1 dial 911 for evidence what did or didn’t happen, and (how) can we know?

1

Dial 911 for Evidence

What did or didn’t happen,

and (how) can we know?

2

WTC2: South Tower

3

WTC1: North Tower

QuickTime™ and aMotion JPEG A decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

4

WTC7: Salomon Brothers



5

‘Twould be nice to get into the juicy part immediately . . .

but we really need to establish some basics about evidence and the working environment of looking at 9/11.

6

What about you?

• What do you think happened before, on, and after September 11, 2001

• Where did you get the information that led you to think that?

7

What’s this about?

• Thinking about theories• Thinking about evidence• Basics: flights, agencies• The Argument: debunkers vs doubters• U.S. involvement impossible?• (in)Capability of the press

8

Thinking about theories

9

What is a myth?(David Ray Griffin)

• A narrative that is– Widely believed– Does not correspond to reality

10

What is a Myth?(David Ray Griffin)

• A narrative that– orients & mobilizes people:• “Who am I?”• “Why do I do what I do?”

– is taken on faith– is not subject to discussion

11

What is a theory?

A hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

12

A good theory . . .

• Does not contain internal contradictions

• Corresponds to observed data

• Is not inconsistent with observed data

• Does not ignore observed data

• May predict not-yet-known data

13

3 ways to challenge a theory(David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 Showdown)

1. Show that the evidence supporting it does not withstand scrutiny

2. Show evidence that appears to contradict it

3. Show evidence that it can’t possibly be true

14

What is a “conspiracy?”

• Cabal -- an association between religious, political, or tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by intrigue

• Conspiracy (civil) (US) -- an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage

• Conspiracy (crime) (US) -- an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement

• Conspiracy (political) -- a plot to overthrow a government http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy

15

Problem with

“Conspiracy Theory”

• Used to patronizingly explain away evidence, as in “America’s traditional love-affair with conspiracy theories.”

• Has come to be an instantaneous turn-off of people’s analytical willingness or abilities.

• 9/11 -- used in a one-sided perjorative sense, when in fact there are two competing conspiracy theories

• Apparently started with the CIA’s 1967 “Instructions to Media Assets”

16

9/11: Conspiracy theory #1

The Official Story

With no prior warning, Arab Muslim fundamentalists hijacked airliners, evaded a massive interception capability, and flew them into (a) two skyscrapers that collapsed in an unprecedented fashion, and (b) the most heavily constructed and least strategic part of the Pentagon.

17

9/11: Conspiracy theory #2 The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement”

•

• The Official Story is false because it is contains many contradictions, as well as inconsistencies with physical and forensic evidence.

• The official defenses of the Official Story contain so many omissions, distortions, and apparently deliberate lies that they constitute a coverup of whatever did happen.

• Although much evidence for an alternative story is available, many aspects are inconsistent or lacking positive proof, and the real story cannot be known until there is a new, truly independent investigation with subpoena powers.

18


WHAT? NO THEORY????

• See item 3 on previous slide• QUESTION: Is it necessary, in proving that a

theory is wrong, to– Offer a fully-fledged, or even partial, alternative

theory?– Account for all the implications of evidence

brought forward? http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/implications.html Ripple Effect, ch. 17: http://thepowerhour.com/news2/analogy.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/implications.html



19


To the extent that there is a theory:

• Arab individuals may or may not have hijacked jetliners

• World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by something other than impact/fire

• The Pentagon was damaged, but by what?• Something crashed or was shot down in

Pennsylvania, not necessarily where specified• Some elements of the U.S. government were

involved to one of the following degrees . . .

20

Degrees of “Official Complicity”(David Ray Griffin, in The New Pearl Harbor)

• Construction of false account• No knowledge on part of White House, but...– Expected by intelligence agencies (in general)– Expected by intelligence agencies (specifics)– Intelligence agencies involved in planning– Pentagon involved in planning

• White House involved– No specific knowledge, general expectation– Specific advance knowledge– Involved in planning

21

What is “impossible?”(David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 Showdown)

• Logical -- a round square

• Metaphysical -- going back in time and killing your grandfather

• Physical -- violation of physical laws

22

Was U.S. involvement impossible?

