The Fog of Words: How We Inadvertently Reinforce the 9/11 Official Story

 The Intel Hub
By Craig McKee

 
Whatever words we utter should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill – Buddha

Words are more treacherous and powerful than we think – Jean-Paul Sartre

Words can be used to reveal many truths. They can also obscure the truth, even in ways their users do not intend. Once a particular word used in a particular context has penetrated our consciousness, it’s very hard to dislodge.

Case in point, a favourite term of the 9/11 Truth movement: the “official conspiracy theory” or OCT. This refers to the official story proffered by the government and the “mainstream” media: 19 fundamentalist Muslims led by Osama bin Laden decided one day to punish America for being too darned free.

But it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s not a theory at all. That’s because the people who created the story know damned well it’s not true. That makes it a “lie.” So the term “official conspiracy theory” plays right into the hands of the official liars.

So, let’s stop using it. I’m sticking to “official story,” “official narrative,” or “cover story” (not the kind in Time or Newsweek).

Another insidious term that slips in to usage all too often: the “attacks” of Sept. 11, 2001. The use of this one is lazy at best and dishonest at worst.

While one could justify the term on the basis that even a false flag operation is an “attack,” the fact is that most people think of an attack as coming from an external enemy.

To quote journalist, media critic, and 9/11 truther Barrie Zwicker: “Words and phrases such as “attack,” “terrorist attacks,” “September 11th attacks,” “failures” (to “act on intelligence reports” and such) are like grenades lobbed into our brains.

They contain the DNA of the official lie. They perpetuate it. They are viruses that infect the public mind.”

Zwicker says the Toronto 9/11 Hearings were at one time to be called the Toronto Hearings into the Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He says he pointed this out to organizers, and the offending word was changed to “events.” But the question remains, how did it get in there in the first place?

A statement on the Hearings’ web site dated Feb. 20, 2011 contains multiple references to the “attacks of 9/11.” This sentence: “In the meantime, the credibility of the official reports on the 9/11 attacks (by the 9/11 Commission…” The bolds are mine, the mistake is clear.

Hitler knows what Nano-Thermite in the WTC dust means

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

Richard Gage Talk at Royal Institute of British Architects Ignites Firestorm

ED Note:  Should Richard Gage speak more about implications of his findings or continue to refrain from speculating about the events that generated the evidence he has examined?   The hysterics behind this latest hit piece show desperation on behalf of the 9/11 apologists and an attempt to turn sound scientific research into a punchline of a joke.  Would this fire ignited by willful ignorance be cooled by discussing the implications of what ae911truth.org has found?

911Blogger

RIBA comes under fire for hosting ‘bonkers’ 9/11 talk
24 June 2011 |
By Will Hurst, David Rogers

Institute reviews policy after controversial event booked by Zaha Hadid Architects associate
The RIBA is reviewing its policy on hiring out 66 Portland Place following a storm of criticism over its hosting of a group claiming that New York’s Twin Towers were brought down through a controlled explosion.

Leading architects on both sides of the Atlantic hit out at the institute this week after American architect Richard Gage, part of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, delivered a lecture at RIBA HQ on Monday night.

The venue was booked by fellow American and RIBA member Craig Phillip Kiner, an associate at Zaha Hadid Architects.

Gage claims that the fires caused by the impact of the two jets flown into the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001, could not have been sufficient to make the steel structure of the towers collapse, and he questions the collapse of World Trade Centre 7, a nearby 47-storey building which was not hit by an aircraft.

Conspiracy Theory

Sabbah Report

While we were not watching, conspiracy theory has undergone Orwellian redefinition.

A "conspiracy theory" no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps.

For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times simply because RT reports news and opinions that the New York Times does not report and the US government does not endorse.

In other words, as truth becomes uncomfortable for government and its Ministry of Propaganda, truth is redefined as conspiracy theory, by which is meant an absurd and laughable explanation that we should ignore.

When piles of carefully researched books, released government documents, and testimony of eye witnesses made it clear that Oswald was not President John F. Kennedy’s assassin, the voluminous research, government documents, and verified testimony was dismissed as "conspiracy theory."

In other words, the truth of the event was unacceptable to the authorities and to the Ministry of Propaganda that represents the interests of authorities.

