Why Propaganda Trumps Truth

An article in the journal, Sociological Inquiry, casts light on the effectiveness of propaganda. Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail. Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.

wtc-collapseThe researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs. Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality. They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: “In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”

What the sociologists and Hitler are telling us is that by the time facts become clear, people are emotionally wedded to the beliefs planted by the propaganda and find it a wrenching experience to free themselves. It is more comfortable, instead, to denounce the truth-tellers than the liars whom the truth-tellers expose.

The psychology of belief retention even when those beliefs are wrong is a pillar of social cohesion and stability. It explains why, once change is effected, even revolutionary governments become conservative. The downside of belief retention is its prevention of the recognition of facts. Belief retention in the Soviet Union made the system unable to adjust to economic reality, and the Soviet Union collapsed. Today in the United States millions find it easier to chant “USA, USA, USA” than to accept facts that indicate the need for change.

The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the government’s line, they know what they are talking about.

Here is a link to a presentation by the architect, Richard Gage, to a Canadian university audience.  The video of the presentation is two hours long and seems to have been edited to shorten it down to two hours. Gage is low-key, but not a dazzling personality or a very articulate presenter. Perhaps that is because he is speaking to a university audience and takes for granted their familiarity with terms and concepts.

Those who believe the official 9/11 story and dismiss skeptics as kooks can test the validity of the sociologists’ findings and Hitler’s observation by watching the video and experiencing their reaction to evidence that challenges their beliefs. Are you able to watch the presentation without scoffing at someone who knows far more about it than you do? What is your response when you find that you cannot defend your beliefs against the evidence presented? Scoff some more? Become enraged?

Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that few people have the education to follow the technical and scientific aspects. The side that they believe tells them one thing; the side that they don’t believe tells them another. Most Americans have no basis to judge the relative merits of the arguments.

For example, consider the case of the Lockerbie bomber. One piece of “evidence” that was used to convict Magrahi was a piece of circuit board from a device that allegedly contained the Semtex that exploded the airliner. None of the people, who have very firm beliefs in Magrahi’s and Libya’s guilt and in the offense of the Scottish authorities in releasing Magrahi on allegedly humanitarian grounds, know that circuit boards of those days have very low combustion temperatures and go up in flames easily. Semtex produces very high temperatures. There would be nothing whatsoever left of a device that contained Semtex. It is obvious to an expert that the piece of circuit board was planted after the event.

I have asked on several occasions and have never had an answer, which does not mean that there isn’t one, how millions of pieces of unburnt, uncharred paper can be floating over lower Manhatten from the destruction of the WTC towers when the official explanation of the destruction is fires so hot and evenly distributed that they caused the massive steel structures to weaken and fail simultaneously so that the buildings fell in free fall time just as they would if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.

What is the explanation of fires so hot that steel fails but paper does not combust?

People don’t even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers’ destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.

The physicist, Steven Jones, has produced overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. His evidence is not engaged, examined, tested, and refuted. It is simply ignored.

Dr. Jones’ experience reminds me of that of my Oxford professor, the distinguished physical chemist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi. Polanyi was one of the 20th centuries great scientists. At one time every section chairman of the Royal Society was a Polanyi student. Many of his students won Nobel Prizes for their scientific work, such as Eugene Wigner at Princeton and Melvin Calvin at UC, Berkeley, and his son, John Polanyi, at the University of Toronto.

As a young man in the early years of the 20th century, Michael Polanyi discovered the explanation for chemical absorbtion. Scientific authority found the new theory too much of a challenge to existing beliefs and dismissed it. Even when Polanyi was one of the UK’s ranking scientists, he was unable to teach his theory. One half-century later his discovery was re-discovered by scientists at UC, Berkeley. The discovery was hailed, but then older scientists said that it was “Polanyi’s old error.” It turned out not to be an error. Polanyi was asked to address scientists on this half-century failure of science to recognize the truth. How had science, which is based on examining the evidence, gone so wrong. Polanyi’s answer was that science is a belief system just like everything else, and that his theory was outside the belief system.

Join Liberty Classroom today and get 3 FREE books!

Paul Craig Roberts

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts attended four of the finest universities, studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in economics, authored 20 peer-reviewed articles in journals of scholarship, and published four academic press peer-reviewed books, including Harvard and Oxford Universities, and seven commercially published books. His most recent book is The Neoconservative Threat to World Order: Washington's Perilous War for Hegemony

Comments are encouraged, but please respect the rules. Click here for terms of use.