A history of real, provoked, or fictional attacks on Americans or allies as pretexts for wars...

later

23

The link betweenTheory and Evidence

24

Types of ReasoningDavid Ray Griffin

• Deductive (defending official story):Step by step -- each depends on previous, if one is false, all fails

• Cumulative (questioning official story):Series of independent observations -- if one fails, weakens argument but doesn’t kill it

25

Thinking about thinking

26

A priori thinking

• Incompetence much more likely

• Someone would have talked

• It’s obvious that al Qaeda did it

Mind made up before looking at evidence

27

Types of thinking

• Paradigmatic -- believing only what fits the held world view: “I refuse to believe you because I don’t want to live in a country whose leaders would do such a thing.”

• Wishful/Fearful -- believing what one wants to be true, or disbelieving what one doesn’t want to be true: “9/11 was due to incompetence (like Katrina)” as if well-planned actions never went awry.

• Empirical -- believing what evidence shows, regardless of how it fits emotionally.

Seeing isn’t necessarily believing

28

Difficulty with Empiricality

• The neurons that go from the eye to the visual cortex of the brain aren’t the only ones.

• Others connect the eye to the emotional center of the brain.

• Which center gets the message first is not a given; frequently it’s the emotional one, disabling rational thought about evidence.

29

Difficulty with Empiricality

• Experiments show that people confronted with identical behavior or thinking will judge it in opposite ways depending on their perception of the behaver.

• Example: In 2008, the CIA issued a secret report stating that the best way to prevent the spread of anti-war sentiment was to elect Obama. In fact, since his election, the active objection to war and the erosion of civil liberties has almost vanished from the Left.

30

Fact of Life

People look at the same piece of evidence and draw totally

different conclusions

The Soviet sub and the Queen

31

What you see...

How did Rudy Giuliani’s people know?OS-ers: he wouldn’t be stupid enough to say something

incriminating9T-ers: most wouldn’t notice, only those who know the lack of

precedent for steel frame buildings collapsing from fire

“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out....”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KtDIOS8-EM

32

What you see...

Dust -- from air push or explosions?

North Towerhttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#northtower

South Towerhttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#southtower

33

Propaganda• Not absolute lies, rather different truths

– Half truths– incomplete truths– limited truths– out of context truths

• Reinforce -- not change -- existing opinions, prejudices, attitudes

• Vulnerability of intellectuals & educated– absorb a lot of (not necessarily good) info– compelled to have opinion, so absorb propaganda– feel they are immune to propaganda

• WE do truth, THEY do propaganda

34

Thinking about evidence

35

Types of evidence

• Physical– Objects– Observations of phenomena– Analysis of objects or phenomena

• Behavior– Actions– Consistency

36

Evidence relates to

• Events

• Relationships– Events to events– People to events– People to People

37

Evidence sources1. Primary– Primary documents (government, private)– Video/audio (news footage, individuals)– Statements by directly involved individuals– Eye-witness statements– Empirical physical research

2. Secondary (report on Primaries)– News analysis articles/broadcasts– Investigative researchers

3. Tertiary (assemble Secondaries)– Books and produced videos– Blogs

38

Evidence/testimony credibility• Correspondence to physical reality• Changes in story• Inherent predisposition• Nature of expert• Reputation of source• Technical issues• Quotation issues• Contradicting evidence• Misleading What else??

39

Evidence/testimony credibility

Relation to physical reality• Claim (based in NIST report evidence):

The WTC towers collapsed because of truss failures, lower floors crushed by structure above falling on them.

• Observation: If this were true, then at least the top portions of the buildings would be in recognizable pieces.

• Physical reality: all three buildings were turned into structural steel and small-particle dust.

40


Relation to physical reality



Reality (from North) NIST Model

WTC Building 7

41


• Correspondence to physical reality• Changes in story• Inherent predisposition• Nature of expert• Reputation of source• Technical issues• Quotation issues• Contradicting evidence• Misleading What else??