The purest example of how Americans are shielded from truth is the media’s (including many Internet sites’) response to the large number of professionals who find the official explanation of September 11, 2001, inconsistent with everything they, as experts, know about physics, chemistry, structural engineering, architecture, fires, structural damage, the piloting of airplanes, the security procedures of the United States, NORAD’s capabilities, air traffic control, airport security, and other matters. These experts, numbering in the thousands, have been shouted down by know-nothings in the media who brand the experts as "conspiracy theorists."

This despite the fact that the official explanation endorsed by the official media is the most extravagant conspiracy theory in human history.

Let’s take a minute to re-acquaint ourselves with the official explanation, which is not regarded as a conspiracy theory despite the fact that it comprises an amazing conspiracy. The official truth is that a handful of young Muslim Arabs who could not fly airplanes, mainly Saudi Arabians who came neither from Iraq nor from Afghanistan, outwitted not only the CIA and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and all intelligence agencies of US allies including Israel’s Mossad, which is believed to have penetrated every terrorist organization and which carries out assassinations of those whom Mossad marks as terrorists.

Amidst Growing World Doubts About 9/11, Career Army Officer Takes Bush Administration Officials to Court April 5th Represented by the Center for 9/11 Justice

Herold Online

Center for 9/11 Justice

NEW YORK, March 23, 2011 --

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A December 2010 poll conducted by the prestigious Emnid Institute, and reported in the German magazine "Welt der Wunder," revealed that 89.5% of German respondents do not believe the official story of 9/11.

The issue is heating up in America as well, and will soon be heard in court.

Top Secret Military Specialist April Gallop saw disturbing things up close that have not been reported in the media.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, she was ordered by her supervisor to go directly to work at the Pentagon, before dropping off her ten-week-old son Elisha at day care.

Amazingly, the infant was given immediate security clearance upon arrival.

The instant Gallop turned on her computer an enormous explosion blew her out of her chair, knocking her momentarily unconscious.

Escaping through the hole reportedly made by Flight 77, she saw no signs of an aircraft – no seats, luggage, metal, or human remains. Her watch (and other clocks nearby) had stopped at 9:30-9:31 a.m., seven minutes before the Pentagon was allegedly struck at 9:38 a.m.

The 9/11 Commission reported that "by no later than 9:18 a.m., FAA centers in Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Washington were aware that Flight 77 was missing and that two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center."

Why then were there no anti-aircraft defenses, Gallop asks, or alarm warnings inside the Pentagon?

Gallop was briefed by officials not to tell her story in public; she also received an email from a Fox News reporter who had been told by the Pentagon not to interview her.

Gallop now believes that officials within the Bush Administration conspired to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and WTC 7 – the third building brought down at 5:20 p.m. that day – with pre-placed explosives detonated after the planes hit.

On April 5th, 2011, at 11 a.m., at the Federal Courthouse at 141 Church Street in New Haven, Connecticut, the case of Gallop v. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Gallop's case relies on virtually all forms of evidence admissible in court, but significantly, on published scientific evidence that residues of these explosives were found in the rubble after the attacks. In its totality the proffered case establishes that the government hypothesis – that the buildings collapsed due to fire in combination with the airplane impacts – is scientifically untenable.

In addition, Ms. Gallop will, through photographic and other physical evidence, as well as the testimony of a multitude of military and civilian survivors, demonstrate the impossibility of her having lived through the attack on the Pentagon if it had taken place as the government and the defendants claim.

German Federal Judge, Deiter Dieseroth, stated in December 2009 that:

"No independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks."

Also, that "it is not acceptable for a constitutional state...to declare war, bomb a foreign country, and place it under military occupation," without first identifying suspects.

Dieseroth also said the U.S. "was under burden of proof" that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, yet the FBI admits it has no evidence presentable in court to back this up.

The stakes in this case are epic, including the possibility of an overwhelming transformation of the world's understanding of history, not to mention American citizens' relationship with their government.

Media contact: William Veale centerfor911justice@gmail.com, 292929@msn.com, 510-845-5675, 925-212-3678

SOURCE Center for 9/11 Justice

10 ways I got sucked into buying the 9/11 cover story

The Excavator

By Craig McKee

On Sept. 11, 2001, I was part of the majority. I believed that Osama bin Laden had led a group of Islamic fundamentalists to crash planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
There were many things that made me accept this, but mostly it was because I believed what I saw on TV. Sure I was cynical about the media then, but to believe that they got it so wrong would be to believe they were complicit in the cover-up.

