Why Do So Many Otherwise Intelligent People Shut Down Their Brains When It Comes To 911?

Written by Devtome wiki contributor Bomac


[Pictured Above: Utter pulverization one of just one the twin towers and its entire contents, supposedly caused by its collapse, allegedly brought on about by fire, purported to melt steel, that was supposed to have started when a pilot who flunked out of puddle jumper flight school successfully piloted a 767, using it as a missile, which is an idea nobody in government had ever conceived of, except for the fact that it was thought of for decades, and was, in fact, the basis for drills that were amazingly, just coincidentally happening when 911 was underway, causing confusion among the military and traffic controllers who were unclear if the reports were real or if they were part of the drills.]

Yeah - It's All So Believable

If you clicked on this article because of the title, and you thought you were going to read about intelligent people shutting down their brains by believing that the government and the media conspired to bring about (and cover up) events of that atrocious day, I would like to challenge you to please don't just click away from this now.

However, if you clicked on this because you thought you were going to read about intelligent people shutting down their brains by believing the official story of 911, I probably don't need to ask you to stick around, because you guessed correctly… and most of us generally choose to read things we agree with.

Now that 97% of the believers in the official story of 911 have left, I want to salute the 3% remaining from that group for being extraordinary people. The ability to entertain ideas contrary to your position can not be underestimated.

Let's face it. It's human nature to want to be right, as well as to want to win arguments, but we all would be a lot better off if we could keep our hearts and minds focused on the search for truth, as opposed to the quest for proving those who disagree with us, as wrong. What is even worse, is the quest for proving those who disagree with us as stupid.

There is certainly a great divide among thinking people in this day and age. I think more than anything, it is characterized by an attitude of superiority over those who disagree with us… (whoever “us” might be.)

Whether it's Republicans versus Democrats, global warmers versus global coolers, 911 truthers versus 911 believers, etc., etc., it's almost always the same. It seems like everyone who has a dog in the fight has utter contempt for everyone on the other side.

I do not pretend to totally exclude myself from this attitude. Sometimes I enter that territory on my own. Most of the time, I get there after somebody starts it. At least I'm taking steps in the right direction.

I'm not going to call anyone stupid, and I'm certainly not going to pretend I have a large IQ. I believe I'm quite average in that department.

From what I have seen, there seems to be a lot of geniuses, and also quite a few of the opposite of geniuses, in both camps on this issue. I don't think that scoring big on an IQ test, in and of itself, will help or hurt, when it comes to figuring out what really happened on September 11, 2001.

I think there are fundamental emotional blocks that literally keeps people from being able to perceive the truth. It reminds me of the hypnosis experiment the hall of fame Miami Dolphin fullback, Larry Csonka, took part in during the early 1970s.

Under hypnosis, it was suggested that he would not be able to pick up a one pound ash tray. They placed sensors up and down his upper body, including arms. It showed that he was creating hundreds of pounds in muscle pressure in an effort to pick up the ashtray, but at the same time, he was producing even more muscle pressure to keep himself from being able to lift it up.

The emotional block that so many people have regarding the topic of 911 acts like a hypnotist's suggestion that prevents them from using their intellect to understand the reality of what really happened. Just as Larry Csonka had extraordinary strength, beyond “normal” men, that he used against himself to prevent him from lifting the ashtray, a lot of 911 true believers have tremendous intellect, well above the norm, that they end up using against themselves, when it comes to knowing the truth about that dreadful day.

What will be of service in discerning the truth, though, is an attitude of open mindedness and a passion to find the truth, even if it means having to accept that you are wrong. It requires an attitude of the purest form of classic detective work the world has ever seen.

A pure detective allows herself to go where the evidence leads. For instance, pretend you are a cop investigating a murder, and the evidence is pointing to your own mother. Even though you have never known your mom to have the ability to murder anyone, would you be able to question her?

Most believers in the 911 official story (also know as the official conspiracy) are unwilling to question their Uncle (Sam) regarding the murder of more than 3,000 Americans. It's understandable human nature. I imagine most detectives would not be able to question their mother in a murder investigation.

I imagine most detectives in that situation, would allow the flimsiest of answers to shut down entire lines of reasoning. They suddenly would become a believer of an incredible number of most unlikeliest kinds of coincidences, in an effort to disavow the evidence that is screaming that their mom is guilty.

It is the opinion of this writer that true believers of the official story have either not thoroughly looked at the evidence – or they have looked at it in a way where they have made it their job to make the evidence seem to vindicate government involvement, no matter what the evidence is really saying. They operate in a state of mind that is very much like defense attorneys, as opposed to homicide detectives.

They operate with the assumption that their government would never commit such despicable actions, therefore evidence to the contrary must be faulty. Therefore, they will spend the rest of their lives arguing as to why the evidence is wrong.

Along the way, they will keep repeating the phrase, “All this has been thoroughly debunked by impartial experts,” in one breath, while claiming in the next breath, that any experts who disagree with them are simply not impartial. Curiously, true believers love to project the claim of, “wishful thinking,” onto the skeptics, when it is the believer's wishful thinking that clouds their perception and interpretation of the evidence.

911 true believers are desperately clinging to the wish that a number of officials in the United State government did not take part in the events of that day as well as the ongoing cover up. 911 skeptics, if anything, wish that the true believers were right, but they don't let that get in the way of seeing the obvious.

Believers allow their emotions to control their reasoning abilities. It's called, being up against your cognitive dissonance. It's that sickening feeling of extreme discomfort when you begin to realize that your beliefs don't match up with what may possibly be reality. Rather than deal with that, you are willing to shut down aspects of your ability to decipher situations.

Cognitive dissonance is responsible for more mental tap dancing than any other phenomenon in history. Millions of intelligent individuals have found themselves performing the psychic soft shoe better than Gregory Hines and Sammy Davis Jr., combined.

It takes a lot of impressive tap dancing to convince yourself that it's within the realm of possibility that two jetliners can make three steel framed skyscrapers fall in the course of a single day – and, via utter pulverization – even though it's never happened even once before, or after. 1)

Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance. Here's one for you that I'm guessing you don't know about. Do you remember the first time the World Trade Center was bombed? It was in 1993. Yes, you remember that. I'm referring to this next part:

The FBI was caught supplying the explosives that were used in an attempt to topple the one tower and have it fall into the other tower. The grand plan failed, but a lot of damage was done in the sub levels. Six people died. It would have been far worse if it had gone the way the FBI had intended. 2)

The only reason we know about it is because the informant that the FBI was working with got suspicious of the agents who were leading him to team up with people and take part in this crime. So he started surreptitiously audio recording their meetings.

Unfortunately, the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA and various other alphabet soup agencies of the US government do this sort of thing all the time. Most of the headline grabbing horrific events are probably connected to these types of groups, in the US, UK and Israel.

You may say it's fundamentalist Islamist Jihadists. The truth is, western intelligence agencies fund them. Hell, they create those groups a lot of times. Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset. 3) The US government is funding and training Al Queda (Al CIAda) forces in multiple nations. 4) (That's allegedly the organization that masterminded 911, yet US tax dollars are paying them to kill Christians in Syria.) 5)

Does that put you up against your cognitive dissonance? Maybe you can't believe that most terror is western government created, but you can't deny that the 1993 WTC bombings happened because of the FBI. They admitted it.

Of course, the only reason they admitted it is because one of their intended patsies recorded it and gave it to his lawyer. The FBI's excuse was that they made a mistake. They meant to supply fake explosives, but oops. Someone didn't get the memo and real explosives were accidentally supplied.

At this point, if you are going to be honest with yourself, you need to admit that excuse is on dubious ground. You know in your heart of hearts that it wasn't a mistake. How could a mistake like that happen? Why were they the ones suggesting the plot to begin with?

How can anyone who knows the truth about the 1993 WTC bombing ever act indignant when people say that 911 was an inside job? How can anybody say that it's a despicable insult to the victims and the victims family to even suggest that the government could have complicity in 911?

I'll tell you what's despicable. It's despicable to have proof that the FBI made the 1993 WTC bombing happen, and then turn around call the people who are trying to get justice for the 2001 WTC bombing victims, despicable.

Proof of their guilt in 1993 doesn't prove their guilt in 2001. What it does, though, is makes them a top suspect, and exposes those who like to try to shame others for daring to suggest government complicity, as either negligent, willfully ignorant, or being a paid shill for the powers that be.

Now let's consider tower 7, but from the standpoint of how the national media covered it (which was largely by ignoring it.) If you are like the majority of Americans, you did not even know there was a third tower that fell, until weeks, months, and even years after 911. (Indeed, when Rosie O'Donnell brought up tower 7 on The View, almost six years later, it wasn't just Elisabeth Hasselbeck who was hearing about it for the first time that day.) 6)

How is it possible that in the information age, such a huge detail could have escaped any American's awareness, for even a single day? It's outrageous that the national news networks chose to not report that huge development in the 911 saga, outside of the greater New York area. (It certainly shatters the illusion that the media is the fourth estate.)