42


Story changes

• Where were you the night of the crime?– I was at the theater.

• The theater was closed.– Oh, that’s right, I was with my girlfriend.

• She says she was with her husband.– Oh, yeah, I was home reading the Bible.

-- from David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Myth and Reality

43

Official story changesto handle objections

• (9/11-12/01) Joint Chiefs head & NORAD spokesman: Didn’t get interceptors into air until after Pentagon hit (sounds like stand down? 9/14: CBS says fighters were up)

• (9/18/01) NORAD timeline: up, but too late due to FAA failure to provide timely notification (hmm -- there still was time)

• (7/04) 9/11 Commission -- FAA never notified military of any of the planes, except a phantom Flight 11 (which had never been previously mentioned)

44



45


Inherent predisposition

• A person is known, through prior statements or association, to have a certain predisposition.

• Two possibilities: s/he claims to have witnessed -- or discovered -- something– that is congruent with that predisposition– that contradicts that predisposition

• Which of these is likely to be more reliable?

46

Pentagon reportersDavid Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 ‘Truth’ Showdown

• Of 7 who say they saw a jetliner hit the Pentagon– 5 worked for Gannet (USA Today)– one described wing dragging the ground (but

no scar)

• Those who arrived immediately after:– CNN: “very small pieces you can pick up with

your hand, nothing large”– ABC (early close look inside): “could not see

any plane wreckage”

47

Pentagon policeFlight 77: Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (DVD)

• Filling their cars at “the Citgo station”• They say (on camera, in uniform) that they

saw the plane go by north of the station• The alleged flight data recorder (and

apparent damage path) says it went south of the station.

• Real, or a byzantine straw-man plot to discredit the 9T movement? (Hmm, this begins to get strange)

48



49


Nature of expert

• Professional qualifications• Relevance of these to

evidence/testimony• Free from potential conflict of

interest or duress?• Relevant previous performance?• Story changes (what context)?

50



51


Reputation of source

• How do others in his/her/its field feel about him/her/it?

• Has other information provided by him/her/it been successfully debunked (when seen in context)?

• Approach: “hot” or “cool”• (Trickier) Is there baggage that you feel damages

credibility for you? (e.g., UFOs, anti-Zionist)• Have there been changes to him/her/it or

circumstances?

52



Example: David Ray Griffin

• Well respected as theologian, many books, dean of the “9/11 Truth” movement

• Researcher who gathers together others’ research, does some checking w/primary

• Possible debunks– 757 didn’t hit Pentagon– Hijackers not there and/or still alive– “FAA” doc on intercept timing is not FAA.

• Baggage: concern for Constitution/world

53



Example: NIST

• Well respected descendent of National Bureau of Standards

• Staffed with experienced scientists but . . .

• "Distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends”-- signed by 12,000 scientists (including 52 Nobel laureates, 63 National medal of science)

54



Example: NIST (continued)

• "By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been trained to pay close heed to political pressures ...friends who are still there and who have been closely, though unhappily and often unwillingly, involved in some of the politicization [of NIST] and its effects.” -- former NIST whistleblower

• Sources of interference: oversight by– NSA– Commerce HQ (no release w/out changes)– OMB (presence of policy overseer)

55



Example: Popular Mechanics

• Well-respected popularized science/engineering magazine for over a century

but . . .

• In 2005– editor and much of staff replaced– one of writers a nephew of head of Homeland Security

(PM denied there was any connection, turned out there was)

56



57


Technical issues

• Is there evidence or suspicion of photo or video or audio alteration or faking that can’t be discounted?

• Is technical evidence invoked that sounds impressive but is flawed or contradicted by observation?

• Do more persuasive technical counterarguments exist?

58


Technical issues

Alternative: http://journalof911studies.com/ Debunking: http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

• Fake? 911Comm: found DoD audio file about Flight 11 heading to DC, no source, no dating, not available.

• Fake? 911 cell phone calls that were impossible to make.