  • Mr. Roberts,

    I have always believed no view should be ignored, but in this case what amazes me is the number of “experts” mentioned by truthers and yet they fail to mention many are not experts on the subject they are talking about. Steve Jones is a physicist not a civil engineer. My younger brother is an architect with a degree in civil engineering and he showed me a simple experiment about 911. Take two pieces of wood as base and top, attach four doll rods between the boards, and then rig in some interal support pieces evenly along the structure(more doll rods.) Once done push down on the structure and you will find it does not give. Remove the inner structure then push down and you will find it twists on itself and collapses vertically. My brother further explained the internal structure of the Trade Towers was primarily for rigidity and thus when that was compromised you had the collapse. The fires did not need to be hot enough to melt the steel but only so much so that it lost its structural integrity. Many also mention Thermite but fail to mention the absence of Barium Nitrate and Aluminium Oxide both of wich are by products of a thermate detonation. No report has every found evidence of these. They also don’t mention thermite could have been created as a by product of the collapse and fires because all the compounds for thermite were in abundance in the trade towers. I don’t think all the truth of 911 will ever come out and I would encourage you to continue your work despite the fact I don’t agree with it. I would only encourage you to present both sides of the case and let your readers decide. 911 was wrongly used to wage a evil war in Iraq but I also believe some are on a mission to use 911 to ruin the US from within. I sometimes see it akin to the lefts hand holding with many of the Political Islamists of the world not realizing once the Islamists were in power everything the left believed in would vanish in a blink!

    • Paul Craig Roberts

      Let’s see, a simple experiment with two pieces of wood and doll rods approximates the strength of the steel towers. Wow, a new level of gullibility.

      • gullibility? It is amazing when something simple is shown how some will attack it. I fully understand the multitude of other variables yet the architectural basis of my arguement still stands. My model was an easy “to do” for anyone and thus I presented it. Steel is obviously vastly different but just like the model when the interior structure lost its integrity it collapsed. The World Trade centers used a unique exoskeleton structure and thus was much more vulnerable to collapse if the internal rigidity and some of the load bearing columns were compromised. In all sincerity do the experiment you might learn something. On the other hand when I provided the rebuttal for a thermite detonation that no Aluminium Oxide and Barium Nitrate were found I got dead silence.

    • “I would only encourage you to present both sides of the case and let your readers decide. 911 was wrongly used to wage a evil war in Iraq but I also believe some are on a mission to use 911 to ruin the US from within. I sometimes see it akin to the lefts hand holding with many of the Political Islamists of the world not realizing once the Islamists were in power everything the left believed in would vanish in a blink!”

      Your engineering arguments are inconsequential. As to your political message, as far as I am concerned the US has already been “ruined from within” by the military industrial complex which is profiting from endless war. The 9-11 truth movement is trying to un-ruin it by exposing the core of corruption within our national security apparatus.

    • And let me also say that blaming 9-11 on Muslims of course created a great deal of Islamophobia all over the country – irrational fear and hatred of Muslims. Islamophobia is a form of anti-Semitism, directed at Muslims instead of Jews. Muslims are being scapegoated just like Jews were in Germany in the 1930’s. It is a strictly comparable situation. The whole Muslim community in the United States is indeed a natural ally of the 9-11 truth movement. It is a civil rights issue. We invite millions of decent, patriotic Muslim Americans to join us in our struggle.

      • I did not blame Muslims but carefully used the world Political Islamist. I beleive Al Qaeda was behind 911 but frankly I don’t believe he is a true Muslim. A true Muslim does not attack civilians and the Quran and all of the Hadith sources provide ample evidence to support that. Political Islamists are those claiming to be Muslims who places more value on the system than the people. They must defend, expand, and support the system at all costs even over the well being of their people. Islamophobia is real but widely blown out of proportion and quite ironic considering the amount of Kuffarophobic(non Muslim) practices in the Islmaic world. Try asking a Muslim what he would think if you were to prohibit them form doing Dawa(missionary work), building/reparing mosques, or openly displaying his faith. They would be aghast as most American would be. In fact denying any of those rights is actually a recourse to engage in defensive Jihad. Yet in the Islamic world these are the realities for all non muslims. This religious based discrimination is encoded in their scripture and actually law in many Islamic states. Try being a Bahai in Iran, a christian/hindu in India, or a Jew in Yemen. The last 250 jews in Yemen back in July issued a statement to their leaders stating “protect us or deport us.” Go read the OIC report on Islamophobia then compare it to the crimes commited towards religious minorities in the Islamic world. The number of crimes and barbaric nature of the crimes in the Islamic world far outweigh anything deemed islamophobic in the West. Iraq was evil and only worsened the problem but if you go back in history the persecution of religious minorities in Islamic states has been around since Islam was founded. Read the Quran and find out what a Dhimmi is then compare it to the laws and rights of religious minorities in the Islamic world. You will find a remarkable amount of consistency in the laws towards non Muslims. These political Islamists want to perpetuate this even though the majority of Muslims have largely relegated these draconian laws to the dust bin. They want to do so because they place an over reliance on Hadith(man made) versus the Quran(divinely) which quite clearly states their is no complusion in religion.

