Fig.1 Above a revealing still frame from the movie "September Clues". Question: how could all 5 mainstream US TV stations apparently use the exact same camera line- of-sight at the exact same time on the morning of 9/11? For answers, watch the full movie here, or here.[Youtube]
At Jim Fetzers blogsite I recently came across a "9/11 truth" article by former pilot John Lear [ now involved with the 9/11 truth group called "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" ] , that he [Fetzer] had re-posted from another site, entitled :
Early on in his re-posted article Mr. Lear states :
"....No Boeing 767 airlines hit either of the Twin Towers, as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. All of the “evidence” to that effect, including video depictions, has been fabricated and can be forensically challenged......"
Let me repeat part of that statement [ in edited form for emphasis] :
"....All of the “evidence” to that effect, including video depictions, has been fabricated and can be forensically challenged......"
Veeeeeeery Interesting.....
This re-posting of Mr. Lear's article on Mr Fetzer's very own blog is very "interesting", to myself at least.
Let me explain.
Three [or more?] years ago I appeared 3 times on Mr Fetzer's radio show making the exact same claim; specifically that, to put it in Mr Lear's words yet again :
" ....All of the “evidence”.......including video depictions, has been fabricated and can be forensically challenged."
So Mr Fetzer now publishes the thoughts of this person who has now made the exact same claims as myself and others, who have been saying the exact same thing since around 2007-8, and who were then publicly ridiculed by Mr Fetzer in various articles and blog posts [ some of which archived here at the "Fakeologist" site ]?
Wh- wh-wh-wh- Whaaaaat?
Some Questions:
What exactly is going on here?
Does this mean that Mr Fetzer now believes what Mr Lear has, like myself, stated, i.e.:
" ....All of the “evidence”.... including video depictions, has been fabricated and can be forensically challenged." ?
Does this further mean that Mr Fetzer has had a change of heart and has now decided to "cease and desist" with the silly, childish name-calling that he publicly dished out towards myself, Simon Shack and others at his own blog and in his various "Veterans Today" articles [now deleted from the VT site]?
Or is this just some type of mental, or "technical" aberration/oversight on Mr Fetzer's part? Hmmm?
Or, perhaps Mr Lear did not really mean what he clearly implied in his article [i.e. that all video "evidence" of planes hitting buildings was fabricated] ?
I/we await with baited breath for some clear, straight answers to these interesting questions , although I expect that none will be forthcoming :-)
The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus Simple, Common Sense Logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUqqdoup6fU
Fig.1:A short clip taken from the Fox Networks original, on-line archive showing flight 175 striking WTC2.[ Question, dear reader: does anything in this sequence - foreground, background, tower images, smoke, plane image, explosion - actually look genuine to you?]
An Important Question For You, Dear Reader - assuming you are even interested in 9/11 "truth"- if not, stop reading right about now!
...on the other hand, if you carry on reading, and ultimately agree with my main point, then you will be light years ahead of 99% of the so-called "9/11 truth movement" :-) . Important Question:Is any part of the original, on-line, archived,"live" 9/11 footage of the 5 major US TV networks, all 102 minutes of it, to be trusted [for example, the short Fox sequence seen above]? I'll try to answer that question for you a bit later on. But first, in light of that question, a very important fact to consider that you might not be aware of.
A Very Inconvenient,Very Important, Very Ignored 9/11 Fact: Fact: There Are Two Distinct Classes of 9/11 Imagery: Specifically:
Class [1] The original "live" US mainstream media broadcasts of the morning of September 11th 2001[ i.e ABC, CNN,CBS, Fox, NBC] , as archived on line since 2003*, plus maybe similar overseas so-called "live" broadcasts [for example, the BBC].
For example :
From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkp9AAhS6Ls Fig. 2, above: an example of Class [1] imagery. A still frame from a video depicting the collapse of WTC2, as allegedly recorded live by the only U.S. station to record the event "live" in its entirety, N.B.C., on what was, presumably, one of the "best in world" most sophisticated and advanced [and expensive!] TV cameras. [How's that for clarity/resolution/definition ? ].
Fig.3: another example of Class [1] imagery. A still shot taken from the video of the collapse of WTC1, as allegedly recorded "live" on the only U.S. channel to carry the event 'live" in its entirety, C.N.N., on what were at the time presumably the worlds most advanced/ expensive/best T.V. cameras. [How's that for clarity/resolution/definition ? ].
Class [2] Everything else.
That is: any and all "after the fact", never broadcast "live" when the event[s] allegedly happened on TV, videos, and "after the fact" published photos; whether or not these are from "amateur" or professional sources, including all not- originally "live", shown later, mainstream media video footage that was somehow altered [i.e. it was/is different from the original "live"broadcast by the same channel - which essentially makes it edited, "re-cap", "earlier today"- type of network footage].