• WTC gravity-energy argument:– No: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html– Yes: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf– Yes: http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf– No: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf– Yes: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf– No: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/

http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

59


• Correspondence to physical reality• Changes in story• Inherent predisposition• Nature of expert• Reputation of source• Technical issues• Quotation issues• Contradicting evidence• Misleading What

else??

60


Quotation issues

• Is the attribution provided correct and findable (lots of web pages gone; why)?

• What is the context?• What is contained in...the portion omitted

by use of ellipses?

61



else??

62


Contradicting evidence

• Molten steel in the WTC foundations– http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501

• Some hijackers still alive– Yes: Griffin, 911Commission Omissions & Distortions, p.19– No: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/david-ray-griffin-115-things-he-gets.html

• Barbara Olson phone call from Flight 77– Yes: proves hijackers had box cutters, 77 in air at that time– No: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501

63



else??

64


Misleading

• Deliberate– Using in wrong context– Omitting important information– Distorting reality

• Accidental– Quoting evidence cited by someone else

65


Misleading -- AT’ers• Hijackers on planes?– CNN passenger lists with no hijackers’ names

cited as indication of absence– But CNN article popup window stated the

hijackers were expressly omittedhttp://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/index.html

• Potential rapidity of response– 1998 FAA document cited saying jets would be

on tail of oddity in “10 or so minutes”– Document actually was a manual for air traffic

control training software, with disclaimer.http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/index.html

http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm

66


Misleading -- OS’ers

• The 9/11 Commission Report’s complete omission or distortion of testimony that conflicted with their assertions – Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta– FBI translator Sibel Edmonds– much more...

• The assertion that the “mystery” sulfur on WTC steel came from gypsum wallboard instead of the pyrotechnic thermate– ignores steel vaporization/melting in the sulfated area– ignores the absence of calcium (part of gypsum)

67


Disingenuous Debunking• Use “conspiracy” as one-sided perjorative• Straw man -- pick an outlying or irrelevant

position and claim/imply this is the meat of the argument.

• Distort positions• Ignore inconvenient evidence• Cite potentially compromised sources• Guilt by association (unpopular ideas)• Lie• Combine all the above for confusion

68

LIES!!!• Knowingly stating something that is false– Richard Cheney comes to mind on many

fronts.

• Lots of accusation from both sides• Can be hard to prove that something is a

lie, but not always impossible.• Be wary (but open) when you see

accusations of lying

69



else??

70

Basic Information

• Flight destinations/paths

• Civilian agencies

• Military/Intelligence agencies

• Private organizations

• Official reports

71

Flight Destinations

• American Airlines 11: North Tower 1

• United Airlines 175: South Tower 2

• None: WTC Building 7

• American Airlines 77: Pentagon

• United Airlines 93: ? (Pennsylvania)

72

Flight Paths

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/map.html

77

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

73

Civilian Agencies

• EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (DC)• FAA: Federal Aviation Administration (DC)

– Boston Air Traffic Control Center (Boston)– Herndon Command Center (Herndon VA: suburban DC)– Headquarters (DC)

• FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency (DC)• NIST: National Institute of Standards & Technology

(Bethesda, MD: suburban DC)• NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board (DC)• OEM: Office of Emergency Management (NY City)

74

Military/Intelligence Agencies

• CIA (Langley, Virginia: suburban DC)• FBI (DC)• NORAD: North American Aerospace Defense

Command (Colorado Springs, CO)– NEADS: Northeast Air Defense Sector (Rome, NY)

• NMCC: National Military Command Center (Pentagon)

• NSA: National Security Agency (Fort Meade, MD: suburban DC)

75

Private Organizations• ASCE: American Society of Civil Engineers

Volunteers assigned by FEMA to study the damage at the World Trade Center and Pentagon (& OklaCity)

• PNAC: Project for the New American CenturyNeoconservative think tank, applied Brzyzinski’s concept of a “new Pearl Harbor” to the need to speed up the transformation of the military to facilitate American hegemony.http://www.newamericancentury.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_CenturyRebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Centuryhttp://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