    • “Many also mention Thermite but fail to mention the absence of Barium Nitrate and Aluminium Oxide both of wich are by products of a thermate detonation. No report has every found evidence of these. They also don’t mention thermite could have been created as a by product of the collapse and fires because all the compounds for thermite were in abundance in the trade towers.”

      Wait … “all the compounds for thermite were in abundance in the trade towers” but “No report has every found evidence of these”? You can’t have it both ways.

      The writer implies that nanothermite is easy to produce through some sort of mixing of iron oxide (rust) the structural steel and aluminum cladding on the outside of the towers. Only a person who has not read the paper (like most of the critics I have seen) or is simply in ueber-denial (which of course I’ve also seen a great deal of) could possibly believe such a thing. The ultra fine grain particles that constitute nanothermite are engineered so that they are consistently sized on the order of 1/1000th the diameter of a human hair. The Government did not spend millions developing nanothermite in the 1990s when it could have been formed by hammering together two big pieces of metal.

      • Actually back in college my prof and I were screwing around and we created thermite. It is quite easy. Nanothermite as you stated is quite different but as I explained no answer has ever come for the absence of Aluminium oxide and Barium Nitrate both are elements created during a Thermite detonation. I have read a number of reports but not sure what one your referencing. Please kindly direct it to me and I would like to read. I am always up for learning and will be the first to admit my belief is wrong if presented with new evidence. Having said that I believe the biggest cover up is not the event but our involvement with Bin Laden and the fact our governement ignored signs it was about to happen.

    • Jonathan Cole P.E.

      It would be helpful if your younger brother could also explain how WTC 7 fell at freefall acceleration, utilizing all potential energy to accelerate it for over 100 feet, meaning that no energy was left over to remove the underlying supports. Where did the energy come from to remove the columns and walls BEFORE the floors fell, allowing them to freely fall? Perhaps one should also study the energy imbalances of a gravity driven “collapse” needed to drive the pyroclastic flow of dust, the heat necessary to create the iron spheroids found in the dust, the heat necessary to explain the molten steel, what caused the eutectic steel found by FEMA (appendix C), why the WTC 1 antenna fell before the perimeter walls, (what force initially cut the core columns all at the same time?), why there are no “pancake” floors at ground zero, why the top volume of floors disintegrated at a faster rate than the so called collapse wave, why the top of wtc 2 did not continue rotating in accordance with Newtons first law falling to ground zero, and why the corners of the towers stood longer than the collapse wave if it really was a “pancake collapse”. And why did the inner core columns (the “spire”) stand for several moments and then finally collapsed straight down also? What heat cause the “meteor” that was found? Finally, where did the NANOTHERMITE, a high explosive (not thermite, an incendiary, but NANOthermite , a classified military explosive) come from. Who put nanothermite in the twin towers?

      NONE of these issues were addressed by NIST, because NIST stopped their study at collapse initiation for the towers, and did not address freefall acceleration for WTC 7.
      The ONLY explanation that address all known evidence and observed motions…is a controlled demolition. Study the physics of those next 12 seconds (that NIST ignored) of the collapse and one will find that the official version…is impossible.

      • Molten steel? Correction molten Aluminium which burns at a much lower temperature. As for WT7 did you miss the photos and video showing the gaping hole? Watch the videos again. As for Nanothermite as I stated above two elements resulting from a Nanothermite or thermite detonation are absent–Aluminium Oxide and Barium Nitrate! As for the Pyroclasic dust I think your mixing the dripping molten Aluminium with the dust expelled during the free fall. Everyone knows the towers used a exoskeleton structure with tons of air space in between. That air had to go somewhere when it fell–namely out by bursting the windows.

        • “As for WT7 did you miss the photos and video showing the gaping hole?”

          Not even the NIST final report argues WTC7 failed due to a failure of structural integrity due to damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers. In fact, it points out this was not a significant contributing factor.

          • Jeremy,

            Thank you. I will research that point more. However, Shyam Sunder did state about 25% of the buildings depth was scooped out. He also stated the unfought fires were the likely culprit. Coupled with the already lost structural integrity it is quite possible the fires further weakned the integrity of the building causing it to buckle then collapse. The domolition arguement is basically weak because of the number of fires that would have obviously set off the explosives or at the least rendered them inert.

            My whole beef with the conspiracy theorists like Steve Jones is he works with the assumption that it was an inside job. Jones by trade is a theorectical scientists and thus he must believe in something then try to prove it. People like him are needed because the impossible becomes possible one day. The trouble is they are so commited to their theory it often blinds them to other facts. Jones’ response to criticism is often to change gears and alter his theory. Its why he often qualify’s his findings as preliminary leaving open the door to being changed. An interesting side bar to demonstrate bias often blinding others to the objective truths is the many articles about Iran here.

