9-11 was an inside job

[Russell Kanning]

i was saddened thee other day when i noticed that for many people their world changed after 9/11 ... and not for the betterr
the government is still bombing and shooting people  in afghanistan both on purpose and by accident ... and many people support them

[jaqeboy]

Hmmm, some New Hampshire folks want to know what really happened:

http://voteforanswersnh.com/

[jaqeboy]

Was faced with the "conspiracy theory" label again last night by a libertarian. Here's some good stuff from Washington's blog - thanks to KaBoom Bloom for linking to it on Facebook:

[usual conspiracy theory allegations..., then]

But in fact, leading Austrian school economist Professor Murray N. Rothbard wrote in 1965:

It is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any "conspiracy theory of history"; for a search for "conspiracies" means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane "social forces," or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ("We Are All Murderers," proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on "conspiracy theories" means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the "general welfare" reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A "conspiracy theory" can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda.

And in 1977, Rothbard wrote:

Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a "conspiracy theory of history," "paranoid," "economic determinist," and even "Marxist." These smear labels are applied across the board, even though such realistic analyses can be, and have been, made from any and all parts of the economic spectrum, from the John Birch Society to the Communist Party. The most common label is "conspiracy theorist," almost always leveled as a hostile epithet rather than adopted by the "conspiracy theorist" himself.

    It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various "extremists" who are outside the Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the "public good." Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse.

    Let us take an easy example. Suppose we find that Congress has passed a law raising the steel tariff or imposing import quotas on steel? Surely only a moron will fail to realize that the tariff or quota was passed at the behest of lobbyists from the domestic steel industry, anxious to keep out efficient foreign competitors. No one would level a charge of "conspiracy theorist" against such a conclusion. But what the conspiracy theorist is doing is simply to extend his analysis to more complex measures of government: say, to public works projects, the establishment of the ICC, the creation of the Federal Reserve System, or the entry of the United States into a war. In each of these cases, the conspiracy theorist asks himself the question cui bono? Who benefits from this measure? If he finds that Measure A benefits X and Y, his next step is to investigate the hypothesis: did X and Y in fact lobby or exert pressure for the passage of Measure A? In short, did X and Y realize that they would benefit and act accordingly?

    Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of "conspiracy" analysis who profess to believe that all events — at least in government —are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning.

    There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of "paranoia." First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler's policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.) Secondly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume — again without evidence — that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict...

Rothbard's points are well-taken: there are in fact conspiracies involving powerful people. But people that go off half-cocked with baseless allegations unsupported by the evidence do a disservice to everyone, and do nothing but muddy the waters.

We must treat conspiracy theories like judges are trained to do: as claims to be proven or disproven based on the evidence.

So, hey, I'm a praxeologist, not a conspiracy theorist!

[Kat Kanning]

Interesting.

[Tunga]

Tunga just received his brand spankey new US Passport and it's a doozey! It not only has a chip embedded in it that has recorded every fart the Tunga has ever prefetated in his entire life, it's also impervious to destruction by fire or flame to 3000 degrees F. Plus too also it can withstand the crushing of 5 billion pounds of melting steel and still be legible on the evening news! Same day coverage no less!

Thanks Hillary! You're freaking awesome!

[jaqeboy]

Here's one guy's theory:

How 9/11 was done

Loaded with links, and followed with this comment:

Ok, I admit. Some elements in this story are speculative. ... the story is an coherent educated speculation. It is an attempt to reconstruct the events of 9/11. Myriads of web sites exist that expose the inconsistencies in the official story, that obviously is a fraud. This story offers an integral explanation of what could have happened and in all likelihood more or less did happen at 9/11

He does take the "Israelis done it" stance, or as the author states: an "Israeli Conspiracy Theory that replaces the official Arab Conspiracy Theory"

[MTPorcupine3]

I recently thought of a way to respond to the next person, especially a cool-aid drinker type, who asks you: "Are you a 9-11 truther?":

"Oh, I'm a truth seeker/skeptic. Aren't you?"

[jaqeboy]

I recently thought of a way to respond to the next person, especially a cool-aid drinker type, who asks you: "Are you a 9-11 truther?":

"Oh, I'm a truth seeker/skeptic. Aren't you?"

How about "Why yes, I'm for the truth. Do you favor lies?"

[Tunga]

At least according to this article they do.

You're not allowed to see them though.

Only the BBC because they knew it was going to collapse 20 minuets before it did.

Because ya know paper and carpets can burn really hot and there was a subway station and diesel fuel and substandard construction and explosives oops. No explosives. Were sure about that. The rest were pretty sure of though. Almost positive in fact.


9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm

[jaqeboy]

More on the campaign Vote for Answers at New Hampshire town meetings. It's confirmed that there'll be an item on 10 towns' warrant and maybe 2 more that haven't had deadlines yet. There's a new poster and I think there's a download link for the poster in this 911blogger article:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/22600

[jaqeboy]

Gotta see the News Nuggets advert that Monadnock 9/11 is running... attached below

[jaqeboy]

The Keene event last weekend was very good. Got to meet some folks that had come up from NYC, including Bill Gleason, the director of the World Trade Center Rescuers Foundation - that looks like a worthwhile group to support. He had a lot of stories to tell, some of them kinda gruesome.

In keeping with tradition, the local news media ignored the event, but, here's a good one: it WAS covered by Russia Today, who is covering a lot of interesting stuff in the good old U S of A. [I had my 1/2 second of fame in a panning shot!]

Their reporter Marina Portnaya has interviewed several key people in the 9/11 Truth movement, like Daniel Sunjata.

[jaqeboy]

BIG conference this weekend in Penna:

March 6 & 7, 2010, Valley Forge Convention Center
"Treason in America: 911, the Wars & Our Broken Constitution" Conference

Huge list of speakers and musical artists on the site.
Wish I could go, but I've got other commitments here.
There are a couple of cars going from the Seacoast if anyone wants to ride-share down to the event.

[jaqeboy]

Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous
Global Research
by George Washington's blog

Most Americans don't know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can't figure out whether or not they are dangerous.

Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9/11.

The list proves - once and for all - that people who question 9/11 are dangerous.

Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases.

Senior intelligence officers:

    Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).

    A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke", and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
...

[jaqeboy]

The truth movement makes Nightline:

Inside a 9/11 'Truther' Convention

Sander Hicks reports: "9/11 Truth Media Breakthrough: We Got on Nightline. Sure, the reporters here show malice, and make claims with no substantiation. (E.g. they claim that our assertions have been "discredited.") Still, this is a victory, and should be counted as one. I'm in the piece as well...."

See if you can spot any New-Hampshire brethren in the mix (there are a few there)