76

Official Reports

• 5/02 -- FEMA (ASCE volunteers): World Trade Center Building Performance Study

• 1/03 -- FEMA (ASCE volunteers): Pentagon Building Performance Report

• 12/03 -- Congress: Report of Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities

• 8/04 -- 9/11 Commission: Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States)

• 9/05 -- NIST: World Trade Center 1 & 2• 8&12/08 -- NIST: World Trade Center 7

77

The Argument

Debunkers vs. DoubtersDoubters vs. Doubters

78

Methods of Marginalization

• Straw man -- picking a minor or not-widely held point and portraying it as characteristic or vital to opponents position

• Evidence -- ignoring/omitting evidence inconsistent with one’s own position or supporting opponent’s

• Personal attacks -- beyond legitimate questioning of qualifications (including questions of financing)

• Language -- snide, vitriolic, drowning-out • “Balance” -- presenting two sides but deliberately

damaging one

(most often used by debunkers, but sometimes by doubters)

79


1. Conspiracy theory: asserts an event is caused by machinations of powerful people who hide their role

2. CT can be true -- government sometimes does bad things -- but usually not.

3. 911Truth believes government knew and allowed, destroyed WTC and covered up

4. They accept this not because of mental illness, but lack of good sources (“crippled epistemology”)

5. Demonstrably false, unjustified, weak/nonexistent evidence, leads to “degenerating research program” (continue)

Cognitive Infiltration (Cass Sunstein, 2008)

Summary from Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (David Ray Griffin)

80


1. 9/11 Truth are extremists who will become violent -- or at least spread skepticism and dampen govt support, undermine democratic debate

2. Conspiracy theories hard to undermine/dispel, but if dangerous, government should do so

3. Undermine by• Demand: inoculate public against it• Supply: debias or disable believers

4. Presenting credible evidence won’t work: theory is “self-sealing” and resistant to contrary evidence

5. Can’t ban theory or punish proponents, so must “engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories”

Cognitive Infiltration (continued: #6-10)

81

High-quality Web Sites

• The doubters

• The debunkers(attacking the doubters)

• The timeline

82

High-quality web sites:Questioning Official Story

• 9/11 Research -- exhaustive critical careful evidence, but author has moved on to other things -- http://911research.wtc7.net/

• Journal of 9/11 Studies -- peer reviewed papers, mostly technical, some question the reviewing -- http://journalof911studies.com/

• Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice -- research papers and archival documents -- http://stj911.org/(not to be confused with http://911scholars.org/ )

• Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth -- excellent video slide show on WTC -- http://www.ae911truth.org/

• Pilots for 9/11 Truth -- analysis of airplane aspects by aviation professionals -- http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

• 9/11 Blogger -- wide ranging discussion on 9/11 and its effects, but places limits on topics -- http://911blogger.com/

83

High-quality web sites:Supporting Official Story

or “debunking” questioners

• 9/11 Myths -- good detailhttp://www.911myths.com/

• Debunking 9/11 Conspiracies & Demolitionhttp://www.debunking911.com/

• The Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracieshttp://www.jod911.com/

• JREF -- James Randi Skepticshttp://www.jref.org

• AE911 Truth.INFO -- against Architects & Engineershttp://www.ae911truth.info/

• Chris Mohr’s YouTube channelhttp://www.youtube.com/user/chrismohr911

84

High-quality web sites:Reference: can be used by either side

Paul Thompson’s Timeline

Online:http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

Book (Terror Timeline; available from SWH Library)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060783389/

85

Doubters vs. Doubters• Allegations– Junk science– Disinformation– Dysfunctional focus– Impossibility

• Examples– Architects/Engineers <---> Wooders– Architects/Engineers <---> Pilots– Wooders ---> Steven Jones– 9/11 Blogger ---> Pilots

86

Was U.S. involvement impossible?

A history of real, provoked, or fictional attacks on Americans or allies as pretexts for wars...

87

History: false flags andprovocation setups

• Mexican American war: setup

• Spanish-American war: false flag?

