Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Stupidity Theory Revisited


Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) , Add Tags  (less...)
Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 7   Must Read 6   Valuable 6  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 10/23/18

Author 12887
Become a Fan
  (15 fans)

From flickr.com: Look both ways when crossing {MID-320206}
Look both ways when crossing
(Image by CountyLemonade)
  Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -

In a recent article David Griffin asks how Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow, "a Rhodes scholar, who earned a Ph.D. at Oxford," could "have both written such poor essays about 9/11." Then he says:

In addition, there may be another fact: I was recently told by a man (whose name I cannot reveal) that we Truthers should not waste time trying to convince journalists: They know that 9/11 was an inside job and would have liked to report this fact, but the owners of the media forbid them from doing so.

In one of her comments on the article, Griffin's colleague Elizabeth Woodworth wrote:

Having watched the almost entirely consistent MSM news about 9/11 for more than 10 years, I have come to a logical conclusion.

- Advertisement -

The news people are not stupid. Many of them spontaneously observed the morning of 9/11 that the buildings looked like controlled demolition.

But then all that changed. And this has been no accident.

I have come to suspect that the news networks, and also influential people like Noam Chomsky, were visited by senior members of the intelligence agencies saying that to cast doubt on the official story of 9/11 would be a massive threat to national security. The networks and people such as Chomsky may even have been threatened with treason or something akin to it.

- Advertisement -

Whatever they did has worked very well.

Woodworth hits the nail on the head. I have been struggling with Noam Chomsky's views, first on JFK, then on 9/11, since 1989. (See here, here and here.) I corresponded with him over the course of almost six years (1989-95) about whether or not JFK had decided to pull out of Vietnam. I think I clearly won the argument, but you can judge for yourself as I have documented the correspondence in detail in my book Looking for the Enemy. Subsequent evidence, such as Robert McNamara's memoir, has confirmed my opinion, though Chomsky still disagrees (see here). Although Chomsky thanked me at the time for (indirectly) helping him get his thoughts together for the book he later published as Rethinking Camelot (1993), my arguments obviously made no dent in his thinking since they did not even merit a footnote.

This experience left me, it seemed, with two possible conclusions: either I was smarter than I thought, or Chomsky was dumber than I thought. Neither has held up over time, although the second possibility, after hearing his remarks on 9/11 (see here for a summary or just google "Chomsky 9/11"), seemed even more likely. Why would a man as smart as Chomsky say such stupid things? Denial, ignorance and/or stupidity just do not satisfy in Chomsky's case. Is his career at stake, as one might suspect of a working journalist like Maddow or Hayes? Hardly. He will be 90 in December. Is he concerned about his reputation, his "legacy"? Afraid that he will lose credibility and honor by aligning himself with "conspiracy theorists"? Possibly, but this is a man who has argued many an unpopular position, a man who is not afraid to call the US "the world's leading terrorist state" and to argue cogently and consistently over many decades to support this view. This makes him very different from someone like Maddow or Hayes.

Why, then, does he appear to be as stupid as they are about 9/11? We should bear in mind that although Chomsky makes a lot of the distinction between "conspiracy theory" and "institutional analysis" (see here), this is a false dichotomy. One could easily say that these events were "merely" ineluctable consequences of "the system." "Institutional" analysis does not preclude conspiracies. A conspiracy is by definition anything bad planned secretly by more than one person, which can include wars, "state terror," and all forms of oppression. Since all governments at least sometimes do these things, to that extent they could all be considered "conspiratorial."

What this false dichotomy really does is move the analysis to a level of abstraction where all the actors are seen as caught up in systemic or institutional processes in which their individual actions are relatively unimportant. This defangs the entire analysis on an emotional level, making it less volatile and less politically dangerous.

Why these two subjects, and as it would seem, only these? Because precisely the contrary of what Chomsky says about them is true: they are important, and what he says about them is also important. Just imagine the consequences of Noam Chomsky saying that 9/11 was an inside job. It wouldn't matter if this were part of an "institutional analysis" (which it easily could be) or not. The political effect of saying it either way would be the same.