What the writer of this post is asking every 911 believer who is open minded enough to still be reading this, is to contemplate the litany of various anomalies in the official 911 story. Then, ask yourself what the odds of happening are, for any single one of them. Then, ponder what the odds are of all the anomalies happening. (This essay is listing a lot of the major ones, but certainly nowhere close to all of them.)

So far, we've mentioned, three steel frame towers mysteriously crumbling at near free fall speed, very much like demolitions. There are also lots of witness videos available online, but not on the state run media, where people tell of hearing a series of explosions before the buildings crumbled.7) We also have the fact that mainstream media chose to not cover the third tower.

While it took most Americans years to find out that a third skyscraper went down that day, the same can not be said of the British Broadcasting Corporation. They knew about (and announced it) 20 minutes before it actually happened. Talk about scooping the other news organizations! 8)

Later, when people questioned BBC about that, they actually tried to it deny it. When video evidence was found, and presented to the fine folks at the BBC, clearly showing that, as one of their reporters was talking about it, you can see tower 7 standing in the background behind her, they were forced to attempt to address the issue.

Interestingly, the excuse that the 911 official story believers like to use to try to tap dance around this inconvenient problem is officially shot down as part the BBC response. Believers like to say that, due to structural damage from twin tower debris, officials had reason to suspect the tower was going to fall. Thus, they surmise that the BBC got word of those suspicions, but that in the chaos of the day, it was misreported as having already happened.

Believers point out that on a number of 911 skeptic videos, cops and/or firefighters are heard telling people to clear the area because the tower will be coming down.

NOTE: In my opinion. the way they are ordering people to get away, seems to indicate knowledge that it's coming down very soon; as opposed to simply a possibility – but nonetheless, it may seem to be quite a stretch, although not necessarily impossible, that someone who heard the cops say that, reported it to the BBC, who then misreported it.

Skeptics however, tend to believe that the same people who told the firefighters, the cops and possibly Mayor Giuliani that it was coming down, told the BBC – and that whoever that was, may be complicit in the events of that dreadful day. Giuliani has since tried to deny he had foreknowledge of the destruction of any of the towers, but unfortunately for him, he initially, freely admitted in a television interview, found all over the Internet, that, ”…we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse, and it did collapse…” 9)

NOTE: From what it said in that interview, it's possible he was only warned about the first tower, but even if that's the case, it's important to find out who warned him, and how did they know.

At any rate, the previously mentioned, potential explanation that would make the BBC's 20 minute premature announcement seem potentially, somewhat plausible, was shot down immediately in the official BBC response to the matter. They said, ” We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down.” 10)

With that said, anybody still tap dancing, hoping to explain away that smoking gun, can go ahead and stop now. There are just a total of 5 short paragraphs in the BBC's statement that basically add up to; they have no idea how they got that misinformation or how such a coincidence could happen. We are supposed to believe that even though it just so happened that their report would have ended up being true if they had reported it a half hour later, it's all just one big mystery to them.

So please add this on your list of anomalies. Again, it's possible to go through the list and come up with potential explanations for some of them – some explanations better than others – depending on the anomaly. However, if you are able to be open minded on the topic of 911, you will have to find it utterly impossible to dismiss all the anomalies, in aggregate.

It's one thing to try to poke holes in them one by one. It's quite something else to realistically believe that all of the attempted hole pokes on every single anomaly are spot on.

Debunkers love to say things like, “All these conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked many times over.” The problem with those kinds of statements is they aren't true. They mean to say that debunkers have disputed statements of conspiracy researchers. Disagreeing with statements and outright denying evidence is not the same thing as debunking evidence.

Moreover, such statements ignore the fact that they are actually defending conspiracy theories themselves. Conspiracy denotes criminal activity involving more than one person. Therefore, the official story of 911 is quite literally a series of conspiracy theories.

If one is open minded, it should be fairly evident that the theory that a handful of hijackers and a few of their rag tag planners in a third world dessert nation, were able to do everything they are accused of, is actually more outlandish than the theory that world's most advanced and well budgeted intelligence agencies were able to pull it off.

I have personally done more than my share of reading threads of forums debating 911. There is no shortage of highly educated, massively intelligent people who are good at taking evidence presented by 911 skeptics/truthers, and coming up with replies to help cast doubt on their understanding of the evidence.

The thing they all seem to have in common is the ability to totally discount evidence that should make any open minded person go, “Hmm.” No matter which way you believe about 911, or which way you are leaning, there should be lots of areas where you step back and admit, that the argument you were presented with does leave some doubt about a particular aspect of 911, but almost to a person, you never find that quality in a 911 official story believer.

That kind of ability to change perspective, in my opinion, is what I see missing in all those high IQ, 911 believers. I just don't see them ever changing perspective or admitting they could be wrong about anything. It must be quite an experience to go through life never being wrong.

To illustrate the way these particular 911 believers (that I find quite intimidating, because I know they have the ability to make me squirm if I were to debate them, live), I want to focus for a minute on one of them in particular who is prominent on a thread about tower 7. I'll call him Gorden.

Gorden presents as evidence that the towers did not come down due to explosives, the fact that he can't hear explosions in any videos just before any of the towers fell. When a 911 skeptic, I'll call Jimmy, responds to Gorden by presenting him with lots of videos of eyewitnesses saying they heard the exact type of explosions Gorden says there is no evidence of existing, he simply responds to Jim that eyewitnesses can not be relied upon and he only accepts actual recordings.

Then when Jim goes so far as to present Gorden with a recording that has sounds of explosions, Gorden says the audio quality is so degraded, it could not possibly be used as evidence, one way or another.

Gorden has an obvious, off-the-chart IQ, but that does not make him an impartial judge; not even close. He picks and chooses what to place significance on, to the point of presuming that which he chooses not focus on, does not matter. (By the way, I'm sure he'd of had an equally disingenuous reply to the video in this footnote.11)

In my opinion, Gorden clearly sees his job as to protect his paradigm in general, as well as his belief about the events of that day, in particular. He even gives the obligatory dressing down of Jim for the alleged disrespect and tastelessness he is showing to the victims and the victims families.

Like a good defense lawyer in a court case, Gorden has a real gift for bringing misdirection and casting doubt on particular aspects to specific issues. That is what lawyers do. They don't try to get the to truth.

They obfuscate and create confusion in order to get jury members to believe there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion, all the while claiming that the evidence proves clearly that they are right, and that anybody who believes differently either has ulterior motives or is simply a fool.

People like Gorden, and their less gifted minions, believe they have proven that they are right. That simply isn't true. They have biases, and filters to their perceptions, just like we all do. They disallow evidence (in their minds) that would really give them pause to wonder, if they were being a good detective trying to find the killer, as opposed to the detective who won't look at evidence that points to her mother.

My main point to anyone reading this, who is trying to find 911 truth, is to not be intimidated by the Gorden's of the world. The truth is, most polls show that as time passes, more and more people are coming around to understanding that we have been lied to about 911. That includes people who used to cast major scorn upon 911 skeptics for allegedly disrespecting 911 victims and their families.

Interestingly, Gorden showed one poll that indicated from one year to the next, there was a downward trend in the number of skeptics. According to that poll, fewer people felt that the government and media are whitewashing the events, than the year before. That is typical of the Gordens.

They would love to have you get lost in the minutiae of one piece of data that seems to support them, often, while purposely not telling you about other pieces of data that show something different. They are ultimately not truth seekers. They can't (or won't) handle the truth, so they don't bother doing anything other than trying to win arguments.

If you do an informal survey in your own life, I believe you will find that you know more people who have changed their opinion to the point of becoming a 911 skeptic, than you will of people who used to be skeptical about the official version of events, but now are buying into it.

Another one of the big anomalies has always been the evidence of foreknowledge by traders in the options market. There are trading programs that stock market regulators use to help them find people trading with insider information.

Unless said traders are members of Congress, that is illegal. (I know, it's hard to believe that Congresspersons are allowed to do it, but after some of them went to prison for it, they decided to pass a law to exclude them from the prohibition. I kid you not.)

Those insider trading programs showed that people who knew about the plan, had made derivative investments, betting that 2 of the airlines and 2 of the airports would be hurt within a short time window that included September 11, 2001.

There are two other explanations. One is that they were psychic. The other is the 911 true believer old faithful: It was just coincidence; in this case, a lucky guess. Actually, the 911 commission took another approach. They said the numbers really don't add up to indicate the investments were that far out of the norm.

The 911 commission is wrong; plain and simple. One way to argue against the statistics is to claim that it seems like an anomaly only because the investors were right, but when you factor in option plays where investors inexplicably bet against companies and lose, such a perspective allegedly shows that those investment bets against the 911 connected companies were not so out of place, after all.

This kind of thinking is just more of the typical defense lawyering that 911 believers are infamous for. Going by their logic, nothing is ever indicative of wrong doing by anyone connected to the US government.

If the options had been purchased at an agency run by Arabs, we can assume the 911 commission and others wouldn't be trying to explain away the trading discrepancies. The inconvenient truth is that the options were purchased through a stock brokerage that had formerly been managed by the number three guy in the CIA at the time, Buzzy Krongard.

