Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   22 comments

Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

Controlled Demolition as a Limited Hangout

By (about the author)     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group

Must Read 3   Well Said 1   News 1   View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Become a Fan
  (8 fans)
Riding off with Kevin Ryan into all directions.

::::::::

I have been saying this for several years (most recently in "9/11 Aletheia"), and the recent articles by Kevin Ryan (here and here) support my point. As I wrote in 2006 (published in 911blogger.com and elsewhere):

The first devastating rift in the [9/11 truth]movement came over the Pentagon attack. Some claim the plane had to be a smaller one, but was still a plane; others say it was a cruise missile or a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, such as the Global Hawk). Those who agreed on controlled demolition of the WTC concentrated on their differences, with the more conservative group taking it upon itself to "debunk" the more speculative groups, thus doing the government's job, but with the justification that they were actually fending off a government set-up, a trap, which would be sprung at some point in the future when the government releases the videos of the Pentagon hit, of which there seem to be about a dozen. "Aha," the government will say, "you see your theories about no-planes are wrong and ridiculous. We can see that now because we can see the plane in the Pentagon videos--just like we saw the planes in the WTC videos." This, fear the conservatives, would be a deadly blow to the truth movement in general.

Others argue that this conservative approach is really cointelpro strategy to prevent people from accepting the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon, because once they do that, the government is definitely exposed. If forced to, if there is enough public pressure, the government might admit that those clever A-rabs must indeed have planted explosives, and then try to explain how they could do that with the security of the buildings guaranteed by none other than the president's little brother Marvin. That in any case would be easier to explain, or stall on, than the Pentagon story, because nobody is going to believe that bin Laden's 19 Arabs shot a missile or a UAV into the Pentagon, or that anybody could do that except the US military itself. Thus one can argue that it is in the interest of Big Brother to limit the discussion to the question of controlled demolition at the WTC.

We may have seen some evidence of this limited hang-out beginning to happen, when Bush make the remark recently about "explosives" at the WTC, although this may have been a mere slip of the tongue. Despite the internal bickering, the truth movement, merely by growing, has become united and more threatening, I think, on the issue of controlled demolition, which is easily expressed and which hardly anyone in Time's world no. 2 (or 3) [see A Reply to Time] disagrees with. This could lead to real empowerment, if people had the will and ability to build a political movement on the basis of what they agree on instead of fighting like Kilkenny cats.

Now, three years later, when everybody who is ever going to believe it (unless they hear it on Fox News) does believe it, thanks to the long-awaited and highly touted scientific proof of explosives at the WTC provided by the paper published by Jones et al. last April (one of whose authors was Kevin Ryan), the limited hangout can begin it's second phase. I am not saying that Jones or Ryan are government agents. I am saying they have been dealing with what Michael Green calls a tar baby -- although he misidentifies it. (Green is one of those who most vociferously argue that "no plane [at least, no 757] hit the Pentagon" is the tar baby; see "9/11 Aletheia.")

I have not heard a single report of anyone being persuaded by the "definitive" thermite paper who was not already persuaded that the Towers came down by controlled demolition. It has made zero impact on the "scientific community," the government, and on the public at large, which should in itself validate my argument that "truthers" who insist on limiting discussion to this one -- most obvious, to anyone who sees the WTC videos and has also seen videos of controlled demolitions -- aspect of 9/11 are serving the interest of Big Brother.

