If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Pentagon desecration of 9/11 victims' remains: Proof that WE are "the enemy"


The New York Times has reported that Pentagon officials considered burying the remains of Pentagon 9/11 attack victims at sea. But they decided that would be too honorable. So they burned them and dumped them with the other garbage in a landfill.

How to explain such disrespect?

Were they in a rush to get rid of evidence? Maybe. After all, the family members of the 19 identity-theft victims who took the rap for 9/11 have been begging for DNA testing, and the US government has repeatedly turned them down. Perhaps the coverup team did not want any evidence about who really died on 9/11 (and who didn't) preserved and potentially available for independent examination. Burn the bodies, dump them at sea...anything to make sure they're gone forever.

Just like with the alleged corpse of Bin Laden.

Calling burial at sea "an Islamic custom" was an insane insult to the world's 1. 5 billion Muslims. And the whole "we killed Bin Laden and threw him in the ocean" story is an insane insult to the intelligence of the world.

But it's one thing to lie outrageously about Bin Laden and to (allegedly) desecrate his corpse. It's another thing to desecrate the bodies of American 9/11 victims.

This seemingly bizarre contempt for American victims suggests that the top of the command chain of the US Armed Forces viewed American 9/11 dead not as innocent victims and martyrs, but as "wasted" enemies.

After all, if you're a trained military killer, you "waste" your enemy. Whether dead or alive, he's just human waste. You kill him unreflectively, with Pavlovian efficiency. His remains are waste. They go in the dump.

That's how the top of the command chain treated American 9/11 victims. (And, later, the soldiers hoodwinked into fighting the 9/11 wars.)

And that disrespect for American dead speaks volumes.

It means that the top of the command chain viewed those Americans as enemies.

And guess what? Americans WERE the enemy to the cabal of top military brass, Mossad assets, and the Cheney-Bush White House...the real murderers of almost 3,000 Americans on 9/11/2001.

Donald Rumsfeld himself declared war on the Pentagon on September 10th, 2001. That same day - less than 24 hours before 9/11 - he admitted that 2.3 trillion dollars was missing from the Pentagon budget. 

The next day, the Pentagon accounting division was decimated in a bomb attack, later falsely attributed to a jetliner. 

As Rumsfeld so aptly quoted Pogo on 9/10/2001: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."



So...How do YOU think the bodies of the real 9/11 perpetrators should be treated?

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Anarchy in the UK! Brits declare official end to free speech

They don't want to hear the truth

London, UK

The country that gave the world free speech has decided to take it back.

That, at least, is the implication of two unsettling developments:

*The arrest of a teenager for posting a Facebook comment "All soldiers should DIE & go to HELL!" in response to the recent massacre of Afghan women and children.

* The UK government's revoking Press TV's license in Britain, followed by its threat to seize their equipment and shut them down.

In the first case, the UK government has made it a criminal act to express any negative emotions about the slaughter of innocent women and children by an army of war criminals. (Reality check: According to international law, every NATO soldier in Afghanistan is guilty of aggression, the supreme war crime, and therefore ought to be tried, convicted, and hanged by the neck until dead simply for being there. As for which ones go to hell, God can sort that one out.)

In the second case, the UK government has apparently decided that it is a crime for any media outlet of any size to tell the truth on a regular basis. (Press TV offers a broad array of perspectives, including many that - unlike the systematic lies of the mainstream media - are within hailing distance of reality.)

By banning free speech and a free press, the UK government has virtually delegitimized itself and admitted that it is not a government but a criminal organization. It may soon be incumbent on the citizens of the UK to overthrow the crime lords masquerading as government officials, and restore lawful governance in the island that gave the world the Magna Carta.

UK government officials who shut down free speech and free media should DIE & go to HELL! 

If I stood on the soapbox in Hyde Park and said that, would I be arrested?

And if it's true, as Alexander Baron suggests, that "there has never been a real tradition of free speech in Britain"...well, maybe it's time for the Brits to start the kind of revolution we had over here in the colonies.  (We yanks need another one here too...but that's another story.)

So now if I'm arrested next time I'm in London, you'll know why.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Zimmerman does NOT represent all Jews!