The numbers can not be tapped danced away, as anyone who reads the book, The End of Money, 12), with an open mind, will be able to understand. The book deals with this and adds some interesting new information. A witness has become willing to go public about seeing CIA personnel making some of these investments. The media pretty much was silent on this issue from day one, (go figure), and regulators have evidently turned a blind eye.

The reasoning may be, superficially, due to the fact that the investors weren't able to collect their winnings because of the government shutting down the stock market in the immediate aftermath of 911, for four days, total. The real reason would be to protect the intelligence agents who were involved.

One of the most dramatic smoking guns in 911 deals with the way that videos show the second plane, more or less, being absorbed into the south tower as if by osmosis. A distinct minority percentage of 911 skeptics wonder if there were really any planes involved. The, “no planes,” theory tends to virtually outrage a whole lot of the truther community.

(I should be specific. Most 911 skeptics cringe when they hear people say there were no planes at the twin towers. When it comes to the evidence of planes at the pentagon or the Pennsylvania crash site, most of the activists in the skeptic community probably agree, that with the exception of a very few, small and hence easily planted parts, that have never purported to have been matched up via serial number to the planes, it's pretty much non existent.)

The exception to that is the plane engine part that was discovered four blocks away. A number of mechanics who have seen pictures, have stated that it's an engine from a Boeing 737, not a 767. The engine has evidently not seen the light of day since that time. It's large enough to have serial numbers that would connect it with the plane. Hmmm. Must have been needed as scrap metal, or something.

When it comes to planes at the World Trade Center (WTC), most 911 skeptics agree with 911 believers, that planes were flown into the towers – (however, most skeptics probably don't believe the alleged hijackers had the ability to do it.) I don't know if there were planes or not at the WTC. The main reason I say this is because I have looked at the videos of the second plane hitting the tower, and I can not find evidence of any part of it being affected by the tower, let alone breaking off outside the building. 13)

The wings and tail section especially should have crumbled. The only way the video would make sense to me is if the only material the plane had to go through was regular thickness layers of plate glass. The towers would have to have been made of nothing but sheets of thin glass. That, obviously, was not the case.

There were steel columns every few feet and the floors, spaced at twelve feet, were made of concrete on top of steel. Yet, look at the videos of the plane going into the second tower, and stop it just before it hits. Then take it frame by frame and look for anything to crumple or fall off. It's unfathomable that all the parts of a building would completely give way, while not a single part of an airplane would be met with resistance.

The plane fuselage is more than 12 feet, so even if it went into a floor as centered as possible, it would be damaged by, at least, the floor above and below it, in addition to the exterior steel columns that were spaced several feet apart. The plane simply should have met with some resistance, and debris should be seen falling, as opposed to the whole thing being swallowed by the tower.

The fact that nobody has a definitive answer to a lot of purported eyewitnesses who swear they saw the planes hit, does not give us permission to ignore the anomaly of a plane going into a building almost like it would go into a structure comprised solely of butter. No good detective would pretend a puzzle does not exist, simply because she has yet to be able to solve it.

I've tried to read the forums to see if the true believers could provide me with clues as to how the twin tower was able to let the plane enter into it without damaging its exterior, but everything I found was pretty silly. They tell you that because the plane was going 500 miles per hour, that aluminum can cut holes through all that hardened steel and concrete, and that none of the aluminum would come off.

We're told, yes, the entirety of the plane would go inside the planes shaped outline it would create. Someone else said it helps to understand it by picturing an egg being sliced with an egg slicer. That's seems to be there “best” explanations.

One video, in particular, shows the plane creating the slightest openings in the shape of the wings, kind of like Bugs Bunny going through a wall. More bizarre, though, after it goes through, it just seems to almost immediately heal itself, for the most part. Then the explosion occurs, and the hole is suddenly back, but much larger than it was before it healed itself.

What I find fascinating is if you bring this up to 911 truthers, you have about the same chance of being met with derision as you do if you bring it up to 911 believers. I totally understand the negative reaction, coming from the believers. I don't really fathom it from the skeptics. I suppose it's because they feel that it leads to the conclusion that the video images are faked, and therefore all the eyewitnesses would have to be actors as well, and that seems unlikely.

Nevertheless, a plane going through concrete and steel does not just slip entirely inside without meeting resistance, and without any part crumbling, crumpling, tearing or falling off. Plus, buildings, certainly do not self heal, even temporarily.

You may have a big IQ and be able to spit out, hard to understand equations, meant to explain how such things can happen, but you can not be truly open minded and pretend like this conversation is not another huge anomaly that warrants further investigation. In fact, to me, this is may be the single greatest anomaly in the entire sordid, coincidence laden story of September, 11.

I don't see how that video could possibly not be doctored. It's got to be some kind of CGI animation. Either that, or the laws of physics, as we understand them, are not operating in that video.

Some of the, no plane theorists, say that there were no eye witnesses to planes crashing. They say that some people are actors, and others are simply lying because they want to prop up the official story. They admit there is a third category of people who swear they saw the planes.

This group, the, “no planes” skeptics say, believe they saw planes because they heard the explosion and saw the damage and they heard the narrative, which was reinforced more later when they got home and saw the CGI videos on TV.

These skeptic say it's human nature to embellish and fill in the blanks. They cite studies that show that effective video presentations can get people to alter their memories and accept new (and opposing) data pertaining to experienced events. Others, however, believe there were missiles, that people were fooled into believing were planes, perhaps with sophisticated hologram technology.

I'm not sure what to think. One thing I do know is that it makes zero sense whatsoever to accept special effects videos of towers absorbing jumbo jets, just because I don't have an answer to the implications that arise if I don't accept the impossible.

If you choose to accept the cartoon-like videos, that's your call. You may also accept that the parameters of physics did not apply that day. If that's your position, then you should at least concede that such activity is beyond the ability and pay grade of 19 hijackers with box cutters.

I believe that anyone who is willing to take the mindset of the totally honest detective, (who is willing to arrest her mother for murder, if the evidence is strong enough), can look at the videos of the plane hitting the second tower, analyze them frame by frame, and realize that something, clearly, isn't right.

It (in and of itself) may not be enough to make arrests, but it's more than enough to open a real independent investigation that isn't a cover up. It should have subpoena power and the ability to jail people for perjury, at the very least.

I also contend that even if there were no videos of the plane going through the tower like butter, if you add up all the other anomalies, you can not possibly come away believing that everything the government has told you about 911 is true or complete. (That is, if you are being open minded on the matter.)

You would be in good company. Most of the members on the official 911 commission (including both co-chairpersons) have come out with public statements, basically saying they can't even trust their own conclusions. 14)

The two leads said they considered filing charges against a number of military witnesses. That decision certainly reflects poorly on them, and it does not honor the people who lost their lives that day, let alone all those who have died in wars based on false premises.

It's such an incredible contrast to read those kinds of statements from the majority of the commissioners, and compare them to the vitriol and condescending attitudes that so many of the 911 believers express online. If the commissioners themselves aren't buying the official story, why are those online know-it-alls so quick to put anyone and everyone down who believe that we need a new investigation into the events of that day?

That is not a radical idea. We owe it to ourselves and to those who have died. Don't forget that for well over a year, the white house fought very hard to not even have an official investigation. (Talk about the elephant in the room.) 15)

To make it even more clear that Bush and Cheney had plenty to hide, they said they would only testify if certain criteria were met. They had to appear together. Any police officer knows that when you ask question suspects separately you are able to discover their lies a lot easier. The fact that this was the first on their list of stipulations, was extremely suspicious, to say the least.

The second stipulation is, arguably, even more telling. They flat-out refused to testify under oath. (Gee whiz, Wally; I wonder why.)

They also insisted on no electronic devices to record their testimony. Indeed, they only allowed one member to take notes, and they insisted that the notes would not be made public. (Nothing to hide, there.) 16)

One of the more bizarre anomalies was a man on the street interview that was done on the actual afternoon of 911, not long after the towers fell. The guy summarized what would later be cited as the official explanation for the towers demise.

He has no expertise in structural engineering, yet he beats the experts to the punch, succinctly summarizing what will become the official explanation regarding the demise of the twin towers. It's difficult to watch and not come away with the feeling that it was scripted. Here's a quote from the interview: 17)

“I saw this plane come out of nowhere and just reamed right into the twin towers, exploding through the other side. And then I witnessed both towers collapse. One first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.”

Even if that was true, (which plenty of evidence indicates it wasn't), how could he have possibly have known that, minutes after the towers' demise, and with no expertise? Even if he was an expert, and even if was true, how could he be so sure, shortly after it happened? Remember, this had never happened before, so he didn't have the benefit of even a single previous example.

As if that wasn't bizarre enough, the next person the reporter decides to speak with is a man in a suit wearing a white surgical mask (which, he is smart to wear because of all of the dust). The reporter asks the man what his. “role,” is. The man responds, “I'm just standing by. I can't tell you what role I'm playing.”

