The Anti-Empire Report
The Truthers have long been pressing me to express my support for their cause. Here’s how I stand on the issue. I’m very aware of the serious contradictions and apparent lies in the Official Government Version (OGV) of what happened on that fateful day. (Before the Truthers can be dismissed as “conspiracy theorists”, it should be noted that the OGV is literally a “conspiracy theory” about the fantastic things that a certain 19 men conspired to do.) It does appear that the buildings in New York collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition, which employed explosives as well as certain incendiary substances found in the rubble. So, for this and many other questions raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement, the OGV can clearly not be taken entirely at face value but has to be seriously examined point by point. But no matter what the discrepancies in the OGV, does it necessarily follow that the events of 9/11 were an “inside job”? Is it an either/or matter? Either a group of terrorists were fully responsible or the government planned it all down to the last detail?
What if the government, with its omnipresent eyes and ears, discovered the plotting of Mideast terrorists some time before and decided to let it happen — and even enhance the destruction — to make use of it as a justification for its “War on Terror”? The Truthers admit that they can’t fully explain what actually took place, but they argue that they are not obliged to do so; that they have exposed the government lies and that the fact of these lies proves that it was an inside job. The Truthers have done great work, but I say that for me, and I’m sure for many others, to accept the idea of an inside job I have to indeed know what actually took place, or at least a lot more than I know now. It is, after all, an incredible story, and I need to know how the government pulled it off. I need to have certain questions answered, amongst which are the following:
1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn’t their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?
If the Truthers can’t answer any or most of the above questions, are they prepared to consider the possibility of 9/11 being a “let-it-happen” government operation?
Mr. Blum,
I greatly appreciate your support for 9/11 truth. However, I’d like to point out a few things that your statement above indicate to me, being a longtime and fairly rational participant in the 9/11 truth movement. If I seem terse, it’s due to the respect I have for your body of work in contrast to the apparent lack of focus you demonstrate here.
A) With all due respect, your statement above indicates to me that you’ve read very little about 9/11 truth. I recommend starting with the History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline.
B) Your statement would indicate to most mainstream folks that you yourself are a “truther” as you go further in what you consider common sense conclusions than many in the 9/11 truth movement. That support is brave and highly appreciated, although I’d recommend further inquiry.
C) You appear unaware that some significant minority of those promoting 9/11 truth espouse no conspiracy theories whatsoever, and may not go even so far as to suggest that they “let it happen,” a view that sets you squarely in support of the cause. Many simply want a new investigation to determine what happened.
D) The questions you pose aren’t all that relevant.
– Of course the planes were hijacked.
– Of course the listed passengers died on the planes.
– Remote control is useless speculation
– The pilots were the indicated hijackers.
– Yes the Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. However the huge debris field strongly suggests some kind of mid air explosion. It’s not unreasonable, but fairly pointless, to speculate that it was shot down.
– Yes, a plane crashed into the Pentagon. Speculation that it didn’t is some of the most weakly supported speculation to be found in the movement, some of it clearly intended to undermine the movement’s credibility.
– Some ‘truther’s aren’t too bright. It’s fairly clear that some but not all of the hijackers stole identities of people who are still alive.
E) Many people in the movement only go so far as to speculate that elements within our government (Bush had nothing to do with it) let the attack happen. That is the most responsible position for outreach. Unfortunately, many people such as yourself appear to distance themselves from our cause even as they basically agree with the data we promote and our basic conclusions.
F) For those really savvy such as myself, it has become clear that the movement is broadly stigmatized by implying what you have here; that we all think the US government planned and executed the attack on it’s own. That’s not remotely likely and is simply not the opinion of everyone involved in promoting the cause. Perhaps that was not your intent.
G) The movement is both promoted by people with little education or interest in reading and is also very clearly undermined from within by people promoting all sorts of crap. No, the Jews did not “do 9/11.” No, the plane did not fly over the Pentagon. And who knows, maybe the towers just fell that way.