What the thermite paper does seem to have signalled is the end of the "research" phase regarding explosives and the beginning of the "forensic" phase. Ryan provides us with enough suspects for placing the explosives in the Towers to keep "independent researchers" busy for many years. Let me list them, in the order they appear in the first two parts of his article (a third is yet to come) to make the point:

Al-Qaeda operative Ramzi Yousef, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Marsh & McLennan, Baseline Financial Services, First Commercial Bank, Fuji Bank, Mizuho Holdings, Deutsche Bank, AON Corporation, Chuo Trust, Washington Group International, Primark Corporation, Bankers Trust, Exco Resources, Oppenheimer & Co., Morrison-Knudsen, Komatsu, Aoki Construction, Special Devices Inc., In-Q-Tel, TASC, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Halliburton, SAIC, Dresser Industries (now Halliburton, UBS, BCCI

and this is only from Part 1 -- "approximately fifty people ... and their possible links to explosive technology and expertise," as Ryan begins Part 2. In Part 2 he adds Kroll Inc., Electronic Systems Associates, E.J. Electric Installation, Ensec International, Securacom Inc., Silverstein Properties, and a bunch of other names of people who, he summarizes, "were deceptive and/or corrupt, and appeared to have benefited from the attacks," who "were connected to each other and to the investigations into previous acts of terrorism and the terrorist financing bank BCCI," who "did major work for the Saudi Arabian government, or the royal family of Kuwait," or whose history "shows a level of greed and corruption that overshadowed all preconceptions about US politics."

I have not read the article carefully, I confess, because the tar is sticking to my fingers, and my point here is not to question the accuracy of Ryan's research -- nor, in fact, the value of it, for those who want to continue dealing with the tar baby. There is obviously plenty more work to do, and it is equally obvious, I think, that it will lead everywhere and nowhere. I would feel sorry for Ryan, who like Stephen Leacock's comic hero Lord Roland now wants to fling himself upon his horse and ride madly off in all directions, except that his previous behavior does not exactly qualify him as a naif. He joined in the denunciation of the 2008 effort by Joel Hirschhorn et al. to get Congress to look at aspects of 9/11 that (in Ryan's view) are "poorly defined, and highly implausible" because it "minimizes the chances that Congress would be willing or able to investigate the actual evidence for the demolition of three WTC buildings."

It could be that Ryan et al. have actually increased the possibility that Congress will investigate "the actual evidence for the demolition," and if and when that evidence is officially acknowledged, the door will be open, presumably, to further investigations of how the explosives got into the Towers. Enter Ryan's current foray into the murky networks of corporate and state intelligence networks. Imagine how long it will take Congress, comprised of people who are themselves hugely involved in such networks, to become "willing or able to investigate" any of this! If they will not take his physics seriously, how can he expect them to take his detective work about possible sinister connections among dozens of companies and individuals seriously? Or more to the point, why does he feel it preferable to point in this direction rather than to the further investigation of the physical evidence regarding many aspects of 9/11 other than controlled demolition?

For example, just to mention one such aspect, Pilots for 9/11 Truth have just produced a video full of technical data that proves that either the data supplied by the NTSB regarding the speed and trajectory of the airplanes that supposedly crashed into the WTC is false, in which case, the narrator says, no one should set foot in an airplane again, or whatever hit the buildings was not a "stock, airline fleet, Boeing 767." Previous videos have said the same about Flight 77 that supposedly hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 that supposedly crashed in Shanksville (both 757s). This is hard, technical data that is at least as compelling as the evidence for explosives adduced by Ryan et al., and yet you can search in vain on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice site -- or Jim Hoffman's site(s), to which STJ911 frequently links -- for any sign that people who challenge the government line on Flights 77 and 93 (except for the possibility that it may have been shot down) are anything but "disinformation agents."

The latter, it should be said, though it seems to be a well-kept secret, include David Ray Griffin, who has consistently presented evidence demonstrating the falsity of the official story of Flights 77 and 93, as well as 11 and 175. Griffin is far and away the most popular 9/11 "truther," and has been careful (and wise) to avoid the internecine squabbles among fellow truthers, but he presents a plethora of evidence about much more than controlled demolition that, if it came from anyone else, I am certain Hoffman and the Jones Boys (STJ911.org, whose spokesman is however a Girl named Victoria Ashley, who is close to Hoffman) would also denounce as "disinformation."