- Advertisement -

I do not believe in what I have called Stupidity Theory. This is the theory according to which not only is Noam Chomsky too stupid to come to grips with the assassination of JFK and 9/11, but a succession of US governments were also too stupid to to do so, just as they were too stupid to realize that the Vietnam war was a bad idea, too stupid to know that the Gulf of Tonkin "attack" never happened, too stupid to defend the country against 19 box-cutter-wielding Arabs, too stupid to find out if Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction," etc. -- and now, bringing us up to the present, too stupid to prevent the Russians from controlling US elections.

In opposition to Stupidity Theory I propose Anti-Stupidity, or Transparency Theory. This is a very simple theory, in fact only common sense: Some things are just too stupid to believe. This means that something else, something that would be obvious if it were not for the stupid explanations to the contrary, is true. In Chomsky's case it is his seemingly brainless acceptance of the official account of the assassination and 9/11.

Vincent Salandria applied this notion, brilliantly and precociously, in 1971 to the JFK assassination. It is from him that I have the term "transparency" to refer to 9/11 because what Salandria said about the JFK assassination can be said in spades about 9/11: "If you are tempted to want to believe that our leaders are just ignorant and capable of unremitting blundering, I urge that you abandon any such illusion."

I don't think Chomsky is the smartest man in the world, and I also know that I am not smarter than he is. But I cannot bring myself to believe that he is on the government payroll or a deep-cover agent of some kind, either. I think he really is brilliant, well informed, and well intentioned, so there is another possibility. Maybe he is trying to tell us something, in code. Maybe he hopes that by saying what is too stupid to believe, we will be smart enough not to believe it.

(Article changed on October 23, 2018 at 09:54)

(Article changed on October 23, 2018 at 13:33)

(Article changed on October 24, 2018 at 10:43)

(Article changed on October 27, 2018 at 15:54)

 

- Advertisement -

Well Said 7   Must Read 6   Valuable 6  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Former teacher, born in the US but longtime resident of Germany. Author of "Looking for the Enemy," "The Transparent Conspiracy," et al.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

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

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

9/11 Aletheia

Was the Air Force One Flyover a Warning to Obama?

An Open Letter to Noam Chomsky and Paul Craig Roberts

A Psychiatrist Searches for Sanity in a Crazy World

Transparent Underpants: MITOP Again

9/11, Antisemitism and Denial

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article 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.

10 people are discussing this page, with 26 comments

Michael Morrissey

Become a Fan
Author 12887

(Member since Mar 8, 2008), 15 fans, 34 articles, 71 quicklinks, 2355 comments, 75 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I will anticipate a possible question here: If Big Brother is so powerful that he can silence people like Chomsky, why doesn't he just do away with him altogether?

Maintaining the illusion of a free society requires infiltration and control of all "extremist" groups, especially on the left. The history of this re labor unions and writers, is pretty well known (e.g., see here), and the logic is plain to see. In Chomsky's case, one could spell it out like this: "No one is more "radical" than Chomsky. If even he does not challenge the official stories of JFK and 9/11, then there is nothing to challenge." He is thus very useful.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:07:01 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
Indent

Michael Morrissey

Become a Fan
Author 12887

(Member since Mar 8, 2008), 15 fans, 34 articles, 71 quicklinks, 2355 comments, 75 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Michael Morrissey:   New Content

Of course Griffin's own Cognitive Dissonance (which does not mention Chomsky except in a footnote or two) is relevant here. The Sunstein plan would apply to many in the "truth movement" who are willing to get into the details, as Chomsky was willing to go into the details with me on the Vietnam withdrawal plan. In the case of 9/11 it must have been clear to him that this wouldn't work, and my (admittedly optimistic) point is that by the time of 9/11 he had decided to take another tack, i.e. by defying Big Brother in a way that would not be obvious -- except to those willing to give him credit for not being an idiot!

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:34:45 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
Indent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 21 fans, 3 articles, 16193 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Michael Morrissey:   New Content

And why does "Big Brother" need 9/11 ?