I hope you will actually look a bit further into this issue and I strongly encourage you not to stereotype those promoting it. There are some very educated and politically savvy participants who have no interest in the kind of speculation you have pointed to above.
Thanks again for your support.
1) No.. The supposed hijackers were not Islamic fundamentalists, they are reported to have drunk alcohol and visited strip clubs. Once you understand that the buildings were brought down via controlled demolition you must realise that the hijacking/flying part of the operation could not be reliably left to inadequately armed, alcohol drinking, strip club visiting, piss-poor pilots.
2) Nobody knows, there is a possibility that the planes were swapped although most would probrably consider that the passengers were sacrificed.
3) Certainly they were flying via remote control, once again, it is unfathomable that such a precision operation could allow for hundreds of things to go wrong with the hijacking/flying/crashing of the planes, especially with inadequately armed, crap pilots.
4) See 3
5) I don’t see any evidence that a plane crashed in Pensylvania, no wreakage and a scar in the ground that was there before 9/11 convince me that this part of the story was deliberately staged to give us ‘heroes’ who fought back (every story needs heroes). This is, of course, pure speculation on my part.
6) No… and… don’t know.
7) Many have been found to be alive and well, and they do claim to be the victims of identity theft as you postulate. This then raises the question of why they are still officially named as the hijackers.
Why isn’t the FBI trying to find out the names and nationalities of the real hijackers? It is completely unacceptable that the victims of identity theft should continue to be named as the hijackers, and that no further effort be made to name the real culprits.
This is just another demonstrably false part of the OGV.
1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
There is information that suggests it.
2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
It certainly seems so.
3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
Useless speculation.
4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
See #1.
5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
There are many unanswered questions about Flight 93. It seems a plane did crash, but as a result of a mid air explosion based on the debris field.
6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
I think so.
7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn’t their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?
I don’t know why some people do that William.
Here is the 9/11 Report. I suggest you read it, and ask others to read it to understand the “official account.”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
After that, I suggest you ask people to watch “9/11: Press For Truth”…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481#
Then I suggest you ask people to watch the companion DVD “In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families”…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679#
Then I suggest you recommend the “Complete 9/11 Timeline” to get people started…
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Then I suggest you recommend this series of movies I made called “What’s Being Covered Up?”…
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080326132655798
Then I suggest you recommend the report on the inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission’s Report compiled by 9/11 Family Members Lorie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg…
http://911truth.org/downloads/Family_Steering_Cmte_review_of_Report.pdf
Then I suggest you show people this list of unanswered questions compiled by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee…
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Then I suggest you ask people to read the different letters sent out over the years by the September Eleventh Advocates…
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090720125107330
Here is an archive I made a few years ago called the “Who Is? Archives”…
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=157
Then, if all of that fails to motivate people to fight for justice, you can show them my article, “The Facts Speak For Themselves”…
http://911truthnews.com/the-facts-speak-for-themselves/
Good luck!
From an email:
“So too the subtlety of Blum’s mind fails to grasp that one proves an inside job by proving elements of it that could not have been done by any other agency but the USG military-intelligence community working with ruling class servitors in the private sector, but that doing so does not require providing the kind of evidence that could succeed in a court of law, acquiring which would demand economic, political and legal powers far behind the means of a movement whose rational core has been both very brave, very determined, and very successful in mustering compelling evidence.”
I agree with L_D. In addition to answer 4, you have to appreciate that there was E4B flying over the pentagon soon after the attack – that aircraft could compile a completely separate air picture from NORAD and FAA through inter-communication with AWACS aircraft also flying that day. This would allow the E4B to track the “hijacked” aircraft easily (by exception) after these aircraft conveniently turned off their transponders (the transponder codes are used by FAA to keep track of normal civilian air traffic).
Also you need to consider the value of the targets attacked: WTC7 (fraud investigations), Pentagon audit dept (virtually the only pentagon dept hit) investigation the DoD’s “missing” $2.3trillion, the insurance on the WTC, the put-options and gold bullion – there was a lot of value to the targets attacked on 9/11.
I suggest “Motive, Means and Opportunity” needs to be applied to find the culprits of the crime.