I believed that the attacks – while reprehensible – were a logical result of America’s imperialist policies around the world. It was the typical “liberal” reaction, which unfortunately still dominates how the left sees 9/11. We were all so sure that Uncle Sam was screwing everyone that the idea that someone would want revenge seemed reasonable – even inevitable.

This made me and people who agreed with me valuable dupes for the real criminals. We helped establish our view as the “left” end of the spectrum of 9/11 opinion. The “right” believed Bush’s claim that the “evil-doers” had attacked America because they hated our way of life.

Despite being fooled about 9/11, there were some things that made me immediately suspicious that morning. The main one was the incredible failure of the U.S. military to intercept any of the planes. I just couldn’t buy this. And I couldn’t figure out why no one in the media saw this as a red flag.

But even with that doubt, I didn’t seriously doubt the official story. I may have believed there were inexplicable examples of incompetence, but I didn’t put it all together. For one thing, I was still being influenced primarily by the mainstream media, which were all fully behind the bin Laden story.

In a way, it’s surprising to me I could be so naive. I’d spent much of my youth reading every book I could find about the Kennedy assassination, the Bay of Pigs, and about U.S. imperialism in Central America and elsewhere. I believed the CIA was a criminal organization, as I do now. If anyone should have seen through the “official government conspiracy theory” about 9/11, it should have been someone like me.

But the lie was so massive I couldn’t see it.

As I came to realize later, there were individual elements of the official story that were positively essential for maintaining the fake terrorist scenario. With the absence of any real journalism from the mainstream press, these factors kept my doubts from growing and kept me from seeing the big picture:

• The cell phone calls: If passengers had called relatives and told them hijackings were happening, then how could it not be true? I now believe that these calls were faked. The technology exists to do it. The technology to make cell phone calls from airliners flying at 30,000+ feet at 500 miles per hour did not exist in 2001. The media failed to examine this seriously.
  
  
• The Bin Laden confession tapes: Didn’t most of us take it for granted that bin Laden had taken responsibility? It turns out that there’s only video tape that has him doing so, and a close look at bin Laden’s face in that video reveals that it’s not him! Check this out for yourself. Again, the media ignored this.
  
  
• The lack of questioning by the political left: The fact that there was a version of the story that I could be comfortable with – that the attacks were revenge for U.S. misdeeds – was enough to satisfy me. And the support for this view from people I admired, like Noam Chomsky, cemented the deal.
  
  
• Evidence allegedly found in Mohamed Atta’s trunk: This was absolutely critical to the official story. It included a letter saying he planned to martyr himself, a Saudi passport, an international driver’s license, instructional videos teaching how to fly a Boeing airliner, and an Islamic prayer book. I never thought to question how all this incriminating evidence was so easily found. Why didn’t it make it on to the plane? Classic staged evidence. And when it came out that the hijackers had been using prostitutes and drinking heavily before Sept. 11, the whole “fundamentalist” angle crumbled.
  
  
• The Pentagon was hit in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses: Obviously it was Flight 77, right? To fake this was inconceivable to me. Now the idea that an airliner hit that building is inconceivable. Media ignored the overwhelming evidence that evidence was staged and explosives were placed in the building.
  
  
• It would have been too difficult to rig the towers for demolition: How, exactly, do you place explosives throughout a 110-storey office tower with no one noticing? That just seemed crazy. Now it’s the only thing that makes any sense. With no help from the media, I was unaware of the dozens of witnesses who reported massive explosions in the basements of the World Trade Center. And I was not aware that security for the buildings was being handled by a firm very closely linked to the Bush family.
  
  
• I had never heard of Building 7: When a friend told me in 2007 that a third skyscraper had collapsed in New York on 9/11, I almost didn’t believe him. This revelation, more than any other, shattered by assumptions about 9/11. The facts so obviously pointed to controlled demolition that I began to doubt everything else.
  
  
• Reports of government incompetence: Any media inquiry into how the attacks could have happened focused on whether the system broke down and whether the military failed to react properly. It never looked at government complicity. Neither did I.
  
  
• The government would never go that far: Most people believe this still. They can’t conceive of their own government showing such disregard for human life. Especially the lives of American citizens. But if they were to look at past examples of “false-flag” operations, they might change their minds. Just looking at the plans for Operation Northwoods, a 9/11-style fraud to create a pretext to invade Cuba, would open a lot of people’s minds.
  