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:09:34 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Leslie Johnson

Become a Fan
Author 500983
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Dec 9, 2014), 17 fans, 12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1011 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content

For an undeclared war in Iraq, et al?

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:50:51 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

George King

Become a Fan
Author 95129

(Member since Aug 11, 2014), 16 fans, 19 articles, 2444 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content

"Seven nations in five years"?

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 8:19:20 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

BFalcon

Become a Fan
Author 28059

(Member since Dec 20, 2008), 21 fans, 3 articles, 16193 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to George King:   New Content

Then "Big Brother" is not that powerful if "he" needs our approval and votes.

Maybe he doesn't exist.

Submitted on Thursday, Oct 25, 2018 at 3:35:43 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndent

Leslie Johnson

Become a Fan
Author 500983
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Dec 9, 2014), 17 fans, 12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1011 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to BFalcon:   New Content

"Big Brother" does exist and no, he doesn't need our approval or votes..he'll 'win' by any means possible. I'm getting used to it....

Submitted on Sunday, Oct 28, 2018 at 3:48:21 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (2+)
Help
 

Michael Morrissey

Become a Fan
Author 12887

(Member since Mar 8, 2008), 15 fans, 34 articles, 71 quicklinks, 2355 comments, 75 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I've just corrected the last link to my article "MITOP and the Double Bind" (which is also a chapter in The Transparent Conspiracy). I'm in the process of migrating my classic Google site to the new one, which is not so easy.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:58:53 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Michael Morrissey

Become a Fan
Author 12887

(Member since Mar 8, 2008), 15 fans, 34 articles, 71 quicklinks, 2355 comments, 75 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

A friend who just read the article responds:

I found the article fascinating, but I don't think your conclusion is at all correct. I can't and I won't speculate on Chomsky's motives for not trumpeting the truth about 9/11 loud and clear, but if you watch his public videos and/or if you happen to know anyone who is a friend of his (as I do), I think you will have to conclude that he believes what he is saying. A lot of very smart people can be very blind about some things, for whatever reason.

I sure as hell don't believe that Chomsky is telling us anything in code. In my book, despite his many contributions to political discourse, I think he's ultimately a bum. His positions on JFK and 9/11 basically invalidate anything positive he has done: they have defanged any genuine critique.

I responded:

Thanks. I guess I'm clutching at a straw. On the bright(er) side, if my interpretation gives too much credit both to Chomsky and to his (presumed) handlers, that's good for us.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:44:36 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (3+)
Help
 

Leslie Johnson

Become a Fan
Author 500983
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Dec 9, 2014), 17 fans, 12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1011 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I'm a simpleton, apparently, as I firmly believe JFK assassination and the bombs in the Towers were nefariously planned and executed by our own criminal government. Plain and simple. There is not much that the US participates in worldwide that reflects any of its so-called values.


If John Lennon were alive, I'd vote for him. Any one else quoted for "Give Peace a Chance?

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:35:21 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (11+)
Help
 
Indent

Michael Morrissey

Become a Fan
Author 12887

(Member since Mar 8, 2008), 15 fans, 34 articles, 71 quicklinks, 2355 comments, 75 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Leslie Johnson:   New Content

I agree with you.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:37:18 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
Indent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 10 fans, 11 articles, 21 quicklinks, 1435 comments, 27 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Leslie Johnson:   New Content

Very interesting article. I will have to get back to it after I wake up.

Leslie, plain and simple I am a simpleton too. Most in this country are very good at Simon Says.

Simon Says think and do what Simon Says and that is what they think and do. Leslie, you and I and you know who else too, were knocked out of the game Simon Says a long time ago. We just couldn't get the hang of doing and thinking what Simon said because we could tell that Simon was full of BS. So let's raise a glass to the BS of the past and sing the song "give the people what they want" ... as the ship is going down. The you know who else too will be there too, so we also have to sing about a phenomenal, phenomenal cat...