In the wake of the horrific murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by Jewish terrorist George Zimmerman, it is critically important that we all recognize that not every Jew is a cold-blooded murderous terrorist like Zimmerman. We cannot repeat too often that Judaism is a religion of peace. Yes, there are a small number of Jewish extremists out there who support child-murdering terrorist organizations like the State of Israel; who shoot innocent black kids down in cold blood; who call for the murder of the President of the United States; and so on and so forth. But most Jews are law-abiding citizens, not terrorists - even though parts of their Talmud do exhibit a vastly greater reverence for Jewish life than for non-Jewish life - and we must always remember that, and say it over and over so that everyone knows that we have to say it over and over because if we didn't, who knows? maybe the public would start associating the word "Jew" with the word "terrorist" and we wouldn't want that, would we? Let's see how awful that sounds: "Jew...terrorist. Jew....terrorist." Repeat that a hundred times. Finished? Great! Now you know that hearing and speaking the word "Jew" next to the word "terrorist" over and over, and being inundated by mainstream news stories that focus on the Jewishness of every perpetrator of violence who happens to be Jewish, doesn't necessarily influence the public to take a negative view of Jewishness, does it?

But even though most Jews are NOT terrorists - despite the actions of that small, radical minority - we do have to face up to the terrorism problem. It is a fact that Jews commit more than their share of terrorism - according to FBI statistics, more terrorist acts are committed by extremist Jews than by extremist Muslims, and Jews commit terrorism at a rate more than three times that of the general population. People who regularly visit terrorist propaganda websites that encourage or excuse the actions of the world's worst terrorist groups, the IDF and the Zionist-co-opted US military - websites like Fox News and the Jerusalem Post and even the New York Times and The Washington Post - need to be pre-emptively incarcerated. And the New York Police Department obviously needs to continue its massive program of spying on that city's extremely dangerous, mobbed-up Jewish community, in hopes of capturing or killing 9/11 terrorist poster-boy Osama Bin Silverstein.

Meanwhile, over in France, it's funny how nobody has even noticed the fact that the lone-nut gunman over there was a Muslim. Why won't the media report that? The answer is obvious: Muslims control the media, and they make sure that every time a Jew commits an atrocity we know it was a Jew...but when someone from a Muslim background does it, nobody is allowed to know what his background is. What a horrible, Judeophobic double-standard.

Anyway, please repeat after me: Judaism is a religion of peace, despite everything we see and hear every day in the newspapers and on TV. Not all Jews are terrorists, even though it seems that way because of the way the media focuses on the Jewishness of every Jewish malefactor. In our 100-year-war against Jewish terrorism, we must not condemn the entire Jewish community for the actions of the small minority of IDF-supporting extremists. 

There. Our liberal, bigotry-free credentials have been established.

Maybe Abe Foxman will give us an award.

* * *

Editor's note: 

This just in: It turns out that Zimmerman isn't Jewish, he's Catholic.  

But since the corporate media keeps referring to the alleged 9/11 hijackers as "Muslims," even though those operating under the 19 stolen identities prior to 9/11 were obviously not Muslims, we might as well follow their example and continue to deceive the public.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

My latest Press TV interview (and a couple of others)













Watch the interview: http://presstv.com/detail/232554.html

It has been one year since Saudi Arabian forces entered Bahrain to rescue the dictatorial Bahraini regime against a people's popular revolution for democracy.

Press TV has interviewed Dr. Kevin Barrett, author & Islamic Studies expert from Wisconsin about the relationships between the Al-Khalifa regime, Saudi Arabia and the US and how these external partners have influenced the popular revolution in Bahrain.

He also discusses the muted way which the UN as well as other human rights organizations are responding to the human rights violations being carried out by the Bahraini rulers against the people.

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Do the people of Bahrain have any other option but to keep up these peaceful protests? In other words, what do they need to do, do you think, to have reforms or to have demands of theirs met?

Dr. Barrett: Well, the people of Bahrain are going to need a lot of patience because they're unfortunately not being helped out by the West and the usual suspects who run around the world trumpeting their human rights concerns.

Here in Bahrain we have a genuine non-violent democracy movement. It's not clouded by issues of civil war; outside provocateurs… It is a movement that represents clearly the majority of the Bahraini people.

In Syria by contrast, polls taken by the Qatar government have showed that more than 55 percent of the Syrian people actually support their government. It's a much more complex situation there; but in Bahrain it's a straight forward peaceful pro-democracy movement that's being brutally repressed and has been now for more than a year.

Press TV: Let's look at the international response to the situation in Bahrain. One question is, could the Bahraini regime have survived this without the support that it got from Saudi Arabia and without also the political and diplomatic support that it got from the US as well? In other words, how have these countries influenced the course of the revolution in Bahrain?

Dr. Barrett: Well, the Saudis actually invaded Bahrain and put down the popular democracy movement last year. Without that invasion things might have continued building and the regime would not have been able to survive.