  
• It was too big to keep secret: All it would take would be one person to spill the beans, right? This one is SO wrong. People talk all the time; if the media isn’t reporting it, how does the public find out? Howard Hunt confessed to helping kill Kennedy but this was virtually ignored by the media. David Schippers, a Washington insider who prosecuted Bill Clinton in his impeachment trial, says he was told about the entire 9/11 plot in advance by FBI agents. How much attention did this get?
  

Selling the official story doesn’t require that it be airtight because most people aren’t looking that closely. And with the media parroting the official line, it takes real effort for the average person to learn the truth.

Most of us won’t make the effort. Or we don’t want to know.

Cause to Celebrate: A&E Petition Hits 10,000 This 4th of July

911truth.com

Lehigh Valley, PA - On Saturday, July 3, 2010, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition, which demands Congress start a new and independent investigation into 9/11, hit the 10,000 signers mark.

Such an historic milestone for liberty could not have occured at a more fitting time than the 4th of July, a time when Americans take pause to celebrate their liberty and reflect on the form of government that guarantees such freedom.

A perfect time to raise an eyebrow at the 9/11 investigation that continually tells us, even to this day, that we must fight more wars and give up more personal liberties.

And, Lehigh Valley locals are, indeed, beginning to speak out about it.

Meet petition signer Lori McFerran, who says she lives "in a small town in eastern Pennsylvania with [her] husband." Mrs. McFerran writes of herself in her personal description statement, "I am an editor at a daily newspaper in Allentown, Pa., and have almost 30 years' experience as a journalist and writer."

Mrs. McFerran isn't so sure the 9/11 Commission got it right, stating in her petition, "After hearing the evidence presented by Richard Gage (I listened to the youtube video and heard him speak on Coast to Coast on Tuesday, June 10), I am sufficiently suspicious of the account that was presented by the media about what happened at the World Trade Center in 2001. I fully support a complete and UNBIASED investigation into the events and a thorough scientific evaluation of the evidence at the site."

The emphasis by Mrs. McFerran that the new 9/11 investigation needs to be unbiased was shared by another local, a Mr. Larry A. Hill of Northampton.

Mr. Hill stated in his petition:

"I have a Bachelor of Arts in History from Penn State University, graduated with highest distinction (top 2%) with a GPA of 3.88. I am a self-taught database programmer by profession. In my studies of History, I reject most, if not all popular conspiracy theories.

I accepted the government explanation of the WTC towers for years. When I saw the AE911Truth video, I was convinced that we were NOT told anywhere near the entire truth about this event.

A truly complete and INDEPENDENT investigation must be done. No one with direct ties to the US government should be involved. Until this happens, trust in our government and the ability of representative democracy to protect us is eroded and undermined."

One avenue of investigation not pursued by the 9/11 Commission was the possible use of explosives in bringing down any or all of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/01. Bethlehem resident Robert D. Grim writes in his petition statement that evidence of controlled demolitions is opening his eyes, stating:

"Though not an architect or engineer, I am a physics buff. I have a solid understanding of the laws that govern the physical universe, and am also well versed in construction methods.

I was a senior in high school when the towers collapsed. I didn't question anything at first, but I did see the resemblance between the WTC and controlled demolitions. I began questioning the event when a friend who had seen the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" told me about the theory of controlled demolition. Since then, nearly every piece of evidence that I've seen has supported that theory. I want truth!!!!"

On this 4th of July, with now 10,000 signatures officially on the A&E petition, there is truly hope that such a new and impartial investigation might be acheived, the need of which having been attested to locally on the A&E petition by Lehigh Valley petition signers such as McFerran, Hill, and Grim.

The 10,000 figure was reached by adding together the official figures given on the A&E website on Saturday, July 3rd. An official figure of 1218 was given for "architects and engineers," and an official figure of 8,787 for "other supporters" on the same day. Thus, as of July 3rd, there were 10,005 total signers, according to figures posted at the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's official website.

Lehigh Valley residents are reminded that the A&E petition "is open to everyone," according to the A&E official website. Therefore, a person need not be either an architect or an engineer in order to sign the petition. And, indeed, everyone is encouraged to sign.

For more information about the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition, readers are referred to the official website, cms.ae911truth.org.

Richard Gage's Gnosis Interview in Tucson

Straight from the airport, Richard Gage, AIA, stops by KJLL 1330AM the JOLT to interview with "The Baron", Chuck Aubrey on his Gnosis Radio program - June 26th, 2010.