Forget about the planes and disappearing passengers — those are transparent magnets for moles to insert hoaxes to make us look nuts. The planes, hijackers, passengers, etc were real.
But if you want to understand why many believe the attacks were done by insiders, you will need to read these papers:
1) Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol 2, pp.7-31
2) Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008 Vol 2, pp.35-40
3) Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4
Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
The Environmentalist, August, 2008
And then you need to read what some of the 1200+ architects and engineers calling for a new investigation have to say:
“What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea. But I do know that the official explanation doesn’t hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation.”
— David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee.
“It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below. We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top. The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse.”
— Edward E. Knesl, MS Eng, PE – Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Arizona.
“I have “known” from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them.”
— Daniel B. Barnum, B.Arch, FAIA – Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Over forty years experience in the practice of architecture.
“Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems. All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform.”
— Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years).
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well-planned and controlled demolition.”
— Kamal S. Obeid, BS CE, MS CE, SE, PE – Licensed Professional Structural and Civil Engineer, State of California.
“Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases. Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting.”
— William Rice, BS CE, MS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Vermont.
There is no evidence that Muslim terrorists (the 19 individuals named by the FBI) boarded any of the four aircraft that allegedly crashed on 9/11. Their names do not appear on any authenticated passenger list (those lists which have been leaked to the public are not authenticated). Their boarding cards were not seen. No person has publicly confirmed to have seen any of these 19 “hijackers” board onto the planes. There is no authenticated security video documenting their boarding. And their bodily remains were not identified. Perhaps the author, William Blum, who has proved his credentials with respect to U.S. foreign policy, could help us, common mortals, to locate the evidence of Muslim participation in 9/11 on which the entire War on Terror and UN Security Council resolutions are based. Meanwhile, I suggest that no one dare accuse Muslims, or any of the 19 “hijackers” of having committed the crime of 9/11, for the simple reason that absent a proof of guilt – beyond reasonable doubt – these people are innocent.
The manifests were obtained by investigators on 9/11 and handed over to the 9/11 Commission, which is how they eventually came to be released. There is no evidence to suggest they are fraudulent, and the logical implications are totally implausible for obvious reasons.
“What if the government, with its omnipresent eyes and ears, discovered the plotting of Mideast terrorists some time before and decided to let it happen — and even enhance the destruction — to make use of it as a justification for its “War on Terror”? ” –You lost me here…. how would that make “the government” any less culpable for the murder of three thousand people than if they’d planned the whole thing?
I am not implying that it would make the government less culpable. I put for the suggestion only to try to make sense of the disparate/contradictory theories which have been advanced concerning 9/11.
Additionally, I should think having answers to THESE questions would be more to the point in determining any government involvement, complicity or non-involvement:
http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
This is a general comment addressed to Mr. Blum, not a specific reply to any other comments already given. There are many Truthers who are at this point asking only for another investigation into all aspects of the events of September 11, 2001. There is a growing body of researched information and analysis (from scholars, scientists, engineers, firefighters, aviators, former military personnel, former government officials, foreign leaders, 9/11 families and many others) available only via the Internet, books and independent films, that points to the clear need for a new and impartial review of ALL the evidence.
While this process would have to include some accountability for decisions that have prevented a thorough review (e.g. the destruction of the enormous amount of material evidence at Ground Zero, a direct violation of NFPA arson investigation code), all other allegations would have to be suspended until this comprehensive inquiry was finished. I personally feel that the result of such an investigation would yield more than a few surprises for all of us, even those most certain of their own idea of how an “inside job” was planned and executed. The cart has gotten way out in front of the horse on this matter precisely because there ARE such “serious inconsistencies and apparent lies” in the OGV, yet no television or press sources are willing to explore or even acknowledge this. Without any mainstream media admission of the need to conduct a thorough and impartial inquiry, how can it ever be initiated?
So in answer to the question of whether or not Truthers are “prepared to consider the possibility of 9/11 being a ‘let it happen’ government operation,” I ask Mr. Blum if he and the rest of our national mainstream media team are likewise willing to consider that possibility or ANY possibility other than the OGV? Can you, WILL you help us, Mr. Blum?