And again, this is a case of just rank hypocrisy. Imagine what would happen if let's say Iran were to send its forces into Syria to protect the government. Americans and their lackeys around the world would be screaming from the rooftops.

But here, the Saudi regime, which is a totally dictatorial monarchy, invaded a neighboring country to put down these peaceful pro-democracy protests… and did so successfully.

And of course the US, which has its Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain and which uses the Saudi dynasty to maintain corporate bankster control of the world dollar and oil system, didn’t’t mind at all.

So I think it's clear that the Americans and the Saudis are behind this propping up of a regime whose days are clearly numbered.

Press TV: Let's look at how the US is leading international efforts at the UN has been reacting to these revolutions. We saw for instance in the case of Libya or now in the case of Syria when it (the US) is not in favor of the rulers, it does call for military intervention; it does call for even equipping the opposition with arms.

Or as in the case of Yemen we saw the US and Saudi Arabia teaming up and calling for a political solution and even giving immunity from prosecution to the Yemeni ruler.

What kind of a solution do you think they're looking for in the case of Bahrain? Do you think that they're going to ask the Bahraini rulers to forego some of their powers?

Dr. Barrett: It's possible that they would be pushing some kind of compromise on the Bahraini rulers. I think the US and its allies are still trying to maintain this neo-imperial control of the Middle East in order to maintain their dollar-oil hegemony over the world.

And to do that they have tried to guide these Arab revolutions toward something other than real democracy because… when you really get down to it, in the region if there were real democracy the US Empire and its Zionists accomplices would be voted right out of the region. So they can't allow the region to generally democratize.

So what they're trying to do is destabilize certain areas - Libya and Syria have been the victims of this kind of destabilization. And then to try to stabilize others that perhaps really need to be changed.

I think the Persian Gulf oil sheikhdoms are the places that really need democratization more than any other part of the Middle East because they're the oil hub that really has the power by way of this control of oil supplies by a very small population that's being propped up by the Western bankers and imperial governors.

Press TV: Looking at the situation in Bahrain we had a committee months ago investigating allegations of torture ad crimes and that committee concluded that the Bahraini regime has actually carried out torture against prisoners; we've had death sentences for opposition activists - they're still in prison.

And as our guest in London was saying none of these reforms have happened, in order, as a precondition, to initiate that dialog.

We had the king in one instance saying that the constitution recognizes no such thing as an organized opposition in Bahrain. So, will the regime ever accept political reforms?

Dr. Barrett: Well that's a very good question. I agree that stopping torture; releasing the opposition leaders who are in prison now, should be a precondition for any kind of real dialog and negotiations.

I understand there are hundreds of opposition leaders imprison and the crackdown has continued unabated. The regime troops have continued to fire vast amounts of teargas into neighborhoods; into people's homes as well as using it in a way that's clearly a breach of international law against demonstrations. There's been live fire directed against neighborhoods, not just demonstrators, but the neighborhoods that support them.

It's very much a one-sided picture of extreme state repression against a non-violent movement - Again, unlike what we saw in Libya and in Syria.

So I would agree with the other guest that we need some kind of change in government policy to basically agree that the opposition does have a place and the leaders need to be released from jail and we need to see some kind of a truce in the streets.

Press TV: We are seeing the Bahraini protesters out on the streets. At the same time they're not getting any kind of concrete international support in their revolutionary move. There has been enough evidence of human rights abuses, of torture in the case of Bahrain violations of human rights - what can human rights organizations do about this? Why have we seen a muted response from the UN on this?

Even we have the reports of poisonous tear gas being used on protesters killing protesters and this poisonous gas the report says is being supplied by the US. What can the UN do about this?

Dr. Barrett: What the UN should do about it of course is give it the attention it deserves. But it appears that many of our human rights organizations like much of the Western corporate media is functioning more and more as a tool of propaganda for Empire rather than an honest broker. And that's a shame.

The UN has had its moments of relative independence and honesty... But this is not one of them.

So let's hope that popular pressure driven by the democratization of the media environment, of which Press TV is a big part, will lead to more and more people around the world seeing that in this case Bahrain is clearly a peaceful democracy movement being brutally repressed.

We need to put more attention on this; we need to get international investigations; we need to direct human rights organizations to look at this, not to be obsessed with what the corporate media masters here in the West are telling them to look at - which right now of course is Syria. We need to have some popular pressure on these organizations and maybe the UN will start doing its job in Bahrain.

* * *

Some of my other recent Press TV interviews:

'West aims to destabilize Middle East through Syria' (March 13th)
US engaged in 'war on Islam' (Feb. 28th)

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Hey NSA: Intercept THIS!


