27-03-2013, 02:36 PM
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I am not guiltless on this. I openly admit [as I have before], that I believe Orling is either cognitively impaired or complicit in disinformation on 911 and have, at times, confronted him on it - but often just grit my teeth and tell myself, 'Let others say so also, if they see and agree with that'; I should try to refrain being a one man 'Jury'. .... 911 and many other Deep Political events is of great value, and IMHO would be a sad and huge loss for this Forum if forever more absent. My threepence.
Yours truly is hardly cognitively impaired. But I suppose that would depend on what definition of cognitive impairment is.
The charge of disinformation re 9/11 carries with it the implication that conveying false and misleading information is the intent and likely done at the behest of a *handler* or some group espousing an ideology which has no interest in facts and whose main function is to support false narratives. I certainly am not functioning on behalf of any group and my only ideology is concerned with a correct and accurate rendition of what happened to the WTC towers.
I have consistently maintained the the state has created a false narrative in service to the agenda of the MIC and the *empire*. This false narrative was made possible by the official technical reports and the (coverup) 911 Commission... which played an analogous role to the Warren Commission in the JFK assassination. In both cases we have flawed reports which do not tell what actually happened. In both cases there was no change of the powers that be. In both cases there was a ramp up of fascism and the powers of capital and the empire.
I joined DP to provide some modicum of technical expertise about the structures and how they can collapse as they did. My first participation and in fact most of it was on the Where did the Towers Go thread started I believe by Fetzer. Fetzer appears to me to not have a clue about the engineering issues or more than a very casual and limited understanding of physics. Like many who participate in the 9/11 debate Fetzer is a parrot repeating what his chosen experts have to say. He can't argue the facts and so resorts to the appeal to authority argument... and his experts such as Boldwyn happen to have made significant mistakes. Judy Wood, likewise has made many key mistakes.
We all make mistakes. Very few in the debate have done research involving data derived from the events. We've been witness to all sorts of theoretical models based on the researcher's assumptions. These are exercises in GIGO - garbage in equals garbage out.
Much of the deep political frame for 9/11 seems to hinge on the inside job... sponsors ordered it, managers organized it and mechanics carried it out. It a frame which can be imposed on any event.. someone wanted it to happen, someone organized it and someone carried it out.
The notion that the state was responsible for allowing 9/11 to develop and occur, perhaps as was the case with Pearl Harbor is an important comparison to make. Did FDR go through back channels to the Emperor to have Pearl Harbor attacked? Was part of that plan to leave the fleet vulnerable? Or perhaps the fleet wasn't vulnerable but the admirals were not vigilant enough or paranoid and distrusting of Japan? Or perhaps the generals wanted an excuse to enter the war and dropped their guard to facilitate the attack? One can come up with all manner of scenarios to explain what took place and why. What is clear is the response to the attack was predictable. And this would happen today if an attack on the US took place... What other response might one predict from the US and it's pentagon and national security state?
Chomsky makes this point on how 9/11 was manna from heaven for every state which plays the terrorism card to grab more power... and use that power to advance their goals. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo)
I would argue that there was no need to actually DESTROY the WTC... to produce the response of the MIC/or (deep) state... Hijacked planes hitting targets would produce the cassus bellicus for the response. Obviously more destruction would have a more profound effect. But it's hard to argue that the response would have been different if the WTC was not destroyed.
So in a very real sense those arguing for CD are serving the needs of the deep state, TPTB... by arguing about details when the problem was the exisitng militarism and the imperialism of the state. The CD debate is a distraction from the much more fundamental problem... that our nation has been arguably run by the MIC since WWII. And their power has had a steady trajectory of increasing strength, corruption and control.