Respectfully submitted by a member of the Upper Valley 9/11 Truth Alliance
Well said, Pam! Thank you.
“What if the government, with its omnipresent eyes and ears, discovered the plotting of Mideast terrorists some time before and decided to let it happen — and even enhance the destruction — to make use of it as a justification for its “War on Terror”? ”
The idea that the likes of Mossad and CIA special forces would spend months rigging the towers with explosives and then just cross their fingers and hope that some hijackers would succeed with hijacking both planes and successfully fly them into the targets is preposterous.
Once the towers have been rigged then it is necessary to ensure that the planes hit them, they could not possibly just wait and hope that a poorly conceived hijacking plan would work. Here are just some of the reasons the highjacking plan, as we are told it happened, was never going to succeed.
1) the hijackers were only armed with boxcutters.
2) the hijackers were tiny.
3) the hijackers had to take over the cockpits, creating a life and death situation in which they stood no chance.
4) the hijackers were poor pilots.
5) the hijackers had to fly hundreds of miles with no autopilot.
6) the hijackers then had to hit the specified targets spot on.
As if this isn’t enough of a joke, we are also told that the pilots drank alcohol and visited strip clubs before 9/11, put simply, these were not even religious fanatics… just patsies.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN102970.DTL
Whether the patsies were on the planes or not I don’t know, but I do know that they were completely irrellevant to the success of this operation.
And if you still think that it is possible that the plan to hijack the planes was made by someone in a cave in Afghanistan then consider this, those planes did not take off from NY, they took off from Boston and were hijacked a long way out of NY, giving NORAD plenty of time to intercept.
NORAD did not intercept and instead allowed the plan to proceed as it did, whoever planned this operation knew those planes would not be intercepted and planned it on that basis, if the planners took the possibility of a military intercept into consideration they would have had to have hijacked planes out of NY and quickly turned them around into the WTCs.
This operation, including the hijackings, was planned with the full knowledge that the planes would not be intercepted, a ragtag bunch of ‘terrorists’ could not possibly have known that interception was off the table and therefore would have planned accordingly by hijacking planes out of NY.
It is excellent that you acknowlegde controlled demolition on 9/11, at the end of the day that is really all you need to know to know that 9/11 is a big fat lie, the more you research, the more you will realise that the whole day was a completely staged event, including the hijackings.
Mr Blum, thank you for taking an interest – this is more than many a free, fair or impartial journalist has deigned to do.
I’d like to reiterate what others have said here.
– Avoid digging deep into highly speculative territory. It serves no-one’s interests. Remote planes? Speculation at this stage. Pentagon events? No-one knows for sure EXACTLY what went on there except for Pentagon officials themselves. They hold all the cards. Wild speculation – not based on rock-solid fact – makes the 911 research community look silly. Most us of have learned to stick firmly to verifiable fact only.
– Read the published, peer-reviewed papers referred to by Researcher, earlier in this thread
– Look at the papers at Journal of 911 Studies, then read the essays at 911 Review and http://www.911researchwtc7.net.
– Work out which writers and researchers you trust.
– Know that – outside the US – there is a growing awareness of the sheer B-grade flimsiness of the Official Government Version. The world is watching – we’d be eternally greatful if someone of your standing would do some rigorous research into this shabby con job.
The world cannot sustain Americans’ credulity at this juncture.
Addendum: Mr Blum, you write: “are [Truthers] prepared to consider the possibility of 9/11 being a “let-it-happen” government operation?
The Official Version has it that Bin Laden and his boys carried out the entire operation from A-Z – 100%. If they even had 10% help from inside sources – this makes it suspect, questionable and criminal, wouldn’t you say? Especially as 3000 New Yorkers were killed and two bloody wars were pinned on the event .
On the word “Truthers”. I’d rather be called a Truther than a Liar, but I prefer the word 911 researcher, thanks.