James Bamford, author of A Pretext for War and upcoming guest on my radio show, just revealed in Wired Magazine that the National Security Agency is building a gigantic Message Intercept Center in the Utah desert.

The NSA will be able to read all your emails and listen to your phone conversations. Breakthroughs in decryption will make codes like Pretty Good Privacy worse than useless, since the NSA will pay special attention to encrypted stuff, assuming that you must have something to hide. The NSA's untold acres worth of supercomputers will ferret out your psychological state and decide whether or not you are a threat to the powers that be.

As a patriotic, Constitution-loving American, I find this intolerable.

My first thought was to get hold of the best encryption system I can find, and send an encoded email to all of my freedom-loving friends urging them to BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THEIR BASEMENTS and BLOW EVERY NSA FACILITY, ESPECIALLY THE FORTHCOMING ONE IN UTAH, TO KINGDOM COME.

In the same coded email, I would urge my friends to DEVELOP A PERSONAL BIOWARFARE CAPABILITY and engineer a special ANTHRAX germ tailored to KILL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION. (If it kills every so-called “American” who is not fighting all-out against government officials who violate the Constitution, and thereby reduces the population of the USA by 99%, so much the better.)

I would urge those friends who do not possess the scientific wherewithal to MANUFACTURE PERSONAL WMD to instead ASSASSINATE ALL FEDERAL OFFICIALS WHO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION using whatever means are at hand: SNIPER RIFLES, HAND GRENADES, SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS, or even the dreaded AUSTRALIAN TOAD-SLIME VENOM.

I would try to convince my friends that any CONSTITUTION-BURNING TRAITOR who tries to spy on an American without a court order should be tarred and feathered, drawn and quartered, disemboweled, defenestrated, and run out of town on a rail.

I would urge my friends to join forces with AL-QAEDA, HAMAS, ISLAMIC JIHAD, HEZBULLAH, THE IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY, THE BASQUE LIBERATION FRONT, THE ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT, SMERSH, THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, THE SALVATION ARMY, and any other groups that might provide weapons, advisors, cookies and tea, or any other necessities.

So I wrote that email, and was just about to hit the “send” button...when suddenly I realized: “Wait a minute...Bamford says they can read encrypted stuff now! They'll intercept it! They'll read it! They'll send a Marine marching band to my front door to disappear me! I'll never be heard from again!”

So I sat there, not sure what to do. I read my email one more time. I asked myself: Am I serious? Or is this just a joke?

I know that I'm outraged by these Constitution-shredding traitors. But am I really a threat to some day take violent and/or illegal action against them?

Honestly, I don't think so.

But there's only way to find out for sure: Subject my thoughts to the scrutiny of many acres of supercomputers expressly programmed to sift through emails like mine and decide who's really a threat and who isn't. After all, they're the experts.

So I un-encrypted my email. And I put NSA key word triggers in capital letters.

And hit the “send” button.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

The Truthman Show: Is Reality Locked in a Detention Camp?

Propaganda strategy deployed against 9/11 truth: Build walls around it to prevent contagion of the illusion-dwelling masses; divide-and-conquer various truther factions by driving wedges and confining each faction to its own ghetto. In short, build a hermetically-sealed prison, and lock the truth inside.
In the film The Truman Show - possibly inspired by Philip K. Dick's novel Time Out of Joint - an ordinary guy begins to notice his own life exuding a faintly sinister whiff of artificiality. It turns out that Truman's life is a reality TV show, his neighborhood a sort of stage set doubling as a detention camp. And he, the star, is the only prisoner; everyone else just works there.

This idea resonates with us because we all live in illusory worlds constructed for our benefit by mind-control experts - starting with advertisers and public relations specialists, but including psychological warfare experts who brag that they're an empire now, so they create their own reality. Every time we are exposed to an advertisement or a Fox "news" piece, we are the star of a little show constructed for our benefit (or detriment) by the advertiser or propagandist. And we normally are unconscious of the whole process.

In this sense, each of us is a prisoner, walled off from reality by those who would keep us ignorant. Truth, reality, the real world - it all lies outside, beyond the prison walls constructed around our consciousness.

But what if it were the other way around? What if those who know the truth were imprisoned in a detention camp, while the "reality" outside was a gigantic illusion?

Someone left a comment on one of my posts yesterday that may or may not be true, but is at least a disturbingly wonderful metaphor. It addresses the biggest cliché ever offered by those desperately seeking to defend their delicate psyches against the horror of what was done to us on 9/11: "So what happened to the passengers?"

