How Many Conspiracists Does it Take to ...

Why is one conspiracy any more believable than another?

To read forums and blog comments, some people believe that 19 incredibly lucky Arabs with boxcutters pulled off the total destruction of the entire World Trade Center complex, plus the destruction of a plane with passengers and crew in Shanksville, PA, plus heavy damage all the way through several rings on one side of the Pentagon.

I'd say that's fairly outlandish.

But if you suggest there's more to the story, or a different story, all of a sudden it's impossible because it would take the assent, aid and continuing silence of thousands of people!


This, my friends, is a straw man argument. There is no mainstream 9/11 Truth theory that calls for a cast of thousands.

I mean, if all it took was 19 mostly Saudi Arabs, then surely another group of 19 could do it too. Especially if the event was planned in advance and the mechanisms put in place over time.

I do not believe now, nor have I ever taken seriously, the motive ascribed to Osama bin Laden and his followers, that, "they hate our freedoms." Did Osama benefit? Did Islam benefit? Did the Taliban benefit? Just who did benefit? And who might have had the means and a motive?

If we are looking for motive, we find one right here -- the implementation of the PNAC's hegemonic plan simply could not have happened absent our "new Pearl Harbor." The neo-cons seem to have been ready for 9/11/2001.

[Tunick photo found here, fair use]

Why the BBC Video is Important

"9/11 Changed Everything"

Can you remember when and who first spoke the phrase, "9/11 Changed Everything"? Within a day or two of 9-11-2001, pundits began this curious chant. The phrase persisted through the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report where, on page 328, you'll find:

However, the attacks of 9/11 changed everything. Less than one week after September 11, an early version of what was to become the Patriot Act (officially, the USA PATRIOT Act) began to take shape.

But who seeded that phrase into media consciousness? I surely thought it odd at the time. 9/11 didn't change everything for me.

Someone Planted a Story for the Media

Who seeded the media with the notion that WTC7 collapsed because of fire and damage? The same entity responsible for releasing the soon-to-be news a tad too early, that's who. That's why the recently unearthed BBC video is so important. You know, the footage where Jane Standley reports that the Salomon building (aka WTC7) has collapsed, only it is quite uncollapsed in the view out the window behind her.

At about 5:10 in the video linked above, Jane makes a rather honest observation: "It looks like the aftermath of a huge Atom bomb or something..."

How Perceptions are Formed

This video is called The911Solution. Watch how the news was massaged from the very beginning. After all, if we see it on TV, it must be true, right?

To All the Debunkers...

...who suggest that it would be perfectly ridiculous for bad guys to pre-announce their dirty deeds: you must not be astute or educated enough to grasp the fact that the television is a tool to brainwash the masses. The purpose of the news feed that made it on air too early was not to pre-announce a crime. Its purpose was to provide an explanation (fire and damage) for WTC7's collapse to replace the only other conclusion people could have reached had they been left to their own observations (that WTC7 was imploded in some sort of pre-planned demolition).

Part of the Conspiracy? (2)

Richard Porter, head of news for BBC World, continues to explain away the "9/11 foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse" broadcast, the missing BBC tapes, and all in all, how reasonable and easy to explain the whole thing is, after all. He ends his blurb with, "There's no story here." I don't think he understands that he doesn't get to decide that.



read more | digg story