            Many of the articles start with the premise of US interference and build from their. This assumption basically states the US was a major culprit and it has historical precedence(Ajax). What many fail to realize is that to many the Moussavi option was a nightmare scenario. The Neocons and Israel have both stated as much. So why would they initiate a coup if it actually hurt their chances trying to Isolate Iran and resolve the Nuke issue?

            Many have simply missed that this was largely a homegrown issue with the IRGC/Ahmandinejad/harlinders vs. the old guard/clergy/reformers fighting for power. The supreme leader is actually stuck in the middle trying to mediate. My hope is that Moussavi is Iran’s Gorbachev but my gut says the people are just a pawn in an internal struggle with the military trying to asert its dominiance.

            By the way I really enjoy reading your articles. Don’t agree with a lot of it but your write brilliantly always citing sources. I almost always learn something new!


        • Iconoclasm



    • Shane Geiger

      What amazes me is how people like yourself can get distracted by logical fallacies like red herrings and thus fail to see things clearly.

      Who better than a physicist would be able to spot the physically impossibility of a science hoax?

      And do you expect people to be experts in every pertinent area of expertise.

      Rather than make “appeal to authority” logical fallacies, why not use logic by focusing on the facts of the matter. Why not? Because propaganda helps distract you and you aren’t used to looking at scientific matters, using critical thinking (avoiding fallacies) and seeing through propagana–which skills are all closely related.

      • Regarding your comment about the validity of of a Physicist’s claims you are correct but only to an extent in comparision to an expert in engineering. Your statement “And do you expect people to be experts in every pertinent area of expertise” was exactly the point I was trying to make. For something of this magnitude it has to be an expert that the scientific basis has to be based on. Using critical thinking wouldn’t you say an expert in the field of engineering is better qualified than someone who’s is a theorectical physicist specializing in muon-catalyzed fusion(cold fusion)? My conclusions are based on my knowledge and looking at everyone’s conclusions including truthers. The fact remains the scientists/engineers/architects behind the truthers are far outnumbered by those experts presenting a different set of conclusions. Doesn’t mean their wrong just that the majority of the scientific community does not agree with them based on their own study.

        • fallacy hunter

          Bill, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Groupthink doesn’t mean that the group is right. Smart people don’t necessarily use their brains. You have no proof that there is a large group of people that believe, say, NIST’s story after careful investigation. Perhaps nobody sees the trick because of misdirection. YOu would be foolish to believe NIST’s blackbox simulation-based WTC7 report or their conclusions in general. Few people are looking closely at these things.

    • Bill Davit’s brother’s illustration of the collapse of the twin towers differs considerably from the official explanation offered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST spent years and millions of dollars to come up with a lengthy report that contains innovative concepts and questionable assumptions. Yet they admit that it does not provide a full explanation for the collapse.

      So, with all due respect, either Bill’s brother missed an important point, or NIST terribly wasted their time and budget, or both.

      • Dan,

        I fully understand the limitations of the explanation but it was a easy “to do.” I did not in anyway try to portray it as the “ultimate” answer to how the towers collapsed. I still believe it provides the fundamentals of why a exoskeleton structure would collapse when the internal structure holding it together loses its integrity. My brother even said as much to me. That was the only point I was trying to make.

        • Point well taken. Would Bill’s brother care to read the official report, in particular the section that describes the collapse? It does not mention anything remotely close to his experiment.


          • He actually did read the report. He even told me this experiment is only to give me an idea of how a exoskeleton type building could collapse. At the time I was not up to speed on all the details so he showed me the experiment. He concluded stating “while not a perfect experiment it is his belief and many at his firm that this did show the fundamental physics of how the building came down.” Now if you reference the NIST report the claim is that the heat of the fires caused the steel floors to lose their structural integrity most importantly at the point they connected with the outer walls. Combine this with the uneven load dispersion after the planes impact and you have a recipe for a collapse. You have to take into account the fires did not need to melt the steel but only had to cause it to defrom or lose its rigidity. If like most buildings the steel had been largely encased in concrete instead of passive foam retardant the buildings might be standing. The floors were the basis for the structures rigidity by actually pulling the outer columns together. Thus the simple experiment showed how when the rigidity is removed the structure will collapse on itself.

    • 7thDirection

      I have a few problems with your brother’s thought experiment… his explanation takes none of this into account.