If you accuse a powerful institutuion of doing something bad and it is a lie or simply untrue, they do not put resources into making you out to be crazy, instead they just ignore you.
It is when you tell the truth, an unspeakable one, that a concerted effort is made to discredit you for being a kook.
Examples:
1. If you accused the Church of conspiring to shuffle perverts around and cover up their crimes, you were for hundreds of years labeled and shunned as a kook.
2. If you accused the Soviet regime of state crimes against its own people you were not only isolated as a kook, you could get thrown into an insane asylum.
3. China, Nazi Germany, see #2
If what you say is absurd or ridiculous no effort is made. Sometimes, though, the truth becomes unspeakable. And if you speak it anyway people would much rather discredit you then hear what they don’t want to know. That is what we have here.
A 9/11 Truther, if that term is defined logically, must be someone who seeks the truth about 9/11. Therefore to assert that 9/11 Truthers contend that government lies about 9/11 “proves that it was an inside job,” is to be no friend of 9/11 truth. It is a not so suble way of smearing as unreasonable and illogical intelligent people who realize that the official, US Government 9/11 conspiracy theory makes no sense.
I have great respect for Mr. Blum, Mr. Gold and others who have commented here but I respectfully take exception with some of the statements and positions taken here.
For instance, Mr. Blum asks if the Truthers are prepared to consider the possibility of 9/11 being a “let-it-happen” government operation? This question is completely illogical when you consider that earlier he stated, “It does appear that the buildings in New York collapsed essentially because of a controlled demolition, which employed explosives as well as certain incendiary substances found in the rubble.” Mr. Blum clearly is knowledgeable regarding the evidence presented by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen and all of the 1,341 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, so I utterly fail to comprehend how someone as brilliant as Mr. Blum clearly is, has not therefore abandoned the “Let it Happen” (LIHOP) hypothesis as irrelevant. If the buildings came down by CD then someone “Made it Happen on Purpose” (MIHOP)………period! You can’t have it both ways.
Also, Mr. Gold, who I otherwise deeply respect, is rather quick to dismiss the remote control hypothesis as “useless speculation.” That misses a larger point. Consider that, we’ve been driving two Rovers around the surface of the planet Mars for the past six years …by Remote Control. Would Mr. Gold seriously want to argue that a Remote Control hypothesis is not plausible? Is that what in fact did happen on 9/11? How would I know! Is it possible? Go ask NASA who’s driving those Rovers around Mars if it’s possible. What I do know for certain, is that a guy who could not fly a Cessna, is said to have flown a 757 like it was a F-16. That’s not plausible….sorry!
Mr. Ware, states with authority, “Of course the planes were hijacked,” as if there is any consensus on even that point. Hijacked by who? Mohammed Atta? Remote Control? Mr. Ware has no more proof that the supposed 19 hijacked were even on any of the planes, than I have any proof that the planes were taken over by Remote Control. We have no proof Atta got on Flight 11. What do we have, a surveillance tape made in Portland, Maine? Items in his luggage that conveniently did not transfer from the commuter flight to AA11 and were left behind to be discovered, or wasn’t the luggage found in the Mitsubishi in the parking lot? Oh that was the first story. Give me a freaking break. What baloney.
Mr. Blum asks, ” Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn’t their identity have been stolen by the hijackers? That is the entirely wrong question to ask. It’s not the Truthers saying that, the British and other media reported this in numerous reports. The question Mr. Blum should be asking is: What did the 9/11 Commission have to say about this? Answer: they did not even mention it, not even to refute it. ….not even to acknowledge the reports and then to explain in a plausible way exactly why the reports are false. Is that too much to ask from a commission mandated by Congress to give the “fullest account” of what happened that day.