Here is the comment:


Prison camps were constructed and these camps house prisoners that "know too much". Most of the pawns of the conspiracy and alleged passengers of the 9/11 airplanes were removed prior to attack and eventually transferred to these camps. Those that were not cooperative were incinerated in furnaces built by Halliburton. Anyone who is not part of the regular entourage of movers & shakers, and be so subversive to willingly participate in plans of mass homicide, could not be trusted to keep their mouth shut, so they were relocated to these DHS "residential center" camps. They are allowed all the luxuries of daily life, even procreation, but have no access with the outside world. (Imagine being a kid and growing up with your parents in an institution completely cut off from the outside world. What a mind fuck.) Anyway; information is piped in but no communication exits the residential center. The "fusion centers" monitor the activities and communications of the "residential centers", as well as monitoring activities of the outside world.

In 2002, privileged access was achieved to a DHS database through a few known exploits in vulnerable systems on employee networked machines. From that access it was learned that at least 22 of the names of the supposed dead airline passengers coincided with names of residents staying in these residential centers (at the time they were just referred to as DHS facility addresses). This information was never made wildly public because a series of crimes was committed to attain the information (Wikileaks did not exist yet), but it was discussed in a multitude of IRC chat rooms on at least Dalnet, Efnet and Undernet. Being a member of the right online community (hackers), or having some skill of your own, one can learn the very same information if they were inclined to go snooping around particular defense networks. If you can get past being populated by skeptical fucked-up losers, the hacker community is renowned for their abilities to find data. Remember, the cake is a lie and so is their tie. Look into it. Beware though; active monitoring has been stepped up in government networks in the last 10 years. With the proper tools, no door remains locked because security does not exist.

Recently, there was an episode of Conspiracy Theory (S02E04) titled “Police State” that just lightly touched on these DHS fusion and residential centers. The show was referring to them as prison/internment camps until a spokesperson at one of the locations claimed it to be a residential center. 


Those of us who know the gist of the truth about 9/11 and related topics sometimes wonder whether we are the intended tenants of the currently-empty Haliburton detention camps. Somehow this thought doesn't really scare me. If it came to that, I'd rather be on the same side of the barbed wire with all the interesting people.

Which leads to an interesting question: If those who know the truth are walled off from the outside world, which is the real prison: The inside or the outside?

If they put all the truthers except me in a camp, I'd start planning my escape from "reality" by tunneling IN.

Another creepily stimulating aspect of the above scenario is the suggestion that we need to break open 9/11 truth to liberate the people who booked tickets on those four planes, but ended up in cargo containers being shipped to detention camps. Come on, truthers, get to work! Free Barbara Olson!

To tell you the truth, I find this scenario improbable. I think they probably threw ALL the potentially problematic people into Haliburton furnaces, not just the ornery ones. Keeping them alive in camps, tracked by computerized records, would be way too risky.

But I do think we need to go all-out for 9/11 truth in order to liberate these people...not from detention camps, but from their equivalent in the afterlife. The murdered passengers, like the people blown to smithereens in the Towers, and the millions killed in the Middle East, are still around, watching us from the other world, mutely urging us to get them some justice and liberate their spirits.

Lets get out there and knock down those walls.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Gilad Atzmon serenades Madison, Wisconsin!

Topnotch saxophone player & fearless philosopher Gilad Atzmon blew Madison away Friday night with a powerful lecture at the University of Wisconsin, then a jam session with members of Madison's premiere dance band, VO5, at the Weary Traveler Freehouse on Williamson Street.



Gilad is currently being witch-hunted by a bunch of folks who are apparently too fearful to think clearly. Their attacks on him don't hold up to scrutiny.  Since I know what it feels like to be witch-hunted by the forces of ignorance - and since I love Gilad as a person and respect his work - I am putting some time and energy into defending him.

Why Hate Gilad Atzmon?

Why Hate Gilad Atzmon Pt. 2: “He’s WRONG!” (Or Is He?)

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Psychologists: Nation handling 9/11 abuse trauma "surprisingly well"

Collective Abuse Committee members celebrate unanimous findings
that Americans are handling 9/11 well

The Collective Abuse Trauma Committee of the American Psychological Association will soon issue a report concluding that the American public has handled the trauma of watching their own leaders murder 3,000 of their fellow citizens on live television, and then get away scot-free, "suprisingly well, considering the circumstances."

"Typically, victims of abuse on this scale are completely devastated," explained Dilbert Digglehole, a psychoanalyst who heads the Abuse Trauma Committee. "They may find it hard to hold down a job or make lasting friendships, lose the ability to work productively over time, develop serious drug or alcohol problems, and experience recurrent run-ins with the law. They are high-risk for suicide, and often must struggle heroically to avoid becoming abusers themselves."

