12-08-2010, 05:12 PM
Controlled Demolition as a Limited Hangout
Oct. 1, 2009
I have been saying this for several years (most recently in "9/11 Aletheia"),
and the recent articles by Kevin Ryan144 support my point. As I wrote in
2006145:
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.
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
paper146 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.147)
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,
144 See http://www.911truth.org/article.php?stor...3033854249 and
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?stor...3150853871.
145 See "The Onion Peeled," in this volume.
146 See http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveT...erial.html.
147 See "9/11 Aletheia," in this volume.
The Transparent Conspiracy
127
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 U.S.
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.148 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
148 See http://stj911.org/press_releases/Misrepresentation.html.
The Transparent Conspiracy
128
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 Truth149
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
site150 – or Jim Hoffman's site(s),151 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,
would have to 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.
149 See http://pilotsfor911truth.org/.
150 See http://stj911.org/.
151 See http://911research.wtc7.net/.
The Transparent Conspiracy
129
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 at STJ911.org 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.
Oct. 1, 2009
I have been saying this for several years (most recently in "9/11 Aletheia"),
and the recent articles by Kevin Ryan144 support my point. As I wrote in
2006145:
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.
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
paper146 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.147)
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,
144 See http://www.911truth.org/article.php?stor...3033854249 and
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?stor...3150853871.
145 See "The Onion Peeled," in this volume.
146 See http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveT...erial.html.
147 See "9/11 Aletheia," in this volume.
The Transparent Conspiracy
127
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 U.S.
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.148 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
148 See http://stj911.org/press_releases/Misrepresentation.html.
The Transparent Conspiracy
128
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 Truth149
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
site150 – or Jim Hoffman's site(s),151 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,
would have to 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.
149 See http://pilotsfor911truth.org/.
150 See http://stj911.org/.
151 See http://911research.wtc7.net/.
The Transparent Conspiracy
129
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 at STJ911.org 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.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass