Science vs. Personal Attacks - The upHILL Battle for 911 Truth

From Gustav LeBon's classic  : "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind" Page 6: 

"A man of science bent on verifying a phenomenon is not called upon to concern himself with the interests his verifications may hurt. ... To belong to a school is necessarily to espouse its prejudices and preconceived opinions."

This reminds one of the situation here in the United States regarding the 911 truth movement. 

On one hand we have professionals with the stones to scientifically examine the plethora of damning 911 evidence then truthfully report their findings to the public that the "official 19-hijacker conspiracy theory" our own government conjured up and sold to us CANNOT BE TRUE.  

On the other hand sit their silent colleagues as they face ridicule , job loss and other name-calling - for committing a thought-crime by asking tough questions like How? Why? or Who? would benefit from this obscene mass murder

Adding to the avalanche of media attacks such doughty champions must weather as they sedulously climb the treacherous slopes of Mount 911Truth - the Brobdingnagian task they face: Awakening and re-educating an American public systematically blinded by blizzards of endless psychological conditioning, misinformation, disinformation, half-truths, outright lies, intimidation ... the whole spectrum of info-war assets the U.S. Federal Government formerly relied on to dominate the mushroom-masses.  Too bad for the tyrant-wannabes that the internet blogosphere changed all that.  The word is out - our government has lied to us all about what really happened on September 11, 2001.  But why?  

I suppose we all have to be concerned with keeping our jobs. But at what point does a citizen decide their country and scientific colleagues need them now? 

The 911 Truthers
What ever happened to good-old-fashioned scientific curiosity? I thought everybody liked a good "Whodunnit?" As I've followed and participated in the 911 truth movement it seems to me that the people "in the right" as far as truth-seeking-by-scientific-method goes are the "911truthers." 

The anti-911-truthers
The opposition to the 911truthers are the "anti-911-truthers," those who oppose 911truth  seem to hide behind time-tested propaganda techniques. Are the anti-911-truthers contributing to the uncovering of truth - or simply shouting louder to "win" by silencing their opponents?  One must wonder what motivates an "anti-911-truther?"  

Stephen E. Jones has been at the forefront of the controversy:

Now listen to a typical "debunker"- Greg Palast beating up on Prof. Jones:

Why is the man a "fruitcake?" Name-calling is so effective when it comes to mass media. Remember what Le Bon tells us on page 57:
"Given to exaggeration in its feelings, a crowd is only impressed by excessive sentiments. An orator wishing to move a crowd must make an abusive use of violent affirmations. To exaggerate, to affirm, to resort to repetitions, and never to attempt to prove anything by reasoning are methods of argument well known to speakers at public meetings."

Is this MIT engineer also a "fruitcake?" If so why?

Again we can learn from Le Bon what is easily fed to crowds vs. the scientific information the 911 truth movement is challenged to get out:

p 69: "Whatever be the ideas suggested to crowds they can only exercise effective influence on condition that they assume a very absolute, uncompromising and simple shape. They present themselves then in the guise of images, and are only accessible to the masses under this form."

Faced with the task of educating a public with facts that require study is an uphill battle. It is not a simple matter for the truth movement to point, shout, name-call, and laugh when complicated facts must be presented to a public that has been prepared with a story that is indeed absolute, uncompromising, and simple. Several Arabs with boxcutters flew planes into buildings - it doesn't get any simpler than that. But for those who dare to examine the facts which are available through many resources - there are many contradictions which beg for explanation.
ICH article Elizabeth Woodworth superb article
January 6, 2009 Good Paper from A&M on disinfo
Feb 25, 2009 Einstein was outvoted but not out-facted
Nice WTC7 article
French Professor sacked for 911 Conspiracy Theory


The only thing to fear is Homeland Security itself...

Listen to this former leader...

...And now please take a look at (Click here) this for a nice unhealthy dose of fear from the head of the Stalinist "Homeland Security" department. Egads! What the heck happened to fearless American leadership? Is this what you teach your children? Just be afraid?

Have you asked yourself when all this fear was thrust upon you? Seriously - when? I remember my teacher, Mr. Horan (pronounced Horn), who was a WWII Army Major, told me to quit hiding behind Susan X, who sat in front of me, because it was unmanly. This was in fifth grade. Now as a 44 year-old I'm told by the head of Homeland Security, Mike Chertoff, that I'm to remain scared for the next five years. Gimme a break! If life is that bad where do I sign up to fight these losers that are taking away my Constitutional rights? Where do I go as an American Citizen to do something about this spook-house Chertoff is building? How about NO! Gimme an M-16 or something this is out of control. Oh that's right - there is no one to shoot at. Well, there are fake terrorists in my mind - but I can't shoot at them. What to do with all the guns'n'ammo?