I could go on and on, but I will stop here.
it is good to see this article by mr. blum. he must know that it is very difficult to separate “made it happen” from “let it happen.”
there is “negligence” in the let it happen school of 9-11. there is “incompetence” as well. these are complicated differences in themselves. the official story, as told by the 9-11 commission, is a mix of incompetence and “luck.” so the 9-11 commission version of events is that the government, as richard clark testified “failed you” the american people.
it should be obvious that there is a huge space between “incompetence” and “luck” being the causes of 9-11 versus “willful negligence.”
there is another step, which many within the 9-11 truth movement take: made it happen.
now, i could tell you that i knew a bunch of thieves in my neighborhood who liked to rob houses, and they preferred to rob them in broad daylight, to help terrorize the rest of the community, which they enjoyed doing. i could tell you, look, i would love to get my hands on some property, because in a few years it will be worth a lot more, for whatever reasons.
you are my friend, you are the chief of police. i tell you, look, do not respond to calls for help in the neighborhood for a few months. just make people become really frightened. a few months later, when they have lost all hope, i will offer them a price for their homes. after i buy up my share of properties, we can start cleaning out the thieves in the neighborhood.
the police chief owes me a favor or two, and agrees to perform a “stand down” for a few months, until the properties lose value, i buy some people out, and then we clean it up later.
now the police chief does not want to know if these thieves are working for me or not. he just owes me a favor, and agrees to go along, to look the other way. he does not want to know anymore than he needs to. he makes sure his “middle managers” below make sure there is no aggressive policing in the area for a few months, even though there is a wave of crime exploding there.
did i “make it happen” or “let it happen”? did the police chief “let it happen” or make it happen”?
we would need to put these thieves in front of a judge and jury and start asking some questions. we would need to ask people in the neighborhood what they saw and heard before, during, and after the crime wave. we would want to look at the financial records of the real estate speculator who bought up all the properties after the crime wave, and sold them after the neighgborhood was cleaned up and made safe again.
political operatives, like private contractors, operate on a “need to know” basis. you want to do business with powerful people? accept their terms, do not make trouble, do not ask questions “above your pay grade.”
does the behavior of the neconservatives that took over the white house, the cia, and the pentagon look suspicious in the months before, during and after the events of 9-11, which changed everything?
made it happen, let it happen? i do not know for sure. but i do know their friends literally made a “killing” politically and economically from that event, and changed the course of world history.
Its nice. very good.
Ah, the old false dichotomy of “the government” and/or “muslim terrorists” being the culprits. Some(key word Mr. Blum) people within the government/intelligence community/military? Absolutely, as well as some people outside of that structure. And even as he admits the evidence is compelling he still has to believe that-“middle eastern terrorists” were involved on some level above just patsies/fall guys. Yeah, he has a ways to go yet.
Take his last point-“the hijackers”-meaning the muslim patsies were the ones who stole the identities, not the true culprits who were pulling the patsies strings and telling them were to go. 9/11 was an inside/outside job done not by “islamic jihadis” but by Americans and Israelis. Blum shows just how difficult it is for some people to get past the “scary muslim boogeymen HAD to be involved on some level!” bit. Even if some others were involved, those dastardly muslims still want to kill us all!!! Anyway, even if you insist on believing that it started as a “muslim plot”(a ridiculous notion imho) doesn’t “enhancing the destruction” rise to the level of active participation and thus an “inside job”?
Heres a clue Mr. Blum-Dov Zakheim-research his ties to 9/1, they run a lot deeper than Osama Bin Ladens(who denied being behind 9/11 on 3 separate occasions).
The remote control hypothesis is EXACTLY the right path. Mr Gold is a longtime protector of the Israeli role in 9/11. Dov Zakheim knows all about remote flight technology as he served on SPC-a defense contractor that among other things can outfit Boeings with remote flight technology. Zakheim was the comptroller at the Pentagon and was also the man tasked with “finding” the “missing” 2.3 trillion from the Pentagons books. Rumsfeld made the announcement about the “missing” money on Sept.10,2001. The Pentagon was hit in the accounting areas on 9/11. All coincidences I’m sure right Gold and Blum?
Julian Ware represents a tiny and shrinking minority in the 9/11 Truth movement of LIHOPers (Let It Happen On Purpose), who pretend to still not see the buildings being destroyed with explosives, which you don’t need an advanced degree or a lot of time spent researching to see. All it takes is one to simply be honest with themselves with what your naked eyes can see in the close-up videos of the WTC demolitions.