      – Jet fuel burns at a maximum of ~1300 degrees Fahrenheit, and relatively quickly. When the towers began to fall, black smoke indicated the fires were starved of oxygen; the fire was dying out and pictures show that people were perfectly able to stand in/around the hole.
      – 1300 degrees weakens steel to 40% strength. Keep in mind this temperature was only sustained until the jet fuel burnt up, then quickly dropped to the mid hundreds in the leftover office fire. WTC was built for 5x its carrying capacity, even at 40%, it is twice past capacity.
      – The conductivity of steel would naturally distribute the heat throughout the entire structure. The support beams would have been the weakest approximately ten minutes after the explosion, when all of the jet fuel would have definitely been burnt. Also of note is that MOST of the jet fuel was consumed OUTSIDE of the South Tower explosion – it hit at an angle, and could have only damaged one of eight beams. The North Tower was hit dead on, and makes much more sense – but both of them falling in about an hour DOES NOT.
      – The extremely large number of floors below the impact point would have an increasing amount of stability towards the base, yet it offered no resistance to the cascading ‘pancakes’. At least 25 floors should have been left standing thanks to the exponentially extreme amount of support near the bottom. (and 1/2 of the building was already pulverized into fine dust by the time it reached those bottom floors)

      Interesting notes about Barium Nitrate and Aluminum Oxide. I think inferring things from these very old samples is possibly a waste of time. What boggles me is that the hundreds of thousands of tons of wreckage were almost immediately disposed of by a foreign (I believe Chinese? it’s been awhile) steel company. Nobody from the official investigation took any sort of samples from this crime scene evidence before it was melted down.

      • Thank your for your response. Steel starts to lose its rigidity at 600F degrees and loses its entire structural rigidity at 1000F degrees. The fires did not need to burn that long for this to happen. The fact motlen aluminium was seen streaming out of the towers certaintly shows the fire was substantial despite being sapped for oxygen. I would also counter that a lot of the black smoke was in fact from plastics which we all know were in abundance in the towers. I was not aware that people were at the holes but one can surmize this was possible because the impact most likely cleared out anything that could later burn.

        Taking this into account, the strucuture of the building, and the damage from the planes it is very plausiable the official findings for the collapse were true. The weakest point in the structure were the trusses and their connections to the walls. The floors were not load bearing but in fact in place to pull the exoskeleton of the tower together. Lets assume the planes sheared some of the trusses off then assume the fires caused some of the other tursses connections to fail and pull away. If this happens the floor collapses and the building acutually starts to pull away. This completely ruins the integrity of the entire building. The loads will be far beyond 5X due to the massive shift of weight once the building started to deform. I would also question on what circumstance the 5X load is meant to work–I would bet it was not in the event of the interior structure giving way but more centered on the outer structure. This is further supported by the fact that both buildings collapsed in the same fashion. The second Tower fell much later because the impact was much higher thus meaning much less load balance being shifted.

        I mention the Barium Nitrate and Aluminium oxide because it essentially debunks the central thesis of the tower collapses that being explosives. The amount of thermite needed to bring down the towers would have left copius amounts of the aforementioned elements but no report has ever found them. I do agree with you about the debris field but you have to take into account the toxicity of the debris. It had to go and quick.

        In summary the biggest contention I have with these theories is the massive scope an inside job would take. Regarless of the work it would take, you would think someone would have come forward but no one has. The neocons are nuts but were they willing to kill 3,000 of their own citizens to achiever their ends? I don’t think so. For gods sake if it was about middle east control or oil we would have to steel the entire GDP of Iraq and Afghanistan for ten years to pay for the projected $2 trillion cost. One thing we all know is the neocons are well motivated by money. I think some hate the US or its policies so much that they let their bias often overule simple facts. Often reminds of the absurd conspiracies coming out about the middle east–Israeli spy pigeons and squirrels?

        • KMansfield

          You are guilty of logical fallacies.

          BILL: The neocons are nuts but were they willing to kill 3,000 of their own citizens to achiever their ends? I don’t think so.

          Most of the Neocons are also zionists.
          Historically an act like this has never caused them to lose any sleep. You are anthropomorphizing those that have lost their humanity. http://www.nkusa.org/Historical_Documents/tenquestions.cfm

          BILL: “For gods sake if it was about middle east control or oil we would have to steel the entire GDP of Iraq and Afghanistan for ten years to pay for the projected $2 trillion cost. ”

          Who is we? Who pays? Who benefits? These are not the same. There has been a great upward wealth transfer. The little guys die and they also pay. We are the animal farm.

          BILL: I think some hate the US or its policies so much that they let their bias often overule simple facts

          You have proved the authors point, but he has also fallen for the principle of the big lie. He accepts the dogma of the victor, that hitler or the reich was the embodiment of evil. History on WWII is being reexamined and our narrative needs updating. See the sham trials at Dachau. scrapbookpages.com (not my site) and the Morgenthau Plan, the malmedy massacre, or this: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816032732/http://www.buchanan.org/pma-99-1105-wallstjl.html

          • KMansfield,

            Nor sure if you’ll read this but will post anyway. Thank you for your reply. I happen to agree with your angle big buy vs. little guy. I don’t think it universally holds true for all of Iraq but certaintly firms like blackwater and haliburton reaped huge rewards. I have always believed one of the greatest evils and challenges of free market captialism is greed. I believe in free markets but we need to do more to protect the average person from the corporate monsters around the globe. For to long in the pursuit of the dollar the multi national corps have laid waste to entire peoples and nations in an effort to better their bottom line.