• Pearl Harbor: another setup

• Cuba: false flags

• Vietnam: twist on false-flag

• Gulf War: double deception

88

Mexican-American Wara setup

• Disagreement about border of Texas• U.S. wanted northern half of Mexico up to Oregon• Mexico refused• President Polk sent troops into territory Mexico

had never ceded• Mexico attacked, shedding of American blood

used as pretext for war• History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

Lincoln: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/lincolnvmexwar.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/lincolnvmexwar.htm

89

Spanish-American Warfalse-flag?

• Spain economically/militarily weak• American support for Cuban independence

(with subsequent double-cross)• U.S.S. Maine sent in response to riots• Exploded in Havana harbor when something set

off the magazines: coal fire or a mine -- still disagreement over which and why and who

• Conveniently used as pretext for wide war• History: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1800s/p/ussmaine.htm

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1800s/p/ussmaine.htm

90

Pearl Harboranother setup

• U.S. administration well-documented as wanting to enter World War II, but opposed by 88% of Americans

• Sought means of provoking Japan -- e.g. freezing of Japanese assets to deny oil

• FDR sent fleet to exposed Pearl Harbor, refused to permit return, then misinformed them about negotiations

• Intelligence about Japanese pre-attack spying was not passed on, Congressional inquiries blocked.

• The attack produced a massive turnaround in opinion.• History: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

Why little-known: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north26.html

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north26.html

91

Cuba/Operation Northwoodsfalse flag proposal

• Strong support in JFK administration (except JFK) for regime change in Cuba

• Bay of Pigs: attempt using surrogates fails• Needed a pretext for actual invasion• Operation Northwoods: Joint Chiefs of Staff proposal

suggesting numerous false-flag pretexts– about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods– documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf– video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IygchZRJVXM

92

Vietnamtwist on false flag

• Gulf of Tonkin “attack” (or rather the key supposed 2nd attack), used as the pretext for full-scale war, didn’t take place– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident_-_First_attack

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm

93

Gulf Wardouble deception

• Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie tells Saddam Hussein the U.S. won’t get involved in Arab/Arab (Kuwait) conflicts(8 days before invasion)http://arabic-radio-tv.com/greenlight.htm

• “Nurse” Nayirah and the incubator babies(was daughter of Kuwaiti ambassador; whole thing cooked up by a paid PR firm)– description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah– video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qE9zEu78o

94

Credibility

A USA today poll found that 24% of Americans trust the media and only 6% trust the government to tell them the truth. Why is it then that when an idea that is contrary to the "official story" is presented, it is met with ridicule and condemnation?

-- Dave vonKleist (producer of 911 Ripple Effect)

95

The Fourth Estate

• Conspiracy?• Misdirection• Self-censorship • Corporate censorship• Failure to connect the dots

96

Conspiracy?

• Perhaps not a conspiracy in the traditional “heads together” sense

• Mostly an omnipresent combination of patriotism, paradigmatic thinking, and the Bottom Line.

• But there was also . . .

97

Misdirection

In 1977 a “Destroy when no longer needed” 1967 CIA document was unearthed, with an oddly strident and detailed set of instructions on how to derail any further “conspiracy theories” in the press about the JFK assassination. Some consider this the origin of the term “conspiracy theories.”

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” -- former CIA director William Colby

CIA: 1967 “Instructions to Media Assets”

98

Press Censorship: How

• Disinformation

• Direct external pressure

• Self-censorship

99

Press Censorship: Who

• Government agencies• Advertisers• High-level media ownership• Editorial staff• Reporters

100

Press Censorship: Why

• “National security”• Serious embarrassment of subject• Bottom line (advertisers, lawsuits)• Chicanery• Ideology (e.g., Rupert Murdoch)

101

Self-censorship

"Anyone who claims the US media didn't censor itself is kidding you. It wasn't a matter of government pressure but a reluctance to criticise anything in a war that was obviously supported by the vast majority of the people. And this isn't just a CNN issue -- every journalist who was in any way involved in 9/11 is partly responsible.”

