Friday, May 19, 2006


Another straw man article which includes some dishonest reasoning and false assumptions.


"This, the story goes, to make Americans more malleable and subservient to their leaders and the military-industrial establishment (as if we’re not already subservient enough)."

The "story" this 'pilot' refers to is written in black and white in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz Project for a New American Century document REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES. They say it explicitly. These are THEIR WORDS, the people entrusted with defending the USA (after the judicial coup of 2000):

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

This "process of transformation" is the purpose of the document, what they are advocating. Catastrophe is a wonderful catalyst. This is the reasoning of the people in charge right now.

Antother example:

"To bolster their belief that the 19 skyjackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiracy-mongers invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots."


Show us the bodies and the autopsies. The world's press showed us 4 "alive
and well" alleged "suicide skyjackers" two weeks after 9-11.

Not one of you buffoons has addressed this issue.

BBC: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

The government has been lying to your face about at least SOME of the purported "terrorists." Yet, every media outlet in this country insists there were "19 Arabs" who committed these attacks.

The case has not been made. It certainly was never linked to bin Laden, as the funding linked directly to the Pakistani ISI, whose head was in close contact with Bush administration officials before, during, and after the 9-11 attacks.

A coverup has taken place, which is quite obvious if you bother to look at the evidence (ALL the evidence, you mental midgets).

Another example:

"Five minutes with a keyboard and mouse and you’re privy to more feverish speculation than the old Grassy Knollers ever could have dreamed of."

Now he's taking sides in the Kennedy assassination. The implication is clear, there was no conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Do thinking people today believe that? Using the "grassy knoll" where President Kennedy's kill shot came from as a slur? Then I'm supposed to take the rest of his points seriously?

Has "Pilot" ever bothered to watch the Zapruder film? It's been digitally remastered and released on DVD.

Another example:

"Maybe you didn’t know this, but Pan Am 103 was blown up by the CIA; "

It's enough to sound sarcastic?

"Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked"

"A FORMER Scottish police chief (...) has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people. "

"UN Claims Lockerbie Trial Was Rigged

Court was politically influenced by US"

So, this is the mindset of the author of this article, Mr. "Pilot." It is enough to sound sarcastic, for sarcasm is truth in today's media. I call this the 'sneering Nazi' mentality. It's what Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly are doing at Fox News (sic).

Donning this persona, the "pilot" then reaches for every conceivable loony tune theory he can find, much as Popular Mechanics did, authored by the Homeland Security (sic) Chief's cousin, Ben Chertoff.

Some of what the 'pilot' says makes sense. And he concedes in places that "conspiracy" is possible.

But, the overall effect is to keep the sleeping masses asleep. With the inclusion of numerous air crashes along with numerous outlandish theories, the author tries to muddle the case that 9-11 CANNOT be understood by mere mortals.

If that's the case, then why bother trying?

Sounds like a middle of the road disinfo piece. Not too harsh, not too soft. Just right for sleepy liberals who don't want to think that their government considers mass murder an option (even though the mass murder of foreigners is done routinely).

"It’s not beyond reason that some aspects of the 2001 attacks deserve more scrutiny than the 9/11 Commission lavished on them"

Is this a joke? "Lavished?" The author is in strange waters here. Which "aspects of the 2001 attacks deserve more scrutiny?"


The 9-11 Commission was run by Bush admin. member Phillip Zelikow. He controlled the questions, the witnesses, the topics explored. He edited and wrote the report. A wonderful writer, Zelikow also co-authored a book with Condolleeza Rice (one of the PRIME SUSPECTS!) The other guy in charge Kean, has shady dealings with Saudis in his past. And for God's sake, they tried to hand this cover up to Henry Kissinger in the first place!

This whitewash is what "pilot" refers to repeatedly, as if it was a legitimate investigation of the events of September 11th. It was certainly not.

Last example:

"Evidence, or lack of it, has little to do with what motivates many believers. At the heart of their convictions is something utterly unprovable. It’s faith."

Bullshit. The author claims to know what motivates an unknowable number of other people, and he insinuates that there isn't evidence of government involvement.

Volumes have been written which document the evidence implicating this government in the attacks of September 11th:

Crossing the Rubicon, by Michael Ruppert

Welcome to Terrorland by Daniel Hopsicker

The War on Freedom by Nafeez Ahmed (link to web article) (dozens of detailed 9-11 articles)

War and Globalization by Michel Chossudovsky

The Complete 9-11 Timeline by Paul Thompson

The New Pearl Harbor / 9-11 Commission Ommissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin

If you're actually seeking the "truth", rather than discouraging others from doing so through hyperbole and obfuscation, start with these works.