It's an interesting choice of words. Many conspiracy researchers point out that a lot of people find employment as crises actors in various emergency and terror drills that the government is constantly having. The researchers believe that in various events like Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing, crises actors, playing roles of victims, witnesses, etc., are extensively utilized.

Upon re-watching the video, I noticed that the man in the suit seemed to be more than an actor. At one point he touches the reporter to get him to move because a truck is coming. Plus, there is a second man in a dark suit, who walks right into the shot of the “scripted” interview, and seems to be looking at the man rather sternly.

The reporter says there are plane parts, including a piece of the landing gear in the street, which he already refers to as evidence, and he suggests that other buildings appear like they could come down as well. 911 skeptics point to this video as evidence of meme planting and narrative manipulation.

To be sure, there was damage done to tower 7, but on any other day, nobody would have suggested in a million years that it might fall as a result. However, as soon as the first tower did the impossible, followed by the second, a reporter, dropping hints that there could be more to come, didn't seem out of place at the time.

Indeed, to the true believers, even that man on the street, an hour after the twin towers were demolished, telling us that the reason for that was, “mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense,” is nothing to be suspicious about in the least. In fact, nothing related to 911 is ever suspicious to them.

Whether or not true believers realize it, they have made it their job to take anything suspicious about 911 and try to make it seem perfectly feasible, if only to fool themselves. Of course, they want you to remain a true believer as well, since there is comfort in knowing they are far from alone.

It's also interesting that the reporter in that clip is astute enough to talk about, “evidence.” For some reason, he seems to be the one and only person around the WTC to have ever thought about evidence.

The entire WTC was a crime scene that needed to have evidence collected for study. Yet that is not what happened.

One of the biggest anomalies (and smoking guns)of 911 is the way the evidence was withheld, suppressed and discarded. In the case of the towers, the authorities inexplicably refused to treat the area like a crime scene, Instead of preserving evidence, they made herculean efforts to throw it all away.

The twisted, mangled, warped and melted steel frames were picked up daily and sent to the New Jersey scrapyards, before quickly being sold to foreign countries, namely China and India at bargain prices.

All the trucks that were used, were first hurriedly fitted with GPS navigational devices, which, by the way, were not ubiquitous in 2001. I could understand that fact, if the government officials were doing it to make sure no one absconded with the evidence. However since they were the ones getting rid of the evidence, the obvious reason for the tracking devices was to make sure nobody searching for the truth would be able to get away with hijacking and hiding one of the trucks filled with evidence meant to be destroyed.

The way the 911 steel remnants were treated, would be like having a murder scene where 18 people were tied up and shot, and having the authorities come in, scrub the place with bleach, and move all the furniture to a storage facility while they put an ad on Craigslist to sell everything to the lowest bidder.

It makes no sense whatsoever. That is, if the idea is to study the evidence at the crime scene to find clues to what happened, it makes no sense. If, however, the idea is to cover up the evidence, it makes all the sense in the world.

Seeing that steel frame towers have never come down accidentally before, even a grade school child can understand the importance of studying the steel to scientifically find out exactly what happened. The results of such an investigation, besides possibly leading to the culprits of 911, might ensure that steel buildings are made better so that it doesn't happen again. Who, in their right minds, would rush to sell the evidence off to scrap metal companies in other nations?

New York Mayor Giuliani boasted the more than 100 dump trucks have taken loads out the first day. By the end of September the vast majority of the steel was already gone. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know what is going on when things like this happen.

It is simply beyond the pale to believe that nobody thought about investigating the crime scene. The fact that nobody in the mainstream media asked about this topic, is hard evidence of their complicity in the ongoing cover up.

Now that I'm thinking about it, perhaps this is the biggest of the smoking guns. There are so many utterly inexplicable anomalies of gargantuan proportion, it's truly difficult to pick the biggest. Here's a partial list. Feel free to play at home:

  • These are the only 3 steel frame towers to have ever collapsed
  • The BBC reporting the tower fell 20 minutes before it actually fell
  • The plane being devoured by the tower, which then, on the video heals itself
  • A passport of one of the hijackers having made it out safely from the fireball, landing on a spot where someone would find it and turn it in
  • The willful and criminal destruction of the evidence
  • The lack of plane parts or body parts, certainly at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania sites, and even at the towers.
  • The insider trading proving foreknowledge that's been linked to the CIA
  • The Pentagon lying about not having video recordings of the attack on the pentagon
  • The claims of cell phone calls from passenger cell phones that were physically impossible to occur in 2001
  • The story that the military did not scramble jets to intercept any of those flights that day
  • The coincidence that there was a drill going on at the same time that involved planes being hijacked and flown into buildings
  • The claim that nobody had ever considered the possibility that anyone would hijack planes and use them as missiles
  • Almost no office furniture or other equipment you would expect to find in the wreckage of a gigantic office building that had collapsed was ever found
  • Between one and two thousand vehicles in the surrounding streets were damaged with strange warping and other effects that have never before or since have been seen, including the disappearance of parts like door handles and even engines that completely vanished without a trace.
  • Too many others to cover in this essay

The magical, fireproof passport, might win a popularity contest if a group of 911 were voting on anomalies. Supposedly someone found it before the first tower disintegrated, and gave it to a cop who didn't have the person stay and at least give him his name before high tailing it out of the vicinity. It was said to be in pristine condition.

The 911 official story believers tend to accept this carte blanche. The feeling seems to be that stranger things have happened, so why question it. Interestingly, they are less than consistent with that line of thinking. They often say that the skeptics are the ones stretching credulity. For instance, skeptics believe it would be extremely easy to have agents plant various things like passports, or a passenger ID card said to have been found at the pentagon. The believers find that totally implausible.

The skeptics believe that since the only plane part found at the pentagon was a relatively small piece of sheet metal that is said to be a part of the outer fuselage of a plane, that it is more likely that it was planted. Believers find that laughingly naive, while believing that the force of the crashed basically made the rest of the plane and the passengers disintegrate into nothing, both at the pentagon and Pennsylvania.

Once you start making leaps of faith, like accepting that 3 steel towers for the first and only time, ever, came down, unintentionally due to fires and 2 plane crashes, even though they were designed to withstand such, it becomes easy to rationalize small miracles like incriminating passports surviving unscathed, and someone finding it and turning it in.

Even if you believe that 19 mostly rather slight built guys armed only with box cutter razor blades could actually simultaneously commandeer four planes and successfully fly 767 commercial airliners to their targets, there is no accounting for the lack of ability for the US Air Force to track down the planes and shoot them down, (if given the orders).

There was a somewhat delayed reaction, stemming from the truly mind boggling, lotto winning type, odds defying fact that flight controllers were told there was a drill underway that (just by “coincidence”) was doing the exact same things that were actually happening – namely, hijacking commercial flights and flying them into buildings – so,yes, there was some confusion that may have made the FAA a little slow to report some of the various issues when they first started to occur.

Speaking of the drill, the odds of that level of coincidence has to be considered a smoking gun from anybody with a modicum of open mindedness. Yet, it's just another one of those crazy coincidences the true believers are always more than willing to accommodate.

The 911 believers are known to rationalize all the coincidences by actually talking about the coincidences between John Kennedy's and Abraham Lincoln's assassinations. They are satisfied to merely conclude that sometimes crazy coincidences happen, so we should just accept as many crazy ass coincidences that 911 has, without questioning.

Can you imagine being a police detective and having the attitude in every case you investigate? I mean, no red flags should ever be raised again about anything, based on that logic. Police work should come to a halt. It never ceases to amaze me how some of the most critical thinkers can be so willing to simply shut down their mental faculties.

By the way, those “coincidental” drills can not possibly account for the entire stand down of the air defenses that day. However, one thing they can do is to provide proof of the utter lack of veracity when Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and all the other Bush administration officials and TV network news readers who said that nobody had ever even considered the possibility of using jet airliners as missiles. It turns out that the concept was well known for not just years, but decades, and it was, in fact, being put to use as a drill happening at the that same time the actual evens were occurring.

There is a lot of outright and obvious lying going on, which in and of itself, is an implication against the Bush administration and the government. The pentagon is still expecting us to believe that their video surveillance failed that day. The truth is, not only do they have images from their own equipment, but the FBI went to surrounding businesses and took the video recordings they owned, and never returned them, which is standard operating procedure in these types of crimes.

The did the same thing when John F Kennedy was murdered. Witnesses told how they were lots of men who went through the area and stole everybody's camera. (Luckily, they missed Mr. Zapruder.) If they were taking cameras so that they would be sure to have a public record and to study the film for evidence, that would be one thing. But clearly, that is never the intention when government agents confiscate cameras.

That is a perfect example of how the believers are different than the skeptics. The believers actually think that when a government takes evidence out of the hands of the citizens, that they are doing it to find out who the guilty parties are. Skeptics understand that when that happens, they are taking part in the cover up.

The believers think the skeptics are paranoid. The skeptics consider the believers to be hopelessly naive. Believers simply can't believe their government would ever kill their own citizens. Skeptics look at history, both contemporary and long term, and realize that governments are infamous for doing exactly that.