            Interesting articles about Zionism and Buchanan. Some valid points and one I have to not delved into. However, half my family was put to death in Nazi death camps so I will admit I am a bit jaded. My family is Lithuanian Christians who had the misfortune of being herded into Nazi death camps largely at the hands of the Soviets. I do trully believe Stalin, Hitler, and the Third Reich were evil. It even prompted me to do a research project in college on the Christian reprucussion of the Holocaust. Today I do however believe the Holocaust has become over politicized. Regarding your references to WWII I was unable to grasp your point reading through documents referenced trying to connect “sham” with them. I will agree they were highly iregular but when millions died at the hands of the Nazi’s people were not out for mercy but blood. Didn’t make it right but just the political right thing to do at the time. So I guess that proves your point the victor is right. An interesting side note to also support this is the srebrenica massacares. The Serbs may have killed them but the evidence is starting to show these were bodies taken from multiple locations but the Serbs didn’t win did they.


        • Iconoclasm

          This is simply fascinating! The Towers were built like three blocks atop one another with double floors between the blocks. Fire has NEVER collapsed a building and the Meridian Towers fire did not even result in collapse despite the fact that it burned white hot at times and for over 20 hours over a substantially larger area of the building than did the towers or WTC 7. The WTC 7 fires were puny by comparison.

          Here are some real fires:




          No collapses.

          Let me ask TWO questions:



  • Jeannon Kralj

    “The notion that “we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead” is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion.”

    The truth is that the truth does not lead us to Dr. Steven Jones or Richard Gage.

    A new investigation will be no more honest and vigorous than the others. The two co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, who wrote in the New York Times on January 2008 that the Central Intelligence Agency “failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot [and] obstructed our investigation?”

    We have zero authenticated data and no real evidence of any kind. Our Lie government rejected information requests and will do so again for any future investigation.

    The only think I know is that 9-11 could not have happened without the orchestration, planning, participation and cooperation the people at the highest levels of the U.S. government and military. We supposedly have the most sophisticated strong defense system in the world and we’re to believe that 19 Islamic hijackers brought this nation to its knees.

    • Paul Craig Roberts

      This comment is contradictory. Kralj writes that 9/11 didn’t happen
      the way the government says, which is what Steven Jones and Richard Gage say. So what is the meaning of the second sentence? Does Kralj mean that Jones and Gage don’t go far enough and blame the US government? They only go as far as their evidence–that the buildings didn’t fall down as we are told.
      I only report on the research, I don’t conduct it. I report on it because so many others are terrified to mention it. A lot of Americans don’t want me to report it.

      • Science PhD

        Paul, I think his 2nd sentence is something like
        The truth is that the ‘truth’ does not lead us to Dr. Steven Jones or Richard Gage
        where the truth in quotation mark is whatever is (would be) the output of official 9/11 investigations

        At least thats my understanding of his statement

  • Dear Mr. Roberts:

    Thanks for a great article. I have recommended it to everyone. I think the previous post by Kralj only meant that no matter how true what Jones, Gage, etc. say may be, the government will never allow an honest investigation of 9/11. I can understand his pessimism, although I hope and pray he is wrong, and that enough public pressure from below may yet compel it.

    Perhaps I could add a little to your theory of mass psychology. First the public was severely shocked and traumatized by the events of 9-11. This made them psychologically vulnerable. Instead of doing an honest investigation, which would have taken time and allowed general rationality to reassert itself, the government immediately blanketed the mass media with their “19 hijackers” fabrication. This propaganda penetrated very deeply into the mass unconscious because of the vulnerability caused by the trauma. At this point, the human instinct to follow the herd kicks in. Instinctively, it is safe to stay with the herd, whereas stragglers are picked off by predators. In the same way, it is psychologically safe to believe what everybody else believes, and dangerous to question those beliefs. For most people, popular opinion IS truth, and they will not even look at evidence that is presented to them. For example, no matter how much you ask them, they will do anything but actually look at the evidence presented by nearly a thousand professional architects and engineers at ae911truth.org, or read “Active Thermitic Material Found in Dust of World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels Harrit, Steven Jones et. al

    Independent thinkers are a minority. Because of the herding instinct, once this mass momentum has been created, it is very difficult for the minority of people who have come to their senses to turn it around, no matter how clear and incontrovertible the evidence they are trying to present.

  • Hi Bill. I’m glad you appreciate my articles, even if you don’t often agree.

    On WTC 7, I have a hard time believing Sunder could have made the remark that 25% of the building was gone. The NIST report, as I mentioned, said that damage from the collapsed Twin Towers was not a significant contributing factor in 7’s collapse.