Architect Richard Gage Speaks Tonight In Tucson

Tucson, AZ, June 10, 2010 – Richard Gage, founder and spokesperson for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, will deliver a public talk on Saturday, June 26, 2010 at 7:00 PM at St. Mark’s Church, 3809 E. 3rd Street (just south of Speedway and west of Alvernon). Gage is a member of the American Institute of Architects and has specialized for 20 years in large steel-construction design and building. In his lecture Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction, he provides a comprehensive analysis of the unprecedented global building destruction at the World Trade Center, which has been officially attributed to hydrocarbon fires. Gage explains why his evaluation casts grave doubt on the media stories and official reports by the 9/11 Commission, FEMA, and NIST, and indicates instead the use of controlled demolition.

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is a non-partisan association of architects, engineers, and affiliates, who are dedicated to using scientific and engineering analysis to uncover the truths about the “collapses” of the WTC high-rises on 9/11/01. The organization has experienced phenomenal growth in its membership over the last two years, and currently has over 1,200 building professionals and practicing engineers on board, as well as over 8,000 laypersons. AE9/11Truth also maintains one of the most active Internet web sites questioning the official account of 9/11.

Mr. Gage has presented his research in over 150 national and international venues, and on as many radio and TV interviews. He is an engaging and articulate guest and would be a fascinating discussant on any morning talk show or local media broadcast. Arrangements can be made through his Tucson hosts, whose contact information is given below.

Richard Gage will lecture in the main chapel of St. Mark’s Church from 7 p.m. until approximately 9:00 p.m. Time will be allotted for questions after the presentation. Parking is available on site or on the neighboring streets. The lecture is open to the public and a donation of $7.00 is requested to cover expenses. Mr. Gage is the guest of the local chapter of 9/11 Truth, and can be contacted through program coordinators K. Woerner (403-5118) or J.T. Waldron (624-9710).

Final sift of World Trade Center rubble yields 72 bone fragments

9/11 Blogger

jkeough

Seventy-two bone fragments were found in about two dump trucks of debris that had yet to be sifted by forensics experts, US television's ABC News reported Tuesday, citing the New York Medical Examiner's Office.

The office said DNA testing was likely to identify some of the remains, given the size and condition of the bone fragments. About 1,000 people of the nearly 3,000 victims of the suicide plane hijackings that brought down the two towers of the World Trade Center have yet to be identified.The experts sifted through 645 cubic metres of debris over three months to find the remains. The debris was the last from the World Trade Center that had yet to combed.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/330854,yields-72-bone-fragments.html

Realted:

Only 289 intact bodies were recovered. May-30-2002 - cnn.com

...more...

Some World Trade Center victims were 'vaporized' 01/15/2002 USA Today
NEW YORK (AP) — Three months after the World Trade Center attack, victims' families are being forced to face the ghastly possibility that many of the dead were "vaporized," as the medical examiner put it, and may never be identified. So far, fewer than 500 victims have been positively identified out of the roughly 3,000 feared dead. Sixty were identified solely through DNA. Jan-15-2002 - fdiai.org

They don't even know how many people were in the buildings and stuff. I don't think they'll ever know. I've just been like working in sectors, on overtime in the past weeks, just seeing very few whole bodies going out, pieces of people, shoes and clothing with some bones inside. I never saw anything like that. -Lieutenant Gregg Hadala FDNY EMS Battalion 50 nytimes.com

At the World Trade Center, many of the victims recovered were horribly mangled, and in many cases only parts of bodies were recovered....The number of injured who required extrication, triage, and treatment was relatively small: “Either you were dead or you walked away from it. There was very little in between,” rand.org

I also know that we didn't see large numbers of patients. I think by the end of the day, we had only seen 100 or so patients -James Martin FDNY EMS Division Chief nytimes.com

I was in the military as an Army combat medic, not war time, but I had training in that. It reminded me, everything was perfect man. It was like a MASH unit set up in there, in like a warehouse. We had ambulances lined up in rows and we were all waiting for that call to go down there to save some lives and that call never came. That was the most saddest thing about it, that with a job this size, this magnitude, I was saying to myself there is going to be numerous injured and we are going to have to really depend on our skills. Not a call..... waiting and waiting and waiting for patients. No show. It was like — I think that was the toughest thing, is that a job that magnitude you would expect thousands and thousands of patients. After the first wave, nothing. There were no survivors. -Michael Mejias FDNY EMT nytimes.com