I am embarrassed by Michael Chertoff because I am an American. Dr. Ben Franklin said "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Can someone please notify Chertoff of this philosophy? He's going to ruin the entire country. He's embarrassing me. And will he please get some sleep? Why are his eyeballs connected to the rear of the inside of his cranium???
Patriot Act abuses
UPDATE MAR 16, 2009 Cheney fuels fraidy-cat fire


Ray McGovern on Obama

Are Americans only hearing one side of the story?

UPDATE AUGUST 16, 2009 AUDIO - Boiling Frogs with Sibel Edmonds and Phil Giraldi regarding AIPAC
There are two sides to every story. Is it possible that Americans are given access to only one side of the story involving struggles in the middle East? I wonder if we knew the whole story our perspective might change to one reflecting more balance? I wonder if it is our business at all - except that it seems wrong to stand by while people slaughter each other when one has the power to stop it. But are we doing that? Can Americans form a reasoned opinion based on the information presented to the American public through normal media outlets? The American federal government ignores President George Washington's warning stated in his 1796 Farewell Address : to stay out of foreign entanglements - Why? Are they wiser than he? Here's a sample:

"Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?"

Is it possible that one side of this bloodbath has gotten the upper hand when it comes to influence in American government ? Is it possible that some American "public servants" might have stronger allegiances OUTSIDE the U.S.?

Is it possible that movies and television impress Americans with an unbalanced perspective? Would an unbalanced perspective allow Americans to form opinions that will result in justice for all? Do negative consequences result from ill-informed public decisions?
(Click here) - to see for yourself who is behind the curtain. Is it possible, intentionally or unintentionally that the biases of these people will become manifest in the final product?

Is it possible that the news we watch doesn't give us both sides of the story and could use a little more balance? Is it possible that news anchors and news owners either consciously or unconsciously bias the news we take for granted as the whole truth?

Is it possible that we Americans are only hearing one side of the story?

More Here:
--------------------------UPDATES: -------+++++++----------------
PCR on this subject January 4, 2009
Here's a good post by LeisureGuy
Here's a good Moriarty editorial
This may surprise you
Who is Congress listening to?
Jan 11, 2009 AP biased?
Jan 18, 2009 Cloughley - Who runs America?
Feb 27, 2009 Clinton attacked for saying something

UPDATE MAR 12, 2009 WSJ Freeman withdrawal due to pressure
UPDATE Inauguration Day:
If this is true I think it is a great sign
UPDATE APR 29, 2009 AIPAC, NSA Spying, and the Corruption of Congress


Conspiracy Theory - Reason vs. the Crowd

What is the definition of a Conspiracy Theory? Wikipedia definition here, Another definition of "Conspiracy Theory" from Webster's Online Dictionary:
" A conspiracy theory is the belief that historical or current events are the result of manipulations by one or more secretive powers or conspiracies."

Where on Earth might one hear of such a paranoid idea? How about from President John F. Kennedy?

Or how about President Eisenhower? Watch this segment of the entire Eisenhower farewell below:

UPDATE APRIL 16, 2009 How about Abraham Lincoln? From Lincoln's "House Divided" speech: CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT :
"We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance -- and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in -- in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck."
UPDATE NOV 4, 2009
Nixon: International money speculators are the gainers when international monetary crises strike:

Click here for a page with links to articles by many authors stating their case regarding conspiracy theories. Some of the authors state that they "Don't believe any conspiracy theories." I don't see how it is reasonable for a person to state that they don't believe in any conspiracy ever - especially when many have historically been found to be true! And remember - theory precedes conclusion until evidence has been gathered. Also - what good would a police detective be that NEVER considered conspiracy in their efforts to solve crimes - all crimes? The point is - don't let anyone convince you to discount conspiracy - first look at the evidence. Stop and think - if you were guilty of conspiracy, and the law was hot on your trail - wouldn't it be in your best interest to point and laugh at the detectives and claim they were "crazy conspiracy theorists?" That said - let's continue...

So what are the connotations of the phrase "conspiracy theory?" They are negative are they not? Doesn't one immediately think "kooky", "crazy", "crackpot" etc...? Why? If past presidents are among those warning us of the dangers of misplaced power falling into the hands of groups (military-industrial complex) then who are those advising us not to pay attention? Who are those telling us it is irrational to consider that people may secretly scheme in ways that are against the best interests of the public? Jefferson told us "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." He did NOT add "...but don't worry about conspirators or conspiracies!"

If being vigilant means considering conspiracies, which means formulating theories, then do it! Who are the originators of labels, like conspiracy theorist, that discourage Americans from heeding the warnings from past Presidents? Why would so many people in the corporate media ceaselessly label those who dare publicly to theorize about a conspiracy as if it is an irrational act? If one hopes to find truth shouldn't all possibilities be considered? How about the possibility of conspiracy? Do you think Abraham Lincoln would have been well advised to consider there was a conspiracy to assassinate him? What would todays corporate media have to say about a conspiracy theory to kill Abraham Lincoln the night before a conspirator shot him? Would you call Obama's guardians "crazy" for considering a conspiracy against him? Let's take a look at history...

Historical Conspiracies:

1. Gunpowder Plot
2. Rosenberg Conspiracy
3. John Anthony Walker , Click here for another article on the Walker spy family from Pete Early.
4. Abraham Lincoln Conspirators , Click here for more on Lincoln's conspirators.

So if we are to learn from history we must accept that conspiracy theories are rational considerations for Homo Sapiens - because CONSPIRACIES HAPPEN! This means that it is a citizen's duty to consider conspiracies as explanations for events. Yes, consider as a possibility. Why? So that in the case that there is indeed a conspiracy we get to the truth. If the evidence shows no support for the hypothesis of conspiracy then it is eliminated as a possible explanation. The important lesson to learn is to LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. Just consider it. But please ignore the pleas of the corporate media to disregard evidence because they think you are foolish for considering a possibility that just may be true.

Some current conspiracy theories:

1. One World Government Conspiracy theories: Article from 321Gold on Warburg
2. 911 Conspiracy Theories vs. Government Conspiracy Theory vs. Coincidence Theory
From- P44 "The Crowd a Study of the Popular Mind" Gustave LeBon:
"However indifferent it may be supposed, a crowd, as a rule, is in a state of expectant attention, which renders suggestion easy. The first suggestion formulated which arises implants itself immediately by a process of contagion in the brains of all assembled, and the identical bent of the sentiments of the crowd is immediately an accomplished fact."

Isn't this exactly what happened on 911 with the difference that the crowd was assembled on a television set instead of as a mob in the street? Was there time for anyone to apply critical thought? Why would anyone on that fateful day, 9-11-2001, apply critical thought when they are watching events unfold on their television? But after later examination of the video evidence isn't it odd how quickly the same conclusion reached by the 911 commission was reached in seconds by some guy in a Harley hat and Harley shirt on the street on 911? The same EXACT story? "Then I witnessed ..."

But who would benefit from such a disaster? In other words Que Bono? (or Cui Bono? if you prefer the Latin.) I wonder how much this gentleman made as a result of the 9-11 "attacks?" Look him up - see what you think.

How about the military-industrial complex as mentioned by President Eisenhower? Do you think they experienced any benefit from the disaster of that day?

But hasn't the government looked into all of this? What about the 911 Commission Report? Hasn't that put all this to rest? I suppose that depends if you've seen the work of private citizens who've taken time off from their lives, like David Ray Griffin , and written many books about the subject, including 911 Commission Omissions: Omissions and Distortions. This is worth examining:

As American citizens will we actively participate in the making of history, or will we sit on the sidelines accepting as fact the unsubstantiated images provided to us via television?

It is every citizen's duty to become informed and involved in our own way. If you are not a citizen of the USA - so what? We need your help in spreading the truth. Knowledge is power - and gaining knowledge is the first step. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step - I wish you, reader, if you haven't already, please join those of us who've taken that step.

DEC 29, 2008 Do you recognize the voice?
JAN 10, 09 George Washington's Blog - Good article on disinfo
Jan 18, 2009 Anthony Beever can discern truth but you can't
Please read this on Kennedy - give it some thought
(CLICK) for a conspiracy theorist (whatever that is)
French Professor sacked for 911 conspiracy theory

UPDATE JULY 10, 2009 David Ray Griffin vs. Matt Taibbi -impenetrable logic vs. fallacy
UPDATE AUGUST 3, 2009 LOU DOBBS reporting on Obama going for NAU
UPDATE OCTOBER 28, 2009 Official explains NAU
UPDATE MARCH 27, 2010 JPMorgan, Lehman, UBS Named in Bid-Rigging Conspiracy (Update1)

Is the Amero for Real?