-- Rena Golden, 8/02 (CNN International Exec. VP/General Mgr)

102

Self-Censorship



103

Self-Censorship“... you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism.” -- Dan Rather, CBS News (BBC interview, May, 2002)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7oxH95dy5g (~3 min)

104

Self-Censorship



105

Self-Censorship

“... It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself. It carries through with a certain knowledge that the country as a whole -- and for all the right reasons -- felt and continues to feel this surge of patriotism within themselves. And one finds oneself saying: 'I know the right question, but you know what? This is not exactly the right time to ask it'... What we are talking about here -- whether one wants to recognize it or not, or call it by its proper name or not -- is a form of self-censorship...”

-- Dan Rather, CBS News (BBC interview, May, 2002)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7oxH95dy5g (~6 min)

106

Corporate Censorship



107


“I think news reporting has drastically changed since 9/11... The reporting now, there is always use of caution in how we cover a story.... We are every day kicking and screaming in the news room, trying to get stories out. But we could do a story and it might not make air. You have someone from the corporation making the editorial decisions. These are not journalists.”

-- Rebecca Abrams, Assignment editor, ABC News (in Press for Truth)

108




109


“Fahrenheit 911, which is based a lot on our reports at BBC Television on my book -- ABC News has free access to everything we do at BBC television. We say, "Go ahead, run it. You don't like the way Michael Moore does it -- you think it's too polemical, or biased? Fine. Run the hard news, buddy!"

-- Greg Palast, BBC correspondent and investigative reporter (in Press for Truth)

110

Connecting the dots

“It would be impossible as a citizen to be up and informed on every single topic, because it took us thousands of hours of research in order to be informed enough to ask the right questions here. And that's where you need media, because, you know what? Somebody has to be out there connecting the dots, and we don't have that.”

-- Mindy Kleinberg, Jersey Girls (in Press for Truth)

111

Connecting the dots



112

Connecting the dots

“[Putting the conflicting information up side by side and comparing is] not the job of reporting. That's the job of editorial pages and politicians and others, to make those kinds of judgments. And the public itself -- the 9/11 relatives themselves, to make those kinds of assertions. All we can do in our reporting is report facts, and we have reported those facts, and we have held those facts up against public statements at the time. Which is why they know that's what took place -- from our reporting.”

-- Len Downie, Exec. Editor, Washington Post (in Press for Truth)

113

Connecting the dots



114

Connecting the dots“As I began researching, I noticed this curious phenomenon that there's a lot of explosive information that HAS come out in the mainstream media, but as a casual observer I'd never noticed any of this stuff. You might find one important bit of information in, say a newspaper story, and another bit of information on a news show. And if you start to put all those rather obscure stories together, you end up with an almost completely different narrative. For just about any area relating to 9/11, the story is quite different if you dig deeper into the news.”

-- Paul Thompson (in Press for Truth)

115

Connecting the dots

“... You could have one story that comes out on the front page, and another story that comes out on page B-12. And what I found out was that many times, the story that comes out on page B-12 is more important than the story that comes out on the front page.”

-- Paul Thompson (in Press for Truth)

116

Press Censorship: Examples

• Total suppression of stories• Lawsuits against journalists• Destruction of careers• “Kill this thing. Drive a stake

through its heart and bury it -- so it’s gone. -- CNN manager

“Into the Buzzsaw”Stories told by award-winning investigative journalists

117


• TWA Flight 800 (Navy, FBI)• Bovine growth hormone• Election theft (large scale)• Clinton’s Arkansas history• Food industry malfeasance• South Korean govt murders• Iraq non-starvation in 1990’s• Nerve gas in Vietnam• Prisoners of war in Vietnam• and more . . .

“Into the Buzzsaw”

118


• Oklahoma City bombing• RICO situation in Arkansas law enforcement• (non)Suicide of Vince Foster• and more . . .

“The Secret Life of Bill Clinton”

1 dial 911 for evidence what did or didn’t happen, and (how) can we know?

Documents

data slide

orgwikicons slide

discussion slide

press slide

true slide

reality slide

conspiracy theory

north tower slide