Believers can read the extremely suspicious report published in September, 2000, by the think tank led by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other Bush administration members, known as, Project For A New American Century (PNAC), and steadfastly believe that 911 is nothing more than a coincidence. The PNAC report calls for the United States to be globally dominant – like never before – in the 21 century, and for the need for, “a new Pearl Harbor” event to accelerate the process and justify involvement in multiple wars.

Skeptics read that same report and realize that it supplies the motive, and very clearly answers the question; why would the government kill thousands of citizens? Skeptics say the fact that the TV news networks did not publicize the PNAC report is proof of, at the very least, a cover up, because even if it, in and of itself, doesn't prove government complicity, it appears so damning, and is so important, the people have a right to know about it.

Indeed, the lack of network TV news coverage regarding PNAC is very damning to the concept of the media being the fourth estate. Skeptics view the mainstream media as being bought and paid for by the very forces who would perpetrate 911. Believers are still buying into the media being independent, investigative journalists.

Perhaps the most common reason official story believers give for believing that 911 was in no way an inside job is that it is just too vast to remain secret. They say, somebody would have talked, and the more time that passes without hearing even a single confession, the more they know they are right.

I find several obvious issues with that kind of logic. It conveniently overlooks several points I can think of, off the top of my head.

1) Witnesses (let alone accomplices) to these kinds of crimes get murdered. It would be naive to believe that a lot of people involved did not meet that fate, swiftly. Dead men tell no tales.

2) Witnesses who aren't murdered, have seen others get murdered. Scared men tell no tales.

3) For all we know, witnesses have come forward to try to tell what they know, but the media, being owned by the forces that brought us 911 in the first place, refuse to give them a vehicle to spread the truth.

4) Witnesses, for all we know, may have come forward to tell law enforcement what they know, but law enforcement, at the top levels, being owned by the powers that gave us 911 in the first place, refused to pursue their case… (leaving law enforcement at the bottom of the pyramid scratching their heads.)

5) Even if the official 911 believers managed to cross paths with the very witnesses they say they need to hear from before they could ever believe 911 was an inside job, those believers would call them nut jobs, and would not listen to what they are saying, but instead, would make fun of their information and call them names, while feeling smug and superior to them.

6) Intelligence operations are done in a compartmentalized way. Many people may have contributed without knowing what they were doing. If they realized after the fact, see #2, #3, #4 as to why you haven't heard from them.

7) Others (like military or intelligence officers and members of the military industrial complex) who are aware of what really happened, are reaping benefits from 911. Besides not wanting to potentially die from speaking up about what they know, they have no motivation to kill the golden goose.

8) The argument goes, that as more time goes by, surely someone will at least give a death bed confession. After all, they are dying, so what is there to be scared about? The obvious answer is people involved in crimes of this magnitude aren't just personally threatened. They are told their loved ones will pay the price if they snitch.

9) There is also something known as trauma based mind control. There are entire books written on the subject, so I can't do the topic justice right now, but the fact is, it is widely documented that the US government saved Nazi scientists after World War 2, in an action known as Operation Paperclip. 18)

When the media has reported on this, they like to say that it was only rocket scientists the US was interested in learning from, but a number of sources say that there were a lot more mind control scientists than rocket scientists who were secretly saved from Nuremberg prosecution. 19)

The Nazi's did massive experimentation on concentration camp prisoners to learn to perfect trauma based mind control. By making individuals endure horrific experiences, usually involving being forced to watch sadistic murder of children, the way the human mind deals with such events is to split into other personalities, so that the natural personality can be insulated from it. When this happens, it is known as Disassociate Identity Disorder. USA government mind control projects that create people with DID through scientific trauma, with names like Project Monarch and MK-Ultra are on record. You can learn about them by looking them up in the # 1 NSA tracking tool, Google.

The mind controllers are able to create many divisions within their victims' minds. Each division has a separate personality that can be controlled. When you read things about, sleeper agents, being all around us, those kinds of reports are often referring to agents who don't even know they are agents.

Incredibly, it turns out, that human ability can be enhanced in these mind controlled slaves. People have the ability to be trained to have photographic recall, withstand all kinds of pain, perform super athletically, shoot like the best snipers, and the like.

These people take part in all kinds of activities, and have all kinds of skills, that their main personality is not even aware of. They can be relied upon to not tell, because they don't even know. It would be shocking if the powers that be, did not take advantage of mind controlled sleeper agents in the biggest false flag event in the recorded history of humanity.

If you would like to learn more, check out Brice Taylor's book, Thanks For The Memories;20) and Cathy O'Brien's book, Trance Formation Of America21)

As you might imagine, 911 official story believers, will virtually always scoff at this kind of information. That, in no way, means that it isn't valid. It mainly means they choose not to look at the evidence. If a small percentage of them do look, they almost always do so with a closed mind.

I believe that a number of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings are likely mind control victims. There is photographic evidence of at least one woman with an amputated leg, who was photographed with her limbs intact as she is on a stretcher. 22)

Her story is that her leg was blown off, which clearly is not the case. I know many victims were rewarded with 7 figure checks, but I find it hard to believe it was just a conscious business decision. My gut tells me mind control is involved.

At any rate, mind controlled, “Manchurian candidates” is another reason we should not expect to hear confessions from people involved in perpetrating 911.

10) Lastly, another point to consider, in regards to the concept of it just being too far fetched to think that no one would talk, is the Manhattan Project. It was the top secret project in World War 2 that created the atom bomb.

Upwards of 100,000 people were involved for years, and it remained secret. And the fact is, we have no idea how many criminal conspiracies have successfully been accomplished, due to the fact that for all of the reasons above, nobody talked.

Generally speaking, people who say they don't believe in US government complicity in 911 because somebody would have talked, are simply people who don't want to look at the evidence. They are involved in wishful thinking, and that is a crutch, an excuse, to not deal with such disconcerting information.

Let's talk about the differences in the way the twin towers fell and the way tower 7 fell. If you will go to YouTube and take another look, you will easily be able to see that they are different.

Tower 7 looks very much like a normal demolition by explosives. It falls neatly down into its footprint. It's a classic, typical example. There seems to be more dust than typical demolitions, but it's not as much dust as the twin towers, and unlike the twins, it all starts from the bottom. Overall, it looks much like a textbook example of a controlled demolition. 23)

When you watch the twin towers, though, it is something quite different. The buildings absolutely explode, and unlike any other demolitions you have ever seen, they start at the top. They are literally pulverized.24)

More than falling into their footprints, they turn to dust, and they do so right from the top. The dust clouds have more energy than typical demolitions. They look more like volcanoes or even atomic bomb explosions than they look like traditional demotions. 25) 26) 27)

When you look at videos that were shot from other buildings or helicopters, you can see the dust plumes continuing to spread in the surrounding streets. Those are no ordinary demolition explosions. And they certainly could not be the result of the building pancaking upon itself, floor by floor. 28)

Most of the mass of the towers and the contents within them simply turn to dust. Workers talked about hardly seeing any furniture or office equipment. There was dust and twisted metal frames; (but not nearly enough metal frames as there should have been.)

Even a number of TV news talking heads brought up the lack of rubble that should have been there. People, including Governor George Pataki said that towers turned to dust.29) There were a few inches of dust on the streets for literally miles.

Interestingly, paper was largely left intact. Thousands and thousands of pieces of paper, not damaged (other than soot covered), and not burned. Huge steel frames were twisted like pretzels or horseshoes. Some of them were melted together. There was one large mass melded together that was dubbed, the meteorite. Yet paper came through it, unscathed.

Nobody has ever seen anything like it. You would think that anyone looking at those images would really have pause to wonder, but you would be wrong. The keepers of the official story make comments on forums like it's just another walk in the park. They laugh at anyone who is in shock and awe when they see this visual evidence that was never discussed on the Tee-v.

There are even photos and videos of steel pillars turning to dust, before your eyes. 30) There is no way airplanes or fires could possibly make that happen. In fact, we have no idea what could make that happen. (The best the believers can come up with is that they are optical illusions due to camera limitations.)

At least one huge steel frame weighing hundreds of tons came off and was projected into another building a football field away. How does that happen if the building is, “collapsing?” In one of the towers, the top 20 or 30 floors were toppling over, all connected together, and then suddenly it just explodes into dust. That is nothing like the official story that says the top floors came undone and pancaked one upon the next, all the way down to the ground. 31)

Not only did the national media make it a point to not talk about or highlight any of that, they didn't talk about 1500 (or so) vehicles in the surrounding blocks that were warped, melted and mangled in ways never before seen. 32) One part of a vehicle would be almost unrecognizable, but then the other part would be unscathed.

Cars had parts missing, including engines. Sometimes door handles would be gone. You would only see the holes where they use to held in place. How do planes crashing into buildings make car engines and car door handles vanish?

Sometimes the engines would not vanish. They would warp, or melt. Sometimes one car would be on fire, but the next one have no fire damage, but then the one after that would be warped beyond ones ability to even know the make and model. Sometimes, you could barely tell if it was a truck or if it was a car.