UPDATE AUGUST 3, 2009 LOU DOBBS reporting on Obama going for NAU

Have you heard the rumor of the "Amero?" My first exposure to the term was on C-SPAN. During his closing speech, Stan Jones, the Libertarian candidate for Montana Senator delivered the eyebrow-raising speech you may wish to watch below. I wonder if it will capture your interest as it did mine?

Pretty scary stuff huh? I thought so. But who is Stan Jones and what is this North American Union he speaks of? In his speech Stan Jones acknowledges he risks sounding like a Conspiracy Theorist by so much as mentioning topics like the NAU and the Amero because he knows the masses respond to such phrases with reflexes rather than higher thought. Let's take a more reasoned approach here and give him a listen, examine the available evidence, and just become better informed.

The North American Union (NAU):
The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) (Click here) for U.S. Government SPP Website Take a look at the myths and facts section where myths are dispelled.
Wikipedia entry on NAU: Wikipedia article Notice Wikipedia uses the term "Conspiracy Theory" to describe the NAU. I find this label unfortunate as it implies the author has made up their mind ahead of time that the subject matter has no credence.
There are also those predicting the opposite - that the US is about to break up. (Click here) to read WSJ article from Professor Igor Panarin with map.
Assigning credibility to the subject of the North American Union is left to the reader. But there have been movements that imply that parts of the overall idea have credibility. Take a minute to watch this segment from Lou Dobbs:

Now look at this video where someone who never lies is "amused" about what actually happens vs. what is portrayed in the news. Well, fine - educate us please.

Here's another:

Who is talking about the Amero?

Who is the originator of the term Amero?
Meet the inventor of the Amero:

Here we find out that the subject matter is too boring for the general public - kinda like philosophy, math, science and law:

Why are people concerned about the Amero? There are those (Click here for Rob Kirby article) who believe that central banking, the Federal Reserve, is part of a patiently executed plan to rob Americans of their Constitution and place America under a one-world government. Why would the Amero be introduced - Cui bono?

When is the Amero to be introduced if it is real?

Where is the Amero to be minted?

Where will the Amero be accepted as currency?

How will the Amero be implemented?
When will the Amero be implemented?
UPDATE MARCH 19, 2009 Kremlin to pitch new currency at G20

UPDATE July 10, 2009 Medvedev unveils world currency coin

Jesse Ventura says CIA is Implanted in State Governments

Take a look at the video  HERE (CLICK) .

Is Governer Ventura correct when he says the CIA is not supposed to be operational within the USA? Perhaps this segment from FAQ (frequently asked questions) from their CIA website will clear things up?
"6. Does the CIA spy on Americans? Does it keep a file on you?

By law, the CIA is specifically prohibited from collecting foreign intelligence concerning the domestic activities of US citizens. Its mission is to collect information related to foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence. By direction of the president in Executive Order 12333 of 1981 and in accordance with procedures approved by the Attorney General, the CIA is restricted in the collection of intelligence information directed against US citizens. Collection is allowed only for an authorized intelligence purpose; for example, if there is a reason to believe that an individual is involved in espionage or international terrorist activities. The CIA's procedures require senior approval for any such collection that is allowed, and, depending on the collection technique employed, the sanction of the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may be required. These restrictions on the CIA have been in effect since the 1970s.

Blah blah. Am I to believe that the CIA is working in my best interests? Am I to believe the CIA with zero oversight has to answer to anyone - let alone the American public? What are they doing? I have no idea. Nether do you my fellow American. I do know one thing - they need more money. Yeah more. Right now. From you, me, and everyone so they can continue protecting us from our enemies. Remember that the entire world hates us for our freedoms. Repeat that to yourself a million times. Then repeat it again. Whatever you do, don't ask any questions about the CIA, what they are doing or why they need your money. Don't ask why Jesse Ventura, a former Governer says they are operational within the US. Don't ask why they violate their own mission statement.

Remember that the American government always tells the truth about everything - and always has. Even the sinking of the Lusitania. Oh that's right, they lied about that too. You may wish to read about new evidence Click here - no longer in the realm of conspiracy theories but in the realm of fact.
Mighty Wurlitzer