    Sunder did say, as you note, that their theory is that the fires caused the collapse. But the report explains this as a progressive collapse, originating with one central core beam that failed due to heat expansion. With the failure of that beam, we are told, an entire column gave out. Then the collapse progressed from that point. With the loss of the core, the outer columns collapsed.

    There’s a problem with their models, though. Their computer models show exactly what they say occurred. And their models look pretty much like you would expect a progressive collapse starting at a single point to look like. It’s, well, progressive.

    But their animated models look NOTHING like the actual collapse, in which the entire building’s structural integrity was compromised at once. Just watch any video of the actual collapse. You can see that the entire load-bearing outer perimeter falls perfectly symetrically and simultaneously.

    Turning to Iran, I would love for you to explain further why you think articles on Iran at FPJ are biased. You say there is a “premise of US interference”. I’m not sure what to make of that. How is this biased? Is the U.S. not interfering in Iran?

    You mention Operation Ajax as an example. Well, so what? It happened. How is pointing out that the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratic government and installing the brutal Shah regime demonstrative of bias? The bias comes from the mainstream media, which consistently begin their history in ’79 with the hostage crisis, neglecting the previous quarter of a century of U.S. interference.

    Then you mention Mousavi being a “nightmare scenario”. Yes, some neocons and some in Israel stated they would prefer Ahmadinejad to win. But the main body of political commentary and analysis was overwhelmingly opposed to Ahmadinejad’s rule. Also, the unrest in Iran has played perfectly into Washington’s hands. There’s every motive for interference.

    None of this contradicts your statement it was “largely a homegrown issue”. Certainly, I agree. But we needn’t really speculate, there’s a clear record of interference and statements like Clinton’s that the U.S. was supporting the reformists, etc.

    • Jeremy,

      Thank you for your response. Here are my replys:

      WT7 Collapse–

      You bring up valid points but I would point out the word “progressive” can be misleading. I say that because to some it implies a time frame of slow or gradual. If you watch the video the roof had already started to “kink” in then later on as you noted it came down quite quick. This does not mean it was not progressive. Progress means going forward but does not denote a specific time frame. Thus it can still be called a progressive collapse albeit a very quick one. When you have unfought fires, already existing structural damage, and then a catastrophic lose of integrity on a load bearing column it is quite plausiable to expect the others to go down quick. These colums are only designed to hold a certain amount of weight and when they go well beyond their load tolerance the break down is not going to be slow but quite quick. Many still claim nano thermite explosives, but as I have mentioned they attribute this to thermite yet fail to explain why no Aluminium Oxide or Barium Nitrate showed up in anyones test to date. Both of those aforementioned compounds are by products of thermite detonation.


      I probably unfairly categorized all articles with my claim and that was wrong–sorry. My central point of contention is that many rush to claim US interferance often based on the past. Thus by virtue of precedence the US must be guilty. I can certaintly understand why considering the nefarious dealings of the CIA over the years. There is no arguing the US is interfering in Iran but I think it was not the catalyst behind the reform movement. It had its effect as US policy did with the Soviets but it has never trully taken root. It didn’t take root because unlike the Soviets Iran is Islamic and we all know the animosity many in the Islamic world has against the West. Taking that all into context I think it is wrong to continue to pin the blame on the US or Western Influence.

      Regarding Moussavi vs. Ahmadinejad what I think your missing is the fact the US and Israel wanted someone in power whom they did oppose. Ahmadinejad’s policies and rhetoric actually made it easier for the warmongers in the US and Israel. Moussavi is a nightmare scenario because they would lose their support internationally to pursue sanctions or a military strike. The unrest if succesful makes it harder for the US to isolate Iran. This begs the question did the unrest play into the West’s hands?

      Long term yes but short term no because it could potentially make the issue more complex. As sad as it may be the West’s biggest concern is not the Iranian people but the nuclear issue. It is about priorities and the freedom of Iran does not come before the nuclear issue in the West. Thus why support a coup that makes it harder to force Iran’s hand on the nuclear issue?

      To much emphasis is put on outside forces and that is exactly what the Iranian regime wants everyone to believe. My Iranian friends family in Iran even stated the press in Iran was desperately trying to draw the west into the fray. They wanted to do this to deflect attention and blame. Taking that into context if the US was so “obviously” interfering why would Iran be so keen to draw the US in if the evidence was already in abundance. Go online to PressTV and note the number of articles about the West or the US. Literally everyday the leading stories are negatives of the West or about some war about to happen. They almost never mention the unrest at home but instead try to defelct interest elsewhere.

      We all need to look beyond what happened in the past and not let it dictate our future actions. My only message is to not assume but try to understand all the dynamics of the situation. Just for once could it be the “evil, imperialistic, and war mongering” US was actually not behind this? Yes and it is why I believe some articles here a wrong because they are tainted with anti US Bias completely missing what happened in Iran.