There was a fire truck, the ladder truck, 33) where the front cab was gone, the engine was gone. You could see the ladder melted, drooping down over the front. If this is the first you are learning about this, you have to ask yourself; how that is possible? Why would the media conspire to suppress this data?

To think that two plane loads of jet fuel could be responsible for all this is unrealistic. The fuel would have mostly been spent in the initial explosion. In fact, when the first teams of firemen got to the fires, they radioed that it was not going to present a big problem to put them out. You can see in the videos, black smoke, indicating the fires were already oxygen starved. 34)

I just keep thinking of an honest and open minded police detective. Is it possible that she could see all of this and not believe that further investigation is warranted? After all, that is what the 911 truth movement seeks; further investigation. Why should anyone have a problem with that?

Remember, President Bush, vice President Cheney and the entire administration all agreed that an independent investigation should never commence. 35) 36) Their reasoning was that it would get in the way of finding out what happened. (Seriously.) They managed to delay it almost a year and a half.

That is highly suspicious. The actions of Bush on 911 were also suspicious. That the commander and chief would sit in a class of second graders on a photo op, when the nation is under attack, beggars belief. 37)

Even more outlandish is the excuse, that he didn't want to worry the children. Are you kidding me? Really? That makes sense to you? Seriously? Put the welfare of the nation at risk because you don't want to worry 25 seven year old kids?

Perhaps even more bizarre is the fact that even though multiple targets had been hit, and it was understood that more planes could be forthcoming, the secret service thought it was perfectly safe to keep the president in the classroom, where his location was on public record.

Do you have a problem with risking the life of the President of the United States, in order to keep the kids from worrying? If you are so concerned about the children worrying their pretty little heads, then how do you feel about putting the children at risk, by keeping the president in the classroom with them?

Terrorists would think nothing of killing innocent children if they could get the president. They would think of it as collateral damage at worst, and perhaps even, bonus points. I don't know what to say to people who think it makes sense to risk the lives of the president of the United States as well as school children, all to possibly diminish the level of worry of the very children whose lives are being put in danger.

Long before the disputed 2000 presidential election, I had become aware of the fact that presidential elections are not free and fair. The elite cabal that runs the world selects a president. When Bush was selected I was amazed that the cabal would make it so obvious by putting someone in the White House who was so far out of the league of the office of the presidency.

Never was that more exemplified as the morning of 911 when Bush allowed himself to be filmed at the photo op for another seven minutes listening to children read the book, My Pet Goat, knowing that two planes had hit the World Trade Center, and having been told by his chief of staff that, “We are under attack.” In fact, a true commander in chief would not have even stepped foot inside the classroom, when he was informed the the first tower had been hit.

Long before the 2000 presidential election ever came about, I realized that there is one political party in the United States. It has two wings, Republican and Democratic. They pretend to oppose one another, while actually guiding the country away from sovereignty and toward the ultimate goal of global governance.

That has never been more apparent than with the installation of Barack Obama as the president. The Bush administration used 911 to take away Constitutional guaranteed rights, as well as to start multiple wars and become an international scourge, known for torturing innocent people. The Obama administration has not only done nothing to change the direction of the country. It has doubled down on it, (more like tripled and quadrupled down on it), and taken things so much further than Bush/Cheney ever did. The mind boggles to comprehend that people still are supporting either party, and playing the game of being divided and conquered.

At any rate, the only reasonable explanation that nobody was concerned with the risk of the president being attacked at the school, is because there was no risk. The Secret Service knew about the attacks, and they were fully aware that the President was not a target. Anyone who says the Secret Service did not know, must admit then, that the Secret Service is outrageously incompetent and criminally negligent.

Interestingly, Cheney said in an interview on 60 minutes that two secret service agents came in and physically picked him up and escorted him to safety. He said he literally had no choice in the matter.

How about them apples? The vice President is physically taken to safety. The President is told to stay at the school and finish reading, My Pet Goat, while terrorist planes could possibly be headed for the school. Nothing strange about that, in the least.

Luckily there were no young children visiting Cheney at the time. Otherwise, he would have been told to stay with them until their nap time, in order to keep from worrying them. The most important thing of all is to never, ever, under any circumstances, worry the children.

The people who believe 19 hijackers made everything happen that day, can not explain the obvious stand down orders given to the air force. Early on, in the 911 commission's investigation, the answers given by the military, basically added up to general incompetence being the reason fighter jets did not officially intercept a single plane. (The reality is, in all likelihood, fighter jets most certainly did shoot down flight 93. We'll touch upon that in a bit.)

Two years later, by the time the commission ended its work, the military had changed its story. Going against the initial testimony that mistakes were made, suddenly the new information the military supplied the commission said that the blame for no jet fighters scrambling to intercept any of the flights was due to the slowness and protocol of the air traffic controllers and other employees of the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA).

In fact, the military said that the FAA did not report a single problem with any of the four flights until well after all four of them had crashed. This is just one more giant question mark that part of the 911 narrative. (Debunking 911 Debunking by David Ray Griffin)

We are supposed to believe that numerous officials in the military initially lied to the commission, and told them a story that made the military look totally incompetent. Then, two years later, they decided to tell the truth, and provide the real facts that took all the blame off them.

Despite the fact that the new information was disputed by numerous sources, it is completely unfathomable. As if that's not enough, the 911 commission reported that up until the day of 911, the Washington DC airspace had never been protected, because there had never been a problem before. (Debunking 911 Debunking by David Ray Griffin) The website for Andrews Air Force Base was revised within three days, to downplay its role in protecting DC airspace.

When this data was made public, it evidently polled badly, as you might imagine. The public wasn't buying it. Viral emails were being sent about how fighter jets were scrambled in 1999, to pro golfer Payne Stewart's plane, when cabin pressure issues killed everyone on board, while still in the air.

Public sentiment was growing to the effect that it made no sense that fighter jet pilots routinely make those kinds of interceptions and investigations, yet not one of the four 911 planes received that kind of attention. Shockingly, in regard to the Payne Stewart situation, some government sources would now have us believe that is the one and only time that fighters were sent up to deal with a wayward jet.

I guess the Payne Stewart story of F-16's being scrambled, was so powerful, that the cover-up master minds felt the best way to deal with it was to counter it with a lie that is so huge, people would be taken aback to the point of accepting it. I think whomever came up with the lie felt that people would almost have no choice but to believe it, because the government would have to be stupid to make up a lie that large.

The story is that before 911, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) was only interested in flights that were off the coast. Allegedly, pre 911, there had never been a program in place to scramble jet fights to check out any domestic flights that were either deviating off course, or not responding to radio contact, or that had turned off their transponder. We are asked to believe that before 911, it never dawned on the greatest military minds in the world that there could be issues with jets flying within the boundaries of the North American continent.

This presents some real problems for the keepers of the official story. Such details contradict a lot of the testimony of military members in the commission's investigation. The new data was contradicted by many different news articles at the time.

There were very detailed accounts of how the flight controllers and other FAA personnel were in touch with the military as things were happening.; so much so that the only conclusion to be made is they were lying, to begin with.

Whenever lying comes into the equation, you have to wonder, were they lying before, or are they lying now? Either way, it further damages the credibility of the commission's findings.

With the revised reports, we are expected to believe that not only was the initial commission findings wrong, but all the detailed newspaper coverage of FAA and military members in communication before the crashes occurred, were also bald faced lies.

It is difficult to believe that anyone would think the public as a whole, is stupid enough to believe that. It also flies in the face of military insiders, fighter pilots and ex fighter pilots who tell us that it's nonsense (as if we needed to hear that to know it.) There is even a GAO (General Accounting Office) report that says 1,300 jet fighters were scrambled in the decade before 911.

Talk about your smoking guns. The fact that officials would try to present such rubbish as the truth is an gigantic smoking gun, years after the events of 911. Historically, criminals tend to be exposed in the cover up. 911 is no different.

The reason for all these lies was to stop the bleeding over the obvious military stand down order that was given. 19 hijackers could not have ordered the United State military to stand down. The entire 911 fabrication comes undone, the minute a person understands that a stand down was in effect.

As mentioned earlier, there is considerable evidence indicating that fighter jets actually did mow down Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. For some reason, that doesn't fit into the official story, so the public was not informed.

There were hundreds, if not thousands, of eye witnesses who cited evidence of the shoot down, plus luggage and personal belongings were strewn for miles. People described a plane descending slowly and flying low.

That is totally different than the official story that the plane was in a total nose dive, at the highest rate of speed possible, crashing into the ground with such force, there was nothing recognizable remaining. Much like the Pentagon site, the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash site suffered from the same lack of airplane parts and crash victims.

The 911 believers often criticize the 911 skeptics for not having answers. For instance, they say things like, “What do you think happened to the plane if the crash site shown on TV wasn't the actual crash site?” Or, “What was responsible for the hole in the ground.”

The point is, 911 skeptics aren't saying they have the answers. They are saying the answers we've been given, just don't add up. Perhaps a missile created the hole so that the field could be presented as the crash site, because the real plane wreckage had evidence contrary to the official story.