The Pilots are a conservative group, too, but they are not blind. Their data, at the very least, proves the official story of what happened on 9/11 with regard to all four planes is false. They try hard not to speculate, but what they are saying is that no 757s or 767s (at least, they will add, no unmodified planes, meaning no commerical jetliners) crashed on 9/11. This is the rocket science, for me -- at least, airplane science -- but the further conclusions based on this are not, even though the pilots refrain from saying them out loud. The planes were supposed to be ordinary jetliners. That is the official story. If they were not ordinary jetliners, not only is the official story false, but all of the questions about what really happened on 9/11 scream out at us for answers. We are at one fell swoop far beyond the question of demolition and the hopeless morass of the question of who put the explosives in the buildings.

This is true of many other aspects of 9/11, which as I say David Griffin and others have consistently presented but which Kevin Ryan and his associates have consistently refused to deal with and aggressively demonized. (My reward for objecting to this patently unscientific behavior was to be thrown out of the organization.) Instead of chalking up the "proof" of thermite in the WTC dust as a (modest) victory and going on to more interesting questions, such as the questions the Pilots have taken on, questions which are much more likely to show the hand of the military in the events of 9/11, Ryan et al. want us to ride off madly in all directions after the bad guys he has discovered at the WTC, who are at the most small fry in the context of what happened on 9/11. Well, thanks, but no thanks.


 

http://www.mdmorrissey.info

Born in Washington, D.C., academic training (Ph.D.) in linguistics, now retired after teaching English as a foreign language at a German university for many years, but still living in Germany.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this diary has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
3 people are discussing this page, with 22 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Dr. Morrissey, I thank you for bringing an open-mi... by Brian Good on Monday, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:59:44 PM
I asked Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth if he... by Michael David Morrissey on Monday, Oct 5, 2009 at 8:31:03 PM
Rob Balsamo's interview with John Lear (son of Bob... by Michael David Morrissey on Monday, Oct 5, 2009 at 8:37:23 PM
No, the video Rob is referring to is a more recent... by Michael David Morrissey on Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:58:26 AM
Banned, and many of his posts were deleted. My rec... by Brian Good on Monday, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:01:43 PM
Again I asked Rob if he wanted to reply, and his r... by Michael David Morrissey on Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:01:50 AM
Mr. Balsamo fails to substantiate his claim that I... by Brian Good on Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:47:30 AM
Rob wrote (6. Oktober 2009 10:44:56 MESZ):Keep in ... by Michael David Morrissey on Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:10:30 AM
He doesn't answer them at the Ranke thread, and he... by Brian Good on Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:02:52 PM
I'll ask Rob if he wants to reply to this. On the ... by Michael David Morrissey on Tuesday, Oct 6, 2009 at 1:15:11 PM
Brian Good wrote:A poster in a another forum point... by Michael Wells on Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:05:22 PM
Michael, would you argue that a David Duke should ... by Brian Good on Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009 at 4:39:42 PM
Ranke and Balsamo are just warming up a pot of rot... by Brian Good on Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:03:49 PM
NEITHER DOES CIT for that matter. This is the bigg... by Michael Wells on Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:33:32 PM
You are assuming that if some of the damage was f... by Brian Good on Thursday, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:58:19 AM
Brian Good's quotes in italics:--You are assuming ... by Michael Wells on Thursday, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:21:06 AM
Michael, you're being misled by sleight of hand. "... by Brian Good on Thursday, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:47:32 PM
You and I are wasting our time, everybody who read... by Brian Good on Thursday, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:57:11 PM
Let me answer a question that someone posed to me ... by Michael David Morrissey on Monday, Oct 5, 2009 at 8:45:47 PM
Michael,Since I am the author of the above quoted ... by Michael Wells on Wednesday, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:54:13 PM
I urge everyone reading this to read Michael Wells... by Michael David Morrissey on Thursday, Oct 8, 2009 at 3:09:51 AM
A reader points out to me that much of Ryan's data... by Michael David Morrissey on Friday, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:59:46 AM