Digglehole contrasted the complete devastation often produced by Level 1-AAA abuse with the relative resilience the American public showed after watching Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and Silverstein blow more than 2500 people to smithereens in the controlled demolitions of WTC-1 and WTC-2 - and then lie through their teeth about it, in such an obvious fashion that a chimpanzee could see it, without ever being brought to justice.

"Sure, there has been some acting out," Digglehole admitted. "Americans have murdered a couple of million people in Iraq and Afghanistan, experienced episodes of psychotic anti-Muslim frenzy, burned the Constitution and erected a police state. Other than that, though, they've really handled the situation in a surprisingly mature fashion."

Dr. Sniddley Krapple, a trauma expert on the committee, explained that it could have been much worse. "What you have to remember is that that in terms of abusive trauma, this one was off-the-charts," she explained. "The whole thing was designed to engineer the most profound shock to the human nervous system that television is capable of. Having one's own leaders participate in something like this...well, it's sort of like a child who's always been reasonably well taken care of, as far as she can tell, suddenly watching her mother and father torture her two siblings to death. After an experience like that, you'd expect the American public to be completely incapacitated. And yet somehow they've brushed the nanothermite-dust off and gotten on with their lives."

Digglehole added: "In a less mature country, people might have experienced uncontrollable outbursts of anger. They might have stormed the White House, the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, Silverstein's offices, PNAC, and so on, and just burned everything to the ground and lynched the perpetrators.   But Americans have apparently taken lots of anger management classes and are now capable of avoiding being overcome by feelings of entirely-justified homicidal rage against mass-murdering traitors who deserve to die in the slowest and most painful way possible. Having passed through this crucible of trauma, Americans have emerged strong enough to forgive and forget, as they go about their daily business of murdering millions of completely innocent people on the other side of the world."

The only committee member to dissent from the majority's findings was Dr. Sneezley Chewingum of Harvard's Grumpus Memorial Institute for the Study of Hereditary Insanity. "When people are in serious denial, they build an imaginary wall around the source of their trauma," he said. "This may solve the problem temporarily. But living in an illusion has its costs. As the victim loses contact with reality and develops more and more false perceptions, and is forced to unconsciously expend more and more of his efforts to maintain the walls of denial, at some point the whole thing becomes unsustainable, and the person's personality suffers complete collapse. I fear that's the direction our nation is heading."

After weeks of studiously trying to pretend that Dr. Chewingum didn't exist, the other Committee members suddenly jumped on him, dragged him to the ground, and smothered him with a pillow.

The Committee's now-unanimous report is scheduled to be issued next week.


See also:  Psychologists: Questioning 9/11 Is the Sane Thing To Do

Sunday, March 4, 2012

My exchange with Morgan Reynolds, re: WTC demolitions

I recently had Morgan Reynolds on my radio show to explain/debate his article "WTC Destruction: Five Facts Falsify Five Theories."  (Listen to the interview.)

Morgan followed up with "Bombs Did Not Unravel the Towers."

I think Morgan's articles are very much worthy of discussion, as is Judy Wood's book Where Did the Towers Go, its main reference. One of Morgan's (and Judy's) strongest points is that the 9/11 truth movement has failed to hammer hard enough at one of the most obvious indications that the destruction of the Towers was not a natural collapse: The fact that it left no debris pile. The "rubble" at ground zero was basically at ground level, as Wood reminds us, with plenty of evidence, in chapter 9.  Sure, some pieces of the Towers crashed through into the sub-basements, and others were projected beyond the perimeter of the buildings' footprint. But any symmetrical collapse, whether from (absurdly improbable) fires or from (much more probable) demolition charges, should have left far more debris than this!

My main problem with Morgan's article is the way he selectively presents evidence in order to deny that explosions played a role in the demolitions (or annihilations - for if a demolition brings the pieces of a building to the ground, then the Towers were not demolished, but annihilated). According to Morgan, there were no eyewitnesses to explosions.  Oh really? Ever met William Rodriguez? Or the hundreds of others?













These are just a few of a huge number of similar accounts.

I responded to Morgan:

Morgan, the problem here is that you aren't acknowledging all the people who DID hear huge explosions, and described them as sounding like a typical demolition sequence. I'm sure you've watched all the big 9/11 truth films and seen the firefighters describing the "boom-boom-boom, all the way down."  And I'm sure you've seen the WTC-7 first responder who cites his military background and says "I think I know the sound of explosions when I hear them."  Those are just two of a great many examples of witnesses who cut against the grain of your thesis. You just ignore them, and cherry-pick evidence that supports your pre-established conclusion.