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:16:32 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Janet Supriano

Become a Fan
Author 90270

(Member since Oct 7, 2013), 11 fans, 1404 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Well, Hot Damn, ya'll ... and we shall be the Simpletons Three! Or the very, very cute Three Blind Mice; take your pick, but and we should watch out for our tails. hahaha! Not blind at all, nor simple.

Chomsky knows many people have figured out these events, and many more...and there's not a doggone thing we can do about it. Why in the world would anyone ask him to be the people's CIA martyr? Given his life's work, I'd say Chomsky remains a pretty phenomenal cat.

Maddow and Hayes, not so much, but the money is good.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:07:29 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Janet Supriano

Become a Fan
Author 90270

(Member since Oct 7, 2013), 11 fans, 1404 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

Brilliant comment, by the way, David. Happy to raise a glass with you.

As our old buddy Ken J. recently said in an e-mail, "We, who are not easily brainwashed are already on a list." Along with planetary demise, the ship is surely on choppy seas.

Hell, let's raise 2 glasses and find out just how crazy we can be. Always thought Simon Says was a stupid game. But I never liked Dodge Ball much, either. :)

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:51:54 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 10 fans, 11 articles, 21 quicklinks, 1435 comments, 27 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Janet Supriano:   New Content

Ha! Don't think I have thought about dodge ball since grade school.

Question is why do they have a list that I am sure they checked twice? It upsets my stomach to think this but I think it may well be of people they plan to roundup in barrels of glychosphate -- or however you spell it. The roundup would begin when the next manufactered crisis that creates their excuse to institute martial law, happens. If they don't dunk us in Roundup maybe they will put us in those empty detention centers I have heard about. If they did build them it would be a waste of money not to use them. But a waste of money has not stopped them before; especially when the waste of money becomes someone else's profit; like a corporation's profit.

Janet, could you let me know if I violated any rules of grammar in that last sentence where I used two semicolons? This is just between you and me so please don't let anyone else know. :)

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:42:31 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Joe Giambrone

Become a Fan
Author 43658
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Jan 13, 2010), 28 fans, 109 articles, 42 quicklinks, 912 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Leslie Johnson:   New Content

"bombs in the Towers were nefariously planned and executed by our own criminal government"

No. That's just speculation. Americans couldn't be recruited to do that. They were foreigners, most likely, from a favorite "ally" with a record of attacking American interests for their own gain.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:55:54 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndent

Leslie Johnson

Become a Fan
Author 500983
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Dec 9, 2014), 17 fans, 12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1011 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Joe Giambrone:   New Content

Whoever they were, and sure they could have been foreigners, it could not have happened without our 'allowing it', either tacitly or actively. Many CEO's in the Towers did not show up for work that day. The activity on Wall Street days before was loaded with put options on the Airlines' stocks and a ton of money was made. The US was actively or passively involved. I will refrain from naming who I believe is the favorite "ally".

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:02:42 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (4+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 10 fans, 11 articles, 21 quicklinks, 1435 comments, 27 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Leslie Johnson:   New Content

There is no way "outsiders" by themselves could possibly have gotten extended access to the buildings to plant all the explosives which caused the explosions that controllably demolished all three buildings without "insiders" also being involved. I posted this in a comment a couple of days ago in the article by David Ray Griffin. But this is from an article I wrote here at opednews and it has a couple of additions to the comment I posted on DRG's article.

OpEdNews
Copyrighted Image? DMCA

OpEdNews

Search OpEdNews
Copyrighted Image? DMCA

Most Popular on OpEdNews
Copyrighted Image? DMCA

Login to OpEdNews
Copyrighted Image? DMCA

Share on Google Plus
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Share on Twitter
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Share on Facebook
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Share on LinkedIn
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Share on PInterest
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Share on Fark!
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Share on Reddit
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Share on StumbleUpon
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Tell A Friend
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
1 (1 Shares)
Printer Friendly Page
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Save As Favorite
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
View Favorites
Copyrighted Image? DMCA