Julian also through out that old canard, “the Jews dd it”, in order to deflect attention away from the overwhelming evidence that Israel and Mossad are implicated in 9/11 and engineering the “War on Terror”, which is really a War on Israel’s Enemies. See Timeline 1992-2001: Lead up to the Zionist-Engineered War on Terror http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2941
Mr. Blum, please see this link for answers to some of your demands:
http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2010/11/israels-grand-deception.html
I will give my own answers to Mr. Blum’s questions and then suggest better questions.
1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
We know very little about the planes that hit the towers. No effort appears to have been made to positively (as opposed to by deduction) identify any wreckage as belonging definitively to any specific plane or flight.
2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
Impossible to say with certainty for any of the flights when the only evidence for them being on the planes comes from the same sources that have lied about so many other parts of the story.
3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
Impossible to say with certainty but remote control seems more likely since it would have been more foolproof than human hijackers, important since the planes were to provide the plausible (to an underinformed public) reason for the demolition of the buildings.
4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
I would ask the same question of proponents of the OGV (OCT). And expect more solid evidence than passports impossibly found on the scene.
5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
A plane does not appear to have crashed in PA per the OGV wherein the plane was flown intact into the ground, embedding itself in the soft earth. The existence of a crater and debris is not in itself proof of anything.
6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
Specifically flight 77 does not appear to have crashed into the Pentagon. Some explosive event certainly occurred there, but allegations of a Boeing passenger jet having been the cause are not supported by positive evidence.
7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn’t their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?
Because it was reported in mainstream news sources and never denied. FBI director Mueller did indeed suggest the hijackers may have been using stolen identities. The hijackers originally named are not the same as the hijackers who ended up in the final version of the list, which includes individuals whose “identities may have been stolen”.
Here are my own questions:
1) If the hijackers may have been using stolen identities then why has the government not revised its list to say that? And what if any attempts have been made to ascertain the hijackers’ real identities?
2) If you don’t already understand based on the impossible physics that the OGV of the WTC destruction that explosives and/or incendiaries were used, then how do you explain the reports of massive damage in the basements reported by among others Mike Pecoraro (google chief engineer 9/11)? Falling elevators? Pouring jet fuel? Neither makes any sense.
3) Why did the government not attempt to determine if explosives were involved in the towers’ destruction when it is officially claimed that terrorists linked to al Qaeda placed explosives in the WTC in 1993?
Thank you for posting a great post here and I enjoy reading every bit you have to offer. Thanks again!
I would put myself in a brand new group, somewhere between Let it Happen, and Made it Happen. Its called, Helped it Happen. Its well known, at least in this crowd that the US govt works hand in glove with terrorists and has for a long time. So is it crazy to think that they knew it was coming, and helped it along? How else could the planes have avoided being intercepted for such a long period. How else could the buildings have been demolished? (Its not like you find out a couple of months in advance and then rig up 3 high rises for demolition that fast. At the very least, it seems highly unlikely.) How else could half of the guys on the official list have even gotten into the country in the first place?
I don’t buy into the “Inside Job” line, where the whole thing was just a US govt plot with no terrorist involvement whatsoever. I think its far more likely that the original plot was at some point “Hijacked” by elements of the US govt who then used it to their own ends.
Did the hijackers fly the planes? Probably not, but who knows? Were they on the planes and played a role in hijacking them in the first place? I certainly wouldn’t rule it out.
Whatever happened, I agree that people on both sides of the argument have to start looking for middle ground here. This either/or attitude that so many people take, whether they are truthers, or deniers, is getting very old. Surely its been long enough that people can look at this more objectively now?
I sure hope so. Its long overdue.
Excellent goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you are just extremely wonderful. I actually like what you have acquired here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it sensible. I can’t wait to read much more from you. This is really a great web site.
1. Were the planes that hit the towers hijacked?
Yes
2. Did they contain the passengers named amongst the dead?
Yes. The hijackers, however, weren’t on the passenger manifests, suggesting they weren’t on the planes.