Whether it be none-network footage or photos, or "professional, US network" re-edited, "re-cap", footage that was never actually broadcast "live" at the actual times of any of the 3 events earlier that day, no matter, there are literally 100's, and possibly 1000's of examples of this very broad, second class of 9/11 imagery.
For example:
Fig.4.: An example of Class [2] imagery. A still photo of the collapse of WTC1 that was [somehow] not published until 2007 [in the Far East, of all places]. Note the dramatic increase in overall clarity vis a vis both of the class[1] images presumably taken with the worlds best network video cameras that proceed it here. N.B. This photo,and others like it, with no easily provable provenance, [unlike the U.S. 5 network records, which are all archived on line], is frequently used to "prove" that the WTC towers were demolished, top down, with either "mini-nukes", or supposed "direct energy weapons".
Why is this "there are two classes of 9/11 imagery" fact important?
Because, the fact of the matter is that all of the class [1] original, archived, U.S. M.S.M. imagery that was actually broadcast "live" at the exact times of the alleged 3 events [i.e. 1 x plane crash, 2 x tower "collapses"] that they all captured that day, came to us first and allegedly"live" on TV, that is: before any of the class [2] imagery existed or was published, so it must always take precedence as the historical record of 9/11 [ I would think].
It must, therefor, naturally take precedence over any/all [class [2]] imagery for close study, assumingan individual is genuinely interested in trying to determine what did/did not happen on 9/11.
After all, proof of origin and authorship of everything in the class [1] imagery class has never been in serious dispute - it is all still online now [2017], and has been online since 2003, so obviously all 5 US networks, to this day, stand by their own archived historical records as being accurate footage capturing the "live" events of the morning 09/11/01.
Conversely, outside of the networks very own "earlier today" type re-cap footage, [which,as I said, invariably differs considerably from what any one network actually broadcast "live" that morning], authenticity and authorship of most of the 1000's of "after the fact" photos and videos in class [2] above can never even be satisfactorily verified without a lot of time-consuming and fruitless deep detective work.
Back To The Important Question Previously Asked: Question asked again: "Is any part of the original, on-line, archived,"live" 9/11 footage of the 5 major US TV networks, all 102 minutes of it, to be trusted?"
Answer [via a question]: "Is any part of the original archived on-line US network
footage of the 3 events that all 5 stations allegedly broadcast "live" that day [1x plane strike, 2 x tower collapses], provably fraudulent?"
I believe so. Consider this :
Blog entry update! 06/03/19 : Youtube has somehow disabled my ability to embed any version the original video I wanted to post in this blog [ which should tell you something :-) ] so I will just post the links to 4 versions that I have found on line. Hopefully, at least 1 of the 4 links will work for the reader :
Above, 4 alternative links to Simon Shacks original, now banned, study of the Fox TV's alleged live broadcast of Fl.175's impact on WTC2. That is, a close, frame by frame analysis of the same Fox 5 , class [1]on-line archived footage shown at the top of this page [fig.1], revealing the original on-line archive content to be fraudulent [ i.e. wholly pre-fabricated ] imagery. And Now-Time For a Little Simple, Applied, Logic! :
Which means, again by logical extension, that all class [2], not- "originally "live" broadcast network sequences", plus all still photos, regardless of source, showing the same alleged event must also be fabrications.
Furthermore, if we assume that all 5 networks "live" Fl. 175 crash into WTC2 footage was/is fake, then, by further logical extension, it should mean [for the honest researcher], that every other part of those 5 US TV networks claimed "live" coverage, including the two supposedly"live" sequences showing the 2 tower collapses [NBC and CNN], would, at the very least, be highly suspect as being fraudulent, before the researcher ever even bothered to take a close look at them.
And, if the only two extant, class[1] official, "live", still on-archive US network WTC1 and 2 tower collapse sequences turn out to be pure fabrications, then, by simple logical extension, any and all class [2] sequences and photos showing those exact same two events, regardless of source, must also be fabrications.
This Just In: The Only Two Originally "Live", On Archive, Tower Collapse Sequences [NBC & CNN] Are Frauds!
Well, surprise, surprise, close analysis does indeed reveal those two, lesser-known, class[1]on-archive WTC1 and 2 destruction sequences to also be pure fabrications.
For further clarification on this issue, please watch the following short, class [1], pre- tower collapse sequence that was broadcast "live" on ABC on 9/11 . [fig.6, below]
Notice - an ABC news "chopper", complete with "heli-cam", supposedly circles the two smoking [post-strike, pre-collapse] WTC towers 1 and 2 , and yet, those amazingly agile twin towers manage to constantly revolve so that they always face the camera lens, as if on a revolving platform . Crafty little buggers, