends too many people. The prevention of offending people is far more important than that pesky thing called "truth"!]

Legitimate media organisations like the New York Times and Popular Science magazine are finally taking the theorists to task. ["Legitimate"? How so? By the fact that they are big, mainstream and censor things from the public? Legitimacy should be judged on how truthful something is. The above sources have already proven to be untruthful, and hence illegitimate, worthless sources of information.]

An exhaustive investigation by Popular Science stripped back each conspiracy to its core set of facts then used science and logic to reveal the truth behind the myth. A new book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, details the magazine's findings. ["Exhaustive" doesn't mean long, as this writer seems to think -- it means thorough and accurate. Which the aforementioned "investigation" was not.]

Popular Science found that each conspiracy theory was supported by little more than shoddy research, misinterpretations of evidence, and leaps of logic that would embarrass a primary school student. The myths soon collapse under the weight of their own hot air.

[Apart from the fact that the following choice "myths" are either inaccurate to start with or are answered by their "truth" reply in an abysmally false, misleading or inadequate manner, note how certain "myths", such as the implosion of the 7 WTC, are omitted. They simply couldn't come up with an adequate "truth" to explain away how a huge building could collapse exactly in the manner of the 1&2 WTC buildings, despite nothing hitting it.]

MYTH
Hijackers were not skilled enough to fly four airliners through the complicated series of manoeuvres needed to hit their targets.

TRUTH
All four pilots had logged at least 250 hours' flying time and were commercially licensed pilots. They had trained extensively on commercial jet flight simulators and didn't have to perform the most complicated parts of any flight: taking off, flying in bad weather and landing. The New York pilots could see their targets from 100km away and the Pentagon huacker used autopilot to fly almost all the way to his destination, then disengaged it when he was a few minutes from his target.

MYTH
The towers were struck by military cargo planes or fuel tankers. Windows are not visible in photographs or footage of the planes before they struck the towers and a witness, cameraman Marc Birnbach said on September 11: "It definitely didn't look like a commercial plane. I didn't see any windows on the sides."

TRUTH
Birnbach told Popular Science he was 3km away and didn't see the plane hit the tower. The plane was tilted away from him, meaning the windows on the right side were pointed towards the sky. Part of a United Airlines fuselage, complete with portholes, was found on the roof of 5 World Trade Centre.

MYTH
The twin towers were in fact professionally demolished. An aircraft impact is not sufficient to knock down a skyscraper, and dust "squibs" indicating controlled demolition are visible just before the towers collapsed.

TRUTH
The aircraft severed a large portion of the external steel web that gave the towers much of their strength. Other metal supporting columns were weakened by the ferocious heat generated by burning jet fuel. The "squibs" were pressurised air being squeezed out of the building as the floors above it compacted. Explosives experts say that a successful demolition would require hundreds of tonnes of explosives packed around each weight-bearing column in the building. Installing the charges would have taken 75 men at least three months. [Well what's the problem with this? This could well have happened, and yet for some reason it's not seen as credible based on the fact it had to be done months in advance.]

MYTH
The Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile. Security tape of the attack shows a white blur, not a plane, the entry hole in the building was only 5m wide and no plane wreckage was found.

TRUTH
The plane flew over morning commuters and hundreds of witnesses saw it hit the Pentagon. Security cameras film at a very slow frame rate -- far too slow to show an object moving at 240m per second. Photographs taken after the attack and before the facade collapsed show a hole 30m wide, not 5m. A Boeing 757 is 40m from wingtip to wingtip, but parts of both wings were sheared off when they struck a generator and external vent near the Pentagon. Most of the plane was shredded on impact but the landing gear punched through three of the building's rings, and was recognisable in photographs.

MYTH
United Flight 93 was shot down by a jet that had been repainted white to disguise military markings. Debris from the plane was found kilometres from the impact zone, proving that it had exploded in midair.

TRUTH
The white plane seen by witnesses is no secret -- it was a corporate jet rerouted by flight controllers to the last known radar location of United 93. It circled the smoking impact zone as the pilot radioed in what he had found. The farthest piece of debris from the impact zone was just a few hundred metres away.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The best defense is a good offense. Just start sharing around all over the net and with family and friends who are receptive, Douglas Reed's "The Controversy of Zion."

http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/index.html

Once a person has read this, if they still do not see, there is no hope for them.
 

Mark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Lots of damage control underway in various areas. Yesterday I saw a show on Discovery Channel (or maybe it was History Channel, I forget) about Atlantis where they basically tried to show how Knossos was its center. Of course Secret History of The World provides plenty of information that suggests otherwise. This is only one of many such shows that cover (or should I say re-cover) material presented in the book.
 

foofighter

Jedi Council Member
I tried submitting the CoZ link, and it only took a couple of minutes to get the damage control engine running. Here's a sample of the counter-points you will hear:
* Controversy of Zion is a book based on the Protocols, and is severely antisemitic.
* Wikipedia describes it with "It describes a supposed Jewish plot to take over the world by subverting countries."
* According to Social Research Methods, "Today, Reed's work is unread by mainstream thinkers, but continues to be much venerated by anti-Semitic and fascist groups on the extreme right."
* The book claims that the world is led by an elite of Jews, that Jews are not semites (and therefore are not connected to Israel), and that what we are seeing is similar to what is said in the Protocols, a hoax

Just so you know what modes of attack to expect ;-)
 

Timótheos

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Propaganda Alert!

Next Sunday, CBC television in Canada is airing a psuedo-documentary about attacks of Sept 11th, appearing to parrot the official line that Islamic terrorists were behind the attacks and that Washington's failure to prevent them were due to "lack of communication" between Intelligence agencies.

What intrigued me most about this documentary was it's title... THE SECRET HISTORY OF 9/11.

Coincidence?

http://www.cbc.ca/cbcworldwide/

THE SECRET HISTORY OF 9/11
Coming: Sunday September 10, 2007

The fighter pilot circling over Washington has no weapons on his aircraft, and hopes to defend the White House by crashing his F-18 into a jetliner full of passengers....the President's motorcade is heading off in the wrong direction...the President is trying to dial Washington on a borrowed cell phone...From the producer of the acclaimed "Trail of Terrorist": The dramatic, minute-by minute account of the biggest terrorist crime in history...from the terrorists' secret meetings to the White House crisis room...an extraordinary inside account of intrigue, desperate pursuit, and chaos in the highest reaches of power.
 

RflctnOfU

Jedi Council Member
foofighter said:
I tried submitting the CoZ link, and it only took a couple of minutes to get the damage control engine running. Here's a sample of the counter-points you will hear:
* Controversy of Zion is a book based on the Protocols, and is severely antisemitic.
* Wikipedia describes it with "It describes a supposed Jewish plot to take over the world by subverting countries."
* According to Social Research Methods, "Today, Reed's work is unread by mainstream thinkers, but continues to be much venerated by anti-Semitic and fascist groups on the extreme right."
* The book claims that the world is led by an elite of Jews, that Jews are not semites (and therefore are not connected to Israel), and that what we are seeing is similar to what is said in the Protocols, a hoax

Just so you know what modes of attack to expect ;-)
To where did you try to submit the link to the CoZ??

Kris
 

domi

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
The best defense is a good offense. Just start sharing around all over the net and with family and friends who are receptive, Douglas Reed's "The Controversy of Zion."

http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/index.html
For those who would like to read the book offline, I grabbed it using wget and zipped it up.
Get the very light download (743KB) here: http://www.laughingtick.com/Controversybook.zip

Dominique.
 
S

Sigma6

Guest
"Most of the plane was shredded on impact but the landing gear punched through three of the building's rings, and was recognisable in photographs."

I'd like to get that in a recreation. . . accelerate the landing gear of a 757 to 400 mph and fire it at three widely separated layers of Pentagon-style steel-reinforced concrete.

Why. . . That's just such an *easy* thing to believe. Why haven't I abandoned my concerns earlier?

I'm confused, is that claim there something that this idiot came up with himself, or is that something we're officially expected to believe? Jesus. . . tomorrow pigs will be taking flight.
 
Top Bottom