The Suppressed September 11th

Recommended Reading Concerning 9/11

(This article will refer the reader to some compendiums of credible news reports concerning the attacks of 9/11. Most of these news stories were mentioned briefly, and then conspicuously forgotten about by news organizations, by purported investigators, and even by the general public.

It is important to note the intentional cognitive dissonance where the notion of "conspiracy" is derided nearly every day in the media, yet that same media's own reports indicate that conspiracy was the most likely scenario on 9/11/01.)

In the Crimes of the State article, No George Monbiot, These are the Facts of September 11th 2001, I detail 70 areas of interest with links to sources. There are more anomalies, but these are a solid framework for beginning a study of possible US government conspiracy which either allowed the attacks to occur, or actively participated and made the attacks to occur.

For those with plenty of time and interest in this subject, Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline is an exhaustive and comprehensive collection of mainstream news reports from around the world. Thompson's work has been an indispensible source for numerous researchers.

The original timeline of suspicious activity, produced in late 2001 by Michael C. Ruppert was called, "Oh Lucy! You Gotta Lotta 'Splainin to Do." Several entries can be taken in more than one way, and much more data has emerged since that time.

A relatively new website called WantToKnow.info maintains several pages of these collections of news stories. Some of their included stories don't appear on other sites, and so it is recommended to check out their offerings.

I highly recommend the 911proof.com website, as they provide sourced evidence organized by topic in easy to access web pages. I have come across some material there I hadn't previously seen, such as specific quotes from firemen on the scene in New York City that day.

Physics Professor Dr. Steven Jones maintains the Journal of 9/11 Studies where you will find some technical arguments, and some lengthy papers authored by academics.

Several recommended books are David Ray Griffin's The 9/11 Commission Omissions and Distortions, Nafeez M. Ahmed's The War on Truth as well as The War on Freedom, Professor Michel Chossudovsky's War and Globalization, and Daniel Hopsicker's Welcome to Terrorland.

There are of course other authors and other books and other websites with value, such as 911truth.org, for instance ... but ...

Now For the NOT RECOMMENDED

I would be remiss if I didn't warn new researchers about the minefield of nonsensical garbage out there on the Internet, supposedly put out by "truthers." Anyone can label him/her self as such, but that doesn't make it so.

Anyone pushing the idea that "no planes" hit the World Trade Center on 9/11, really isn't worth a second of your valuable time. They usually headline their fantasies as "TV Fakery," or some similar "fake," or "hoax" analogy.

Similarly, those peddling the "Directed Energy Weapon" theory (gibberish), or "space beams," or "energy beams", or however they phrase it, are yanking your chain. These are not serious scientists, and they are not intrested in the "truth" about anything whatsoever, despite their posturing and apparent inclusion in "the truth movement."

There has been a raging disinformation war regarding these attacks for six years now. So much sewage has been put out on the Internet -- in order to discredit the Internet itself, and those who rely upon it -- that it is very, very difficult to sort out the bonafide facts from the "whack job" "conspiracy theories" that are nearly everywhere.

If that makes me sound as if I support the "official theory" as posited in the 9/11 Commission Report, then you haven't been paying very close attention.

Some of these disinformaiton artists are obvious, such as Nico Haupt, who has firmly and maniacally pushed the "no planes" nonsense for quite a while.

Others are more subtle, and more formidable as opponents. Dr. James Fetzer could be the real thing, at first glance, someone pushing for "truth." But, once you see Fetzer's behind the scenes activity, attacking the character of people like Dr. Steven Jones, and Fetzer's embrace of the "no planes" and "space beams" theories, his credibility begins to crumble.

Another character to be wary of is "Fintan Dunne," who has basically called most of the genuine 9/11 investigators "CIA Fakes," on his website. This divide and conquer strategy appears to have come straight from Langley, and manifests itself in a number of places in "the movement."