When we keep in mind how easy it would be for well-funded military experts to engineer cutter charges (and perhaps other kinds of explosives) to minimize the bang, along with claims that virtually all the extant footage has had explosion sounds removed through sound editing, I don't think you've proved your case. You'd be better off arguing more tentatively, and acknowledging the contradictory evidence and arguments.

Kevin

Morgan replied:

Kevin,

    Explosions happened, true.  Huge?  No, that did not happen. 
    I have no reason to be “tentative.”  I write about what the evidence tells us, especially when laid out by a meticulous scientist/engineer like Dr. Wood.  I shall leave “tentativeness” to you and other humanities scholars.  The best approach is to focus on the evidence and science of the case, not beliefs, assertions or accusations. 
    Things exploded at the WTC on 9/11, yes, we agree on that fact, but you must concede the following fact or look the fool: most explosions are not the result of bombs.  The vast majority of daily explosions, for example, occur inside internal combustion engines.  My article did not ignore explosions but rather cited many: eggs exploding inside microwaves, water/steam explosions, Scott Paks and cars exploding around the WTC plus pressurized vessels shooting out horizontal squibs in the towers (highly likely given Scott Pak and car explosions at ground level).  So the article did discuss reported explosions.  I did not ignore them.  You are either a careless reader or a liar.   Yes, bombs explode, but not all explosions are from bombs.  These are incontestable propositions.
    Nor did I ignore witnesses.  I discussed some of them.  Look, for example, at my reference to Andrew Johnson’s assessment of the 502 first responders.  I quoted witnesses as well.  How about Kevin Cosgrove as he died five floors from the top of the South Tower without a loud blast?  Abed?  Ober?  Heaney?  D’Angelo?  I consider the Cosgrove audio tape a devastating piece of evidence, good luck on refuting that.
    By contrast, to use your language, you “cherry pick evidence” to support your belief in bombs and cutter charges, overlooking the obvious fact that the towers (somehow) turned to dust in mid-air.  You are not being scientific.  Yes, under the stress of extraordinary and murderous events, witnesses reported explosions (so stipulated) and some probably believe to this day that bombs destroyed the towers.  Some may be military veterans, as you say, who “know the sound of explosions.”  OK, fine, most of know the sound of an explosion when we hear it but witnesses beliefs (especially about causation) do not determine what really happened on 9/11.  People on the scene had little idea of the what and how of the incredible events of 9/11, and latched onto whatever answer they could find or were given.  Truth is not determined democratically.  The totality of the facts tell us what happened via patient and thorough collection and scientific review of all the evidence. 
    Let me be plain: witnesses who claim the towers were destroyed by bombs planted inside are wrong.  Just like you are.  It is easy to understand why some witnesses would get it wrong: they heard and/or saw explosions and saw destruction, and put the two together.  They assume bombs exploded and destroyed the towers or they learned it on the internet from “truthers” like Kevin.  But here’s the fundamental problem: presence at the event does not confer analytical infallibility about what happened.  Presence does not qualify witnesses as scientific experts.  Witnesses who believe explosives destroyed the towers understandably have it wrong because they simply latched onto “the obvious” or what they were told to make sense of events.  They are wrong but it’s quite natural, but with you, Kevin, not so much.  You have the immense advantage of Dr. Wood’s textbook and my articles, and therefore access to the relevant facts, not to mention your obvious savvy and intelligence.  Somehow, you are unable to process the facts and learn what happened?  What is wrong with this picture?
    The ABC News team puzzled over the lack of debris after the WTC buildings disappeared on September 12, 2001, and George Stephanopoulos tried to explain it thusly: “The reason there’s so little rubble is that all of it simply fell down, into the ground, and was pulverized, evaporated.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyQk941tXQ  This is gibberish of course.  Evaporate means to change from a liquid or solid state into a vapor or gaseous state.  But who can blame him?  Steel and concrete had turned to fine dust in mid-air in mere seconds. 
    The towers’ destruction simply does not match the behavior of buildings collapsing or blowing up from planted, shaped explosives.  First, the towers did not collapse but turned to dust (impossible for bombs), and second, the sound of explosions heard at the WTC were not loud enough by half nor frequent enough to point to nukes or the enormous sequence of conventional explosives that would have been required to blow up a 110-story steel tower.  You apparently endorse claims that “the extant footage has had explosion sounds removed through sound editing.”  In the videos I cite?  You have no proof, only an allegation.  A belief about sound editing is not proof.  I bring evidence for my conclusions, so please offer specific facts to support your editing allegation.  Do not bother with the likes of an assertion by (bomb non-expert) Sophia. 