      Paul Craig Roberts article “Charge of Electoral Fraud in Iran ‘Propagandistic” is an example of this bias. It’s biased because he clearly states it is his opinion based on unconfirmed information. You should have seen the Iranians brave enough to post on Al Jazzera View page referencing this article that the Iranian press made front page news with. One post by Niloufar said ‘this is an example of the left in the us jumping to conclusions based largely upon their disdain for past US policy.’ A number of others rightly pointed out this was someone who trully did not understand that the movement had almost nothing to do with the outside. To point out this bias look at this statement from the article “The charge that the Iranian election was stolen is propagandistic. Iran is under attack because it is one of two remaining independent countries in the region. If Iran also falls under U.S. hegemony, it is the end of Syria’s independence and of Hamas and Hezbollah.” Claim of propoganda then jumps clear across to the room with the old US hegemony arguement. The article fails to provide any critical analysis of the election and protests and chalks it up to the US meddling again. In my mind that is clear evidence of bias clouding ones mind to what trully happened.


      • On WTC7. Point taken. But I already had that under consideration. The fact remains their computer models look just like what you would expect a progressive collapse to look like, but it looks nothing like the actual collapse.

        On Iran:

        My central point of contention is that many rush to claim US interferance often based on the past. Thus by virtue of precedence the US must be guilty.

        If that was the logical argument of any articles on Iran here at FPJ, I would agree it would be a poor argument. However, I don’t believe I’ve ever posted an article that employed this logic.

        On Ahmadinejad vs. Mousavi, I’m not missing the point at all. I just don’t believe that the mindframe you lay out was the driving one behind U.S. policy. I think it’s been driven by genuine opposition to Ahmadinejad. The Obama administration itself has come out saying it supported the reformists (Clinton).

        On Iran’s domestic politics, that’s not really a concern of mine so I can’t really comment on that. I don’t see what it has to do with U.S. foreign policy.

        Paul Craig Roberts article “Charge of Electoral Fraud in Iran ‘Propagandistic” is an example of this bias. It’s biased because he clearly states it is his opinion based on unconfirmed information.

        On the contrary. Yes, Mr. Roberts stated an opinion. But it was not based on “unconfirmed information”. It was based on the fact that the claims to the contrary (i.e., that Ahmadinejad stole the election) were based on arguments that were shaky at best, outright fabricated at worst. It was an example of seeing clearly through the bias. Of course, if we start from the position that the bias is not bias, then not-biased will appear biased. Relativity. I happen to think in this case there’s an objective basis to begin from, and Mr. Roberts began from that point, which was a departure from the mainstream media reports — which were extremely biased. Certainly propaganda in many cases, as Mr. Roberts rightly observed.

        • Jeremy,

          I agree with you about the models. On Iran I get your points as well and understand your defense of Dr. Roberts. I do agree the media did rush to portray Iran and Ahmadinejad as the villian often without getting evidence. But the evidence when it comes to Iran is always the problem because you can’t get anything. I will also admit I do have a personal affiliation with the issue that being my two best friends who are Iranian. They both have family of which some had the misfortune of having worked for reform papers. In both cases the Basiji and police paid them a visit and arrested one who was not located until late August. One friend also supplied me with some intel that I wrote a CNN Ireport for: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-277780 . Nicole Saidi from CNN wanted to do a feature on it but my friend backed out telling me her family could literally disapear. Ironically I omitted one claim, rapes, thinking this was stretching it. However, I was proved wrong on that.

          Taking that all into account and my distate for name calling in journalism I think I probably read Dr. Roberts article with my own bias clouding my view. I hope you can understand that. I am just so sick of politics clouding and relegating basic human rights and outright oppresion to the back burner.


  • Buck Fush

    I’m finding all of this very interesting how we’re discussing the various merits of whether or not people are experts in the fields they’re discussing and computer models this and thermite that etc. Occams razor folks. The simplest explanation is always the best. The BBC reported on international television the collapse of WTC7 a full 22 minutes before it actually happened. Not only this, but the building itself was in the background (still standing) behind the reporter as she delivered the story. I don’t think anyone needs to be an expert at anything to realise there’s something going on. A 4 year old could figure out that clearly, something’s up.

    • Buck Fush

      here’s the link to the footage.

  • Let’s just face some simple facts.

    Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

    After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

    Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

    Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

    That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

    The distribution of steel and concrete is going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

    You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

    But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven’t we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 600 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the knuckles of the trusses were embedded in the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven’t the EXPERTS mentioned that A LOT?

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    So why hasn’t Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS fo CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn’t changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.


  • Awesome points you made in this post! I will need to deeply rethink some of them! It for sure aint that easy as the commercials make it seem. You really gotta be very persistenet and you should never ever give up. The results will come in due time.