Recently Webster Tarpley has opened up a front in the divide and conquer battleground. Many were in awe of Tarpley's impressive rhetorical skills and prolific talent for writing about 9/11. But, was Tarpley's work non-fiction? In 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism, Tarpley's highly selling book on September 11th, he pushes the "directed energy weapons" theory (at the end of chapter 6), that a giant laser/maser what-have-you, brought down the Twin Towers.

ADDED 9/27/07

"HEADSPIN" says:

Play Fair ... while i wholey agree on the majority of the article, I want to take issue with your above statement, if you read what tarpley says, it is clear that he does NOT endorse (push) directed energy weapons - your statement is mis-information.

My response:

I suppose I should have quoted Tarpley at length. Here is the offending passage:

"For a possible explanation of what kind of energy source could have been at work, we must turn our attention to the realm of new physical principles, and thus to the class of directed energy weapons which are probably most familiar to the general public in connection with President Reagan's so-called star wars speech of March 23, 1983."--Synthetic Terror, p 25 (emphasis added)

No. We MUSTN'T. That's nonsense. That's garbage. It is not an imperative to link "Star Wars" to September 11th 2001. This is a clear bit of disinformation -- or at the very least, intentional misdirection -- in Tarpley's book, which I find highly revealing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the very first instance of the "directed energy beam hypothesis" to be found in print anywhere. It is stated as an imperative. It is clearly not a logical conclusion, given the numerous reports of explosions (which provide very conventional forms of energy), as well as the kinetic energy of the structures falling to earth.

Buildings are routinely brought down by conventional energy sources, and no Death Ray Alien Technology TM is required. Pretending that these buildings could not be brought down by "conventional" means is dishonest and indicative of a disinformation tactic.

This is like a test marketing exercise to see if the wacky idea sticks. It evidently has. Other loons have taken it up under the cover of "science." Science fiction is not science. This is a fake bit of misdirection put out there to make us look like gibbering idiots. Tarpley is implicated by his own words.

That's my "fair" take on that passage.

END OF ADDITION.

If someone repeats this "theory" to the mainstream journalist crowd, they are going to look like an imbecile. They are going to be given the cold shoulder. They are going to distance even the best intentioned reporters from listening any further.

Long term disinformation peddler The Webfairy, aka. "Rosalie Grable," is someone to avoid like the plague. Many bogus Photoshopped hoaxes have originated there. Webfairy is linked to several other disinfo types, and to a website called "terrorize.dk."

A new website called "911researchers.com" exists to trash talk those who reject the "no planes" and "directed energy weapon" disinformation. You can see many of their low-level parrot troops at open message boards where 9/11 is discussed. They generally reduce the quality of discussion to nil.

"THE BEDUNKERS"

I have focused upon false "truther" sites. There is also a gigantic "debunker" community that regularly attacks the very notion that anything could have been amiss on 9/11.

Not everything the "debunkers" say is in fact false. Some are intelligent, though misquided by dogmatism (that the US government couldn't/wouldn't have done it, a priori). An "a priori" argument is "existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait."

One of the most referenced of these debunker sites is 911myths.com, which has done some meticulous research in their goal of discrediting specific claims made by some 9/11 skeptics. You should investigate this site to see what the other side is saying. They have exposed a number of claims as weak or poorly supported. Other claims that the 911myths.com website has made are themselves poor and/or incorrect.

As an example of their bogus reasoning, their page on WTC7 makes the claim that the massive amount of smoke visible in the photo is coming from building WTC7, when that is patently false. Buildings 5 and 6, located across the street, were both raging infernos, and the source of most of that smoke (interestingly, neither building 5 nor 6 collapsed into its own footprint, and both remained standing despite far more serious fires than building 7, or Tower 1 or 2 for that matter).

The site authors have had quite a while to go back and correct their claims, and to provide for the alternate explanation, yet they never did. Credibility lacking.

This September 11th, say something. Say something to someone. Let them know that we have been lied to, and you can back it up in black and white, with solid evidence. Then do so.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/