It is theorized that at least some commercial jetliners are equipped with technology that takes control of the plane away from the pilots, as a way to prevent hijackings. Perhaps the planes were hijacked using that technology, but in the case of 93, the pilots may have regained control and were going to be able to land safely with the story that would blow the entire case wide open, so the conspirators had to order the fighter jet pilots to shoot it down.

Nobody is saying they know for certain that is what happened. The evidence certainly appears to indicate flight 93 was shot down and the government is lying about it. Therefore, it is only natural to try to come up with potential reasons to explain such behavior.

911 skeptics are simply saying to conduct a real investigation to find out what happened, as opposed to the white wash sham of an investigation that we had to suffer through. Put people under oath and convict them of perjury if they are guilty. That is the only hope of getting to the truth. How disgusting to allow anybody, especially the President and Vice President – (as Bush and Cheney insisted) – to testify without being under oath in an investigation of such importance.

At the pentagon, it was much like the Pennsylvania site, except instead of a hole in the ground where the entire plane was supposed to have dissipated into, there was a hole in the pentagon. Before a large part of the outer wall fell (along with the roof), you could see a round hole only several feet in diameter. A plane could not have gone through it, but a missile sure could have. With the exception of a single, small piece of metal, some people said to be part of the fuselage, no airplane parts are pictured on the pentagon lawn.

Once the outer wall and roof fell, it allowed the government to proffer the theory that the entire plane slipped inside the structure and was under the fallen roof. The pentagon was in the process of being reinforced. The plane hit the only side that in fact had been completed. It's extremely doubtful that a plane would entirely pass through such a structure.

Most independent (non government pay-rolled) plane crash experts say that the wings surely would have been sheered off and left outside the structure. Many people who worked the site said that there was almost no evidence of a plane to be found.

Pictures were 'leaked' that were purported to have been taken inside the various rings of the pentagon that the plane was supposed to have penetrated through. They look like bombs went off. Amid the rubble are some items that seem to be related to a plane's landing assembly, and the like.

The problems with these photos is almost all of the plane is not present. We are supposed to believe that all the seats and for that matter, all of the people were disintegrated into such small pieces, they are unrecognizable, yet one of the tires survived, almost entirely intact.

Many experts also say it's impossible for any part of the plane to have penetrated as many rings of the pentagon (3) that were damaged on 911. The pentagon is made of a five sets (rings) of connected buildings, each in the shape of a pentagon. In between each ring is 40 feet of space.

The damage from the 911 attack went through 3 rings, 6 walls. some of them recently reinforced for security, and all of them stronger than a typical building. Initially, the official claim was that the cone of the plane made it through, and did the damage to, all 6 walls. When skeptics started the meme that the cone is quite soft, the story changed to one of the landing gears, which is pictured 10 feet away from the sixth wall.

There are a number of problems with that. First, how in the world did the landing gear have so much force to knock a large hole in the sixth wall, without flying through it, and at least hit the fourth ring, the seventh wall? Instead, it made the big hole and then bounced back 10 feet inside the third ring.

The other impossibility regarding this area is that the hole itself is a circular pattern. Explosives experts are familiar with the only way a hole like that is made. It is with a precision, specialty type of explosive.

As far as the paltry few plane parts go, it is more realistic to believe that what we see in the leaked photos, (if they were even taken at the pentagon), were planted, than it is to believe that 99.9% of the plane is in such small pieces it is unrecognizable.

There is the matter of the coroner's report that says body parts were found and identified as the passengers, but that's a matter of hearsay, frankly. It's just a report. It's nothing verifiable. It's interesting how the believers expect everyone to take government reports at face value.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. The skeptics have said they believe the government is lying to us, over and over regarding 911. The believers, time after time, offer up as evidence against that premise, the government's own reports.

So when the coroner issues a report and says that DNA was found in the rubble of the pentagon to match the DNA that was supplied by the passengers families (via toothbrushes, combs, razor, hair brushes, etc) – the believers take it as face value and point to it as some sort of proof. When skeptics read the same thing, they find it laughable that such a report is thought of as evidence.

It is kind of like a fundamentalist religious person arguing the existence of God with an atheist. When the religious person offers evidence by quoting from her chosen Holy book, the atheist is incredulous. Citing a government report to prove the official story to a 911 skeptic is like quoting scripture to prove the existence of God to an atheist. It means nothing to the disbelieving party. They need something along the lines of independent corroboration.

Another red flag in regard to the pentagon story is the fact that the terrorist hijackers chose the one side of the pentagon that had been steel reinforced. Furthermore, in order to do it, the pilot had to perform a series of maneuvers that many experienced commercial pilots would fail if that had to do it.

In fact, according to the official story, it put the entire mission in jeopardy. Several light poles were said to have been knocked down by the plane maneuvering to get to that one reinforced area of the pentagon. It could have crashed.

Indeed, the maneuver required a downward spiral with almost a complete turn, that made it necessary to slow down and add 3 minutes to the time needed to smack into the pentagon. That is 3 minutes that might have given a fighter jet pilot time to down them prematurely.

There is no denying that choosing to hit that side of the pentagon, seriously risked the Jihad mission. Even if the pilot could have done it, which he couldn't have, it just does not add up that the hijackers would do that.

Of all the anomalies with the pentagon story – and you're only getting a few of them here – perhaps the greatest one is that on September 10, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld – one of the people behind, Project For A New American Century, by the way – held a press conference announcing the shocking news that the Defense Department could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars in expenditures.

The good news is Rummy was on it. There were people who were assigned to work on the case of tracking down where the money went. There was a particular section of the pentagon where they worked and where they had the files and computers.

Would you believe that it turns out that the section that was targeted by the evil doer terrorists was the very section where those people were working? In case you're wondering, it put an end to the investigation. Go figure.

As we already know, there is no such thing as a coincidence worthy of red flag in the eyes of a 911 believer. After all, Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy who warned him not to go to the theater, and President Kennedy had a secretary name Lincoln, who warned him not to go to Dallas.

Shit happens. Sometimes incomprehensible amounts of it happen all in the same day, but that doesn't mean anything. Move along. Nothing to see here. Don't start getting all conspiracy theorist on us now. We've gone this far without even discussing the hijackers. Remember the day after 911, suddenly we had full details on every single one of them? How does that happen? Please don't say it's because our intelligence agencies are so spot on. Obviously, if they were that good, they would have prevented them from carrying out their diabolical plan.

Unless, of course, there was something else going on. How is it remotely possible that 19 dudes with razor blades and incomplete Cessna flight training could possibly have carried out such a tremendously successful mission, the likes of which humanity had never seen, without being thwarted by the best military and intelligence agencies in the world?

Yet, if they were really able to do all that on their own, how could their identities and biographies be available the very next morning? The FBI and CIA presented us with each one of their alleged identities; (not just one or two of the leaders.)

If they could readily identify them that quickly, couldn't something have been done to prevent the nightmare from happening? Do you remember reading the stories about them? It turns out that the FBI had very much been watching them for a long time.

911 true believers, the kings of wishful thinkers, are clinging to the hope that the FBI were watching them because they suspected them, and even came close to preventing 911 from ever happening. 911 conspiracy researchers are sad to say that the FBI was there to make sure they did their part, and play the role of jihad hijackers.

If you can't fathom this, try Googling the following sentence: FBI SUPPLIED EXPLOSIVES FOR 1993 WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBING. (We'll get back to that later.)

It's time to wake up. If FBI agents were tracking these guys, they knew exactly what was going on. Edward Snowden's NSA leak revelations has revealed the extensive of the federal tracking program for every American. How much more extensive do you think it must have been for tracking suspected terrorists?

Even if you want to believe that at the time, every single citizen wasn't being tracked the way we are today – where our private lives are recorded via audio and even video 24/7, the technology was available to do so. Since the hijackers were obviously being followed, it's naive to assume that the FBI, CIA, NSA and who knows whatever agencies were not aware of exactly what they were up to… (even if you can't bring yourself to imagine they were actually orchestrating them.)

The fact is, many researchers say that the control grid the Snowden has revealed, did not start as a result of 911. They say that all of us were, indeed, being tracked constantly, well before 911. If it's true, there is no greater testament of the fact that the loss of our privacy, in no way, leads to greater security.

We can debate how complete the surveillance grid was for everybody was before 911. However we can't argue the fact that all the hijackers were being tracked for quite some before that terrible day, with technology that prevented them from keeping their secrets to themselves, and yet no one stopped them.

If you want to tap dance your way around this one. Your cognitive dissonance may very well be forcing you to do so, but please excuse those of us with common sense and the ability to open our eyes, if we don't join you.

Two (now former) FBI agents became whistle blowers shortly after 911, when they realized that their superiors could have possibly prevented the events from happening, but chose to ignore their warnings. A field agent, Coleen Rowley, and a translator, Sibel Edmonds, uncovered a plot to hijack airliners and fly them into buildings, but every time they tried to get their superior officers to report it to the highest levels, they were told to back down. 38)

The alleged hijacker pilots of those jumbo jetliners were all quite bad pilots of little Cessna planes. When their former flight instructors, some of whom flunked them and told them to never come back to their classes, saw that they were supposed to have maneuvered those jetliners to there targets, they literally did not believe it. To this day, they still do not believe it.