(1257 views) 36 comments


Copyrighted Image? DMCA

Copyrighted Image? DMCA

From commons.wikimedia.org: File:False Flag (variation on the flag of the United States).svg
File:False Flag (variation on the flag of the United States).svg ...1024 -- 539 - 33k - png
(Image by commons.wikimedia.org)
Permission Details DMCA

File:False Flag (variation on the flag of the United States).svg ...1024 --- 539 - 33k - png
(Image by commons.wikimedia.org)
Permission Details DMCA



I think this proof is dead solid and it is so simple. My thinking is most people are never going to believe the truth even when presented with so very many things that make it so obvious that the official story is absolutely not true. Bottom line, we can throw everything else aside and if the proof cannot be disproved -- and I say it can't be and it hasn't been -- then in such a simple way it presents an absolute proof that cannot be denied even forgetting everything else. Forget the explosions, the squibs, and whatever, the proof relies on none of that. It is based on ONE thing that is proven by observation. You have videos and you can time the fall of the roofline for a measured distance giving the rate of fall at free fall acceleration: 9.8 m/s/s. Even NIST realized they could not keep denying it. Combine that with the intuitively obvious, that even NIST admits it understands, a building CAN'T fall at FREE FALL acceleration if there is ANY structural resistance! So throw everything else away and let the deniers argue with ... Isaac Newton!

Isaac Newton would have been a 9/11 truther!



This very short, very simple proof that can be READ AND UNDERTOOD IN ONLY A FEW SECONDS(!!) is ALL that is required to prove 9/11 was an inside job/false flag event. I say it is absolutely solid and cannot be disproved. I have yet to find anyone that can disprove it. If anyone thinks it can be disproved, show me how.

The proof shows logically that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. I finished by tying the collapse of WTC7 together with the other events of 9/11 to prove 9/11 was an inside job/false flag event.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the governmental agency that "studied" the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC7). They produced their unscientific final report in 2008 after trying for six years to figure out a way to explain away the virtually perfect symmetrical collapse of WTC7 into its own footprint. Their "investigation" was unscientific. They did not take into account the evidence pointing directly to the collapse being a controlled demolition. If they had, it would have been a short investigation leading to the correct conclusion.

The short, simple proof that 9/11 was an inside job / false flag attack goes like this:

I. Given that a crumpling or naturally collapsing building absorbs energy making free fall impossible(David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth);

II. And Given that NIST agrees: Free fall is impossible in a building crumpling or collapsing naturally due to structural resistance (Shyam Sunder, NIST);

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance for a building to free fall.

IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall;

V. And Given that the only way free fall can occur is to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

VI. Therefore, the free falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

(The following follows logically from the above):

Given that it takes at least weeks to plan and prepare a building like WTC7 for a controlled demolition; and given that there is no reason to believe anyone other than "insiders" could have carried out the advanced preparation and actual execution of the controlled demolition of the secure WTC7 ("CIA Building"); therefore the controlled demolition of WTC7 was carried out by "insiders."

Given that WTC7 was brought down on 9/11; and given that there could be no reason to demolish WTC7 other than to be included with the other events on 9/11; therefore, "insiders" also planned and executed the other events on 9/11, i.e., 9/11 was an inside job/false flag event.

Q.E.D.

Note: I came up with nothing new. David Chandler and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have been saying the same thing for a long time. I simply reduced it all to the shortest and simplest form to be given to anyone. No need to debate or argue with anyone about all of the many other things that show the official story to be absolutely ludicrous. Just give them the proof and say, disprove it. And even if you do not know anything about 9/11, you can still say to anyone that you have the proof 9/11 was an inside job/false flag event...

(I invite anyone to try to disprove this -- perhaps I do not know what I am talking about. And please, if anyone knows how I could better write the proof, please let me know.)