3. Were they piloted or were they flying via remote control?
Both. Gas released into the planes knocked everyone out and the planes were taken over by remote control.
4. If piloted, who were the pilots?
Whichever pilots the airline companies scheduled for those flights.
5. Did a plane crash in Pennsylvania? If so, why? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
No, a missile was fired at the ground. Flight 93 was blown up in midair after the gas-release mechanism failed and those aboard got wind that something was wrong and resolved to override the remote control and prevent their plane from being used in another ‘suicide mission’, this time slated for the White House (where fires were started in anticipation of the impact).
6. Did a plane crash into the Pentagon? What happened to the remains of the plane and the passengers?
No, a drone fired a missile at the Pentagon. Flight 77 plane and passengers were landed at a secret location and disposed of.
7. Why do Truthers say that some, or many, of the named Arabic hijackers have been found alive living abroad? Why couldn’t their identity have been stolen by the hijackers?
Possible, but the question is redundant if there were no hijackers onboard the planes.
The problem with Blum’s line of questioning is that it assumes the OGV is a valid starting point for criticism. It’s not; it’s just a cover story.
“It is, after all, an incredible story, and I need to know how the
government pulled it off.”
With foreign allies, as Senator Graham has been plainly stating since December of 2002. That is where the cover-up leads, and that is what every American should be demanding be uncovered by the current regime in
Washington. The rest can be discovered once we bring to light what FBI has already
documented in detail in the initial investigation of the 9/11 attacks.
“If the Truthers can’t answer any or most of the above questions,
are they prepared to consider the possibility of 9/11 being a “let-it-happen” government operation?”
I’m not sure what a “Truther” is exactly.
Would it matter if the US officials “let it happen?”
Isn’t that still high treason?
This demanding answers about what is covered up is putting the cart before the
horse. The problem is the US government’s cover-up, not the citizens who protest against it.
The US bureaucracy is too tangled up to easily hide domestic covert operations against its own people. That’s why
foreign “allies” were brought in, in all likelihood. The CIA, being barred from operating domestically, and being staffed by hyper-patriots who might rather blow the
whistle than blow up the Towers, would need to be contained. That seems to be why the Saudis were handling
the hijackers, and the CIA was letting it happen under the pretext of recruiting “double agents.” Of
course no double agents were actually recruited, and the plot had 16 months or
more to be stopped, but wasn’t.
It looks like the white house was very involved, and getting all Saudis out of the
country immediately after the attacks was job one — even though the airspace was closed to Americans. This entire charade stinks so high that I’m astonished the focus is on “truthers” and not on the more important T word. This is falling into a semantic trap that shifts focus.
Mr. Blum, it isn’t just the many disproven elements of the OGV that proves that 9/11 was an inside job. It was the inability of the accused hijackers — even with the [impossible] support of [the bedridden-in-Pakistan] Osama bin Laden, to accomplish all the elements of the crime as it actually was carried out. The nanothermite in the WTC dust was not made in a cave in Afghanistan. Access to the highly secure three skyscrapers was not granted to those who placed the explosives without inside help, official IDs, etc. WTC 7 was the largest CIA station outside Langley.
It is not that, as you write, “the government pulled it off.” A tiny handful of highly placed traitors in the government pulled it off. To do this they enlisted various contractors from a number of countries. They also tricked a number of loyal insiders into helping cover up what happened, many of them probably thinking that they were only covering up incompetence by their bosses.
You don’t need to take on the impossible burden of figuring out exactly what happened on your own or with the help of amateur investigators who lack subpoena power. The rational course of action for someone who really believes what you say you believe, would be to use your influence and connections to access the right people and press them to call for a serious official investigation. We haven’t had one of those yet; they have all been coverups. Like many of us in the 9/11 truth movement, you don’t have that many more years left on this earth. Why would you not want to use your influence in this way? Surely the prospect of failure is not what daunts you. We have all been working on causes where failure is not only an option, it’s probably — as Agent Smith says — inevitable. Nonetheless, it’s the right thing to do.