A number of pilots and pilot instructors have gone on record to say that students with such little experience, even if they had flight simulator experience, could have in no way accomplished such feats.

These flight instructors are quite aware of the official story that says it wasn't beyond their abilities, since they didn't have to take off or land. According to many experts, that doesn't even matter. It is dubious that even a truly gifted student, a true natural pilot with their level of experience could have accomplished it. It surely is impossible for the bad flight students that they all were.

It is downright bizarre that devout Muslims who hate America and our way of life, were witnessed to be regular patrons of bars. They especially had a penchant for the kinds of bars where the entertainment involved lovely ladies showing all their lovely lady parts.

Does the fact that they lost their devout habits, in and of itself, prove that 911 was an inside job? Of course not. It's another red flag, though, that any open minded, true detective would be totally remiss to ignore.

The more red flags, anomalies, coincidences and smoking guns the detective observes, the harder it is to come away believing the official story. At some point, something's got to give. The more one looks into the events of 911, the more one discovers these elephants in the room.

There seems to be a never ending supply of factoids that simply do not add up. Michael Springman was the head of the visa section of the consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from 1987 to 1989. The CIA (and their asset, Osama Bin Laden, kept sending people he suspected as terrorists to him, to get visas and passports to allow them to travel to the United States.

He tried complaining to various individuals and departments, but his complaints always fell on dear ears. He was told that the men he was suspicious of were indeed, terrorist recruits who would be learning tricks of the trade in the United States. He was told that when training was done, they would be brought back to the middle east to provide terrorist activities against various counties.

No matter who he complained to, it fell upon deaf ears. He left his post before 911, but when he discovered that 15 of the 19 hijackers got their passports through his former post, he knew he had to come out, and go public. 39)

The main driver of 911 believer's cognitive dissonance is not wanting to accept that the United States government could kill thousands of their own innocent people. If that is what you believe, please keep in mind that it is only a small minority of criminals who have gained control of key elements in the government. It's not the entire government.

Secondly, try to realize that once a person has gotten to the level where they hire and train terrorists to do unspeakable things to innocent people in other countries, it is never much of a leap to do the same thing to innocent people in this country.

Thirdly, this ruling cabal do not identify with the United States. These are global criminals whose goal is to control the entire world with an iron glove. So when you can't imagine that they would murder their own people, you are technically correct. Their own people are but a relative handful of other ruling cabal members in the world.

Norman Mineta, was the secretary of transportation for the Bush administration. He tells a story about his experience on that fateful day, that I think is one of the smokiest smoking guns in the sordid tale that is 911.

He was allowed to be at the command center underground, (under the White House), where Cheney was in charge, (basically as he was, throughout the Bush years.) Mineta tells how a young man would come in the room announcing that the plane was so many miles away.

He was making the announcement in 10 mile increments, like, “It's 50 miles away.” When it got to 10 miles, the young man asked if the order still stands. Cheney whipped his head around and sternly told the guy, “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?” Shortly after that, the attack on the pentagon occurred.

There is actually more than one smoking gun in this story. The first one is that the official story about why the pentagon was not evacuated, or for that matter, other Washington landmarks that were not evacuated, is two-fold. First of all, it was said that there wasn't enough time.

That's a curious idea, because, allegedly, nobody knew a plane was even coming. If that's the case, how could someone say there wasn't enough time? Certainly the secret service had their suspicions that Washington could be attacked the way the towers were attacked. That is why Cheney and others were escorted underground, but allegedly, nobody knew for sure that a plane was on the way – let alone, where it was or when it might arrive. Mineta starts the story at the 50 mile mark. Even though the plane was evidently being tracked before then, let just use that mark. If it was going 500 miles per hour, there would be more than 8 minutes for everyone in a DC landmark (with the possible exception of the Pentagon, to get out of the structure.

It's conceivable that not every person would have exited the Pentagon, since it is a massive, sprawling structure. But with everyone in the process of evacuating, most, if not all of the 125 persons who died, could have been saved.

The tragic loss of so many lives, not withstanding, the larger smoking gun implicit in the Mineta account of Dick Cheney that day, is the distinct possibility that the orders that Cheney held to steadfastly, and even got perturbed when the young man asked if they had been changed, were to not shoot the plane down. In other words, to allow the plane to attack its target in Washington DC.

As many skeptics suggest, it may have been a missile that hit the Pentagon. In that case, then the order would have been to allow the missile to strike its target. The reason this seems like the probable interpretation of the order, is because the alternative interpretation is that the order was to shoot the plane down.

If that was the case, it is extremely unlikely that young man would be asking the Vice President if he wanted to change his mind about his order to shoot down the plane (or missile.) The official story, of course, is that the plane hit the Pentagon. The story changed from, the fighter plane scrambled to intercept it did not get there in time, to, there was no fighter plane sent because nobody knew it was coming.

Mineta's testimony (given to the commission, but not put into the report, by the way), goes against both stories. There is nothing to indicate the jet fighters that had attempted to shoot anything down, unsuccessfully. Therefore, the most logical interpretation of Mineta's story is that the order, at that point, was to let it happen.

LIHOP stands for let it happen on purpose. Some 911 skeptics believe that elements within the Bush administration are guilty of LIHOP, while others believe in the MIHOP scenario; (made it happen on purpose.)

Around the world, there may be billions of people who subscribe to either the LIHOP or MIHOP views. There is also no shortage of people who subscribe to neither LIHOP or MIHOP, but who are disgusted with the administration for how they took advantage of the crises to take away constitutional rights domestically, and wage wars and torture untold numbers of people who had nothing to do with 911, abroad.

It was Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's first chief of staff, who loves to say, “You never want a serious crises go to waste.” 40) Whatever you believe about who perpetrated 911, you have to admit the Bush administration played it massively and benefited from it in a huge manner.

Then Obama came in and proved everybody right, who ever said, that there is next to no difference between Republicans and Democrats. He continued the wicked ways of Bush, and has even outdone him.

He signed the NDAA (the National Defense Authorization Act) which gives him or future presidents the right to imprison anybody for the rest of their lives, without ever charging them. It even gives the president the license to kill. 41) Forget the rule of law. Forget a fair trial among your peers. Forget having an attorney, or even a trial. Forget having anyone know where you are.

Obama sits in the oval office and signs off on kill lists. 42) Not that it really matters, but he doesn't just kill foreigners. The presidential right to kill or imprison anybody, without charges extends to Americans.

It is hard to fathom that liberals and other Democrats are not impeaching him for any number of treasonous actions. It's even more difficult to understand why Republicans are not calling for impeachment.

I take it back. I get why the Republican politicians are playing along with him. They represent one wing of the Republican-Democratic party, and the two wings, ultimately agree on the big stuff, like perpetrating the myth of 911, to further the cause toward destroying nation states, and instituting global dictatorial government.

PNAC, on the surface, may have been about USA global dominance, but beneath the surface, it's about doing away with the United States and every other sovereign nation. The goal is for the entire world to be under the control of a singular, repressive, autocratic government.

Globalist forces have been moving toward this goal, literally for generations. 911 was throwing down the gauntlet to accelerate the process. The existence of the United States, the way it used to be before 911, with all the personal rights that are outlined in the US Constitution, stood in the way of the globalists end game. 911 allowed Bush and now Obama to decimate those God given rights.

911 became the excuse to really speed up the process of losing those rights, and losing our individual sovereignty and national sovereignty. The policies that the Bush and Obama administrations have put in place as a direct result of 911, are also accelerating the globalist plan to take whatever wealth is in the hands of the masses and turn it over to the elite cabal who are hell bent on their vision of a one world government, with a reduction in population of 90%, and the enslavement of the remaining 10%.

If we, the people, are to thwart this twisted plan that is well on its way, it is going to require that the 911 believers wake up and smell the proverbial coffee. The time for denial has come and gone. If you simply refuse to deal with your cognitive dissonance, and remain steadfast in childlike denial, you are missing the point of why you were born in this time and place.

If you understand that what you have read here is largely valid, but you are hoping that if you don't rock the boat, you will be allowed to live a decent existence, you are sadly mistaken. If you think you have joined forces with the elite, and you are protected, you are also sadly mistaken… (Just ask the ghost of all the dead bankers who are being suicided and otherwise inexplicably turning up dead.) 43) 44) 45)

Our protection and our purpose for living is found in waking up and helping others to wake up. When the masses awaken, the few people, largely in control of this game, might come to the understanding that their plan can not possibly come true. They may choose to come to their senses and rewrite the future.

However, they will never get to that point as long as almost half of the United States believes the official story of 911, and most of the other half are either too scared or too preoccupied or too pessimistic to do so.

Politics | Conspiracy

QR Code
QR Code why_do_so_many_otherwise_intelligent_people_shut_down_their_brains_when_it_comes_to_911 (generated for current page)

Advertise with Anonymous Ads