(Article changed on April 11, 2018 at 21:45)

opednews.com

I'm a dull and simple lad Cannot tell water from champagne

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

Writers Guidelines
Copyrighted Image? DMCA

Contact Author
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Contact Author Contact Editor
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
Contact Editor Author Page
Copyrighted Image? DMCA
View Authors' Articles

Related Topic(s): 9 11 Coverups; 9 11 Lies; 9 11 Truth; 9 11 WTC Attack; False Flag; False Flag Attacks; Wtc 7, AddTags

Comments

Click Here to View Comments or Join the Conversation


Copyright 2002-2018, OpEdNews

Powered by Populum

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:15:14 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (1+)
Help
 
IndentIndentIndentIndent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 10 fans, 11 articles, 21 quicklinks, 1435 comments, 27 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to David Watts:   New Content

I meant to have my above comment be a reply to Joe. But Leslie, it is okay if you read it too.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:51:25 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Chuck Nafziger

Become a Fan
Author 24101

(Member since Oct 12, 2008), 15 fans, 6 articles, 10 quicklinks, 1691 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

I like this cat when I desire truth and reality.
Copyrighted Image? DMCA

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:30:08 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
Indent

Janet Supriano

Become a Fan
Author 90270

(Member since Oct 7, 2013), 11 fans, 1404 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Chuck Nafziger:   New Content

I have days like this once in awhile myself. LOL :)

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:42:40 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (3+)
Help
 

Joe Giambrone

Become a Fan
Author 43658
Follow Me on Twitter
(Member since Jan 13, 2010), 28 fans, 109 articles, 42 quicklinks, 912 comments, 1 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content
Noam Chomsky & the War on Straight Answers


A multi-part series that, I believe, OpEdNews refused to run at the time.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:53:34 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (2+)
Help
 
Indent

Michael Morrissey

Become a Fan
Author 12887

(Member since Mar 8, 2008), 15 fans, 34 articles, 71 quicklinks, 2355 comments, 75 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to Joe Giambrone:   New Content

Thanks, Joe. This is thorough coverage of NC's pronouncements on 9/11. I should have linked to it in the article. I don't know if you agree or not with the speculation I've made -- and I'm not sure myself (note that I did say "may be") -- but it's fine with me if I'm wrong about both NC and Big Brother since what I am suggesting, if true, makes them a lot more clever and even more insidious (if that is possible) than many think.

Incidentally, I sent a link to my article via OEN to NC, and he responded "Thanks. Lots of weird types around." I don't think he realized that the sender of the email was also the author of the article!

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 8:31:39 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (1+)
Help
 

John Hermann

Become a Fan
Author 56748

(Member since Dec 3, 2010), 34 comments


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


  New Content

Even the most brilliant academics and commentators have blind spots in their understanding of historical events. As I understand it, Chomsky has not had any training in the physical sciences or engineering, and therefore has no incentive to attempt to read or interpret the scientific papers and informed reports which investigate and analyse the 9/11 events. He has also made the naive claim that no peer-reviewed literature has appeared on the topic. He would do well to read the following article dealing with peer review for controversial topics - with 9/11 as a particular case study:

.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/htm

Rather ironically, there was no peer review of the official NIST reports on the WTC events. Dr. James G. Quintiere, fire protection expert, stated (inter alia): "They had a[n] Advisory Committee, and even some of them did not agree with the NIST work and conclusions ... I would recommend that all records of the investigation be archived, that the NIST study be subject to a peer review, and that consideration be given to reopening this investigation to assure no lost fire safety issues."

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 3:34:04 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (3+)
Help
 
Indent

David Watts

Become a Fan
Author 10429

(Member since Jan 31, 2008), 10 fans, 11 articles, 21 quicklinks, 1435 comments, 27 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to John Hermann:   New Content

John, could you peer review my short simple proof I posted in a comment just a few comments above? If you do, thanks.

Submitted on Wednesday, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:41:40 PM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Patricia 0rmsby

Become a Fan
Author 11383

(Member since Feb 14, 2008), 3 fans, 7 articles, 6 quicklinks, 692 comments, 3 diaries


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Reply to John Hermann:   New Content

It would be late, and too late for a lot of innocent victims, but some things are ultimately never too late.

Submitted on Tuesday, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:03:42 AM

Share Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help