    You fail to appreciate the multiple facts that completely and utterly refute conventional explosives.  For example, rigging the towers and WTC7 with conventional explosives without detection would be impossible.  It would take weeks if not months of research, test blasts “to assess the strength needed to fracture or eliminate” columns, assessment of “the number and types of holes to be drilled to house the explosives,” drilling holes in exposed columns (steel of course) and load bearing walls, insertion of explosives and charges necessary to ignite them, insertion of wood-clay-sand-foam to shape the charge (guide the explosive force), all the detonator wiring (explosive cord), and a careful sequence of electrical timing necessary to orchestrate a building folding in on itself, especially two towers 110-stories tall each (!) in downtown Manhattan when the tallest demolition ever attempted (that I know of) was the Hudson Department Store in Detroit, less than 1/3 the height of WTC 1 or 2 (quotations are from Helene Liss, “Demolition,” p. 44).  Of course demolition experts like Mark Loizeaux scoff at 9/11 truthers like you who assert “demolition” but display little or no knowledge about it. 
    Explosives propel material at supersonic speed, thus the BOOM.  Preparing a CCD requires that all “stuff” be stripped in advance, including window glass, furniture, coke cans, anything that could become a projectile and shoot into adjacent buildings and people.  Yet no one noticed the removal of WTC windows or anyone carrying port-a-potties with them on the subway or PATH trains that morning.  Cantor Fitzgerald wasn’t asking employees to use the toilets across the street, was it?  Employees would spend a lot of time going up and down elevators.  The U.S. Post Office right across the street from WTC 7 was untouched by projectiles.  How many reports do we have of people cut up by flying glass or porcelain toilets?  None that I know of. 
    Preparing the Seattle Kingdome in 2000 for demolition took a crew of 20 people five weeks to drill 5,905 holes for the explosives, 4,728 pounds of explosives and 21.6 miles of detonating cord (p. 108).  For the sake of argument, imagine people working in the WTC towers wondering who all those blue-collar guys were drilling into exposed steel support columns throughout the towers (10,000+ holes up and down, all around each tower) for weeks, trucking in tons of explosives and detonators, strategically planting them, stuffing in tons of shaping materials followed by explosive cord connecting detonators throughout the towers with all those cords ultimately extending to...where?  To Demolition Central (otherwise known as “D.C.”) across Liberty, West, Vesey or Church St., to some unspecified location?  Do you have evidence that WTC 7 was D.C. until it came time for the perps to relocate?  Where were their cords?  You are the proponent of explosives in the towers, so you tell me.  Are we to believe that WTC office workers and executives shrugged their shoulders and ignored all this prepping activity despite the 1993 bombing and daily threats against the WTC?  To my knowledge, nobody reported any such prepping of three WTC towers for demolition.  Despite frequent patrols, the Port Authority PD, WTC security and bomb-sniffing dogs never detected anything out of the ordinary either.  You invoke “military experts” in demolition.  They can minimize the bang of RDX and other conventional kinetic energy weapons you say?  KE devices suddenly release big energy and necessarily involve light, heat and supersonic blast waves.  Can these experts minimize all the physcial properties of KE devices?  Who are these magicians?  How do they defy physical laws with KE devices?  What is on their resume?  They know more than Mark Loizeaux about CCD?  Prove it.  You invoke “military experts” without documentation, proof of concept or any form of evidence.  Like most 9/11 leaders, you advocate hocus-pocus. 
    While we’re on thie topic, 9/11 was a psyop, correct?  The U.S. military employs experts in psychology, no?  Try this: When we keep in mind how easy it would be for well-funded “military experts” to engineer a “9/11 Truth Movement” and plant leaders in it to control public opinion, I don’t think you’ve proved your case.
    The remaining four of five facts I cited remain uncontested--slight debris, intact bathtub, small seismic impact and immense amounts of fine dust—and these alone prove five popular theories of WTC destruction wrong.  The popular theories are exposed for the hopeless bushwa they are.  A scientific approach begins with what happened and the most important fact is that the towers turned to fine powder in mid-air.  Bombs cannot do that.  Impossible.  KE bombs fragment materials into chunks.  Prove that false.  You cannot.
    Time to change your mind Kevin.  I’d suggest changing your team too.  Or don’t you care about being on the winning side?  Remember journalism’s mantra: get it first, get it right.
  
Best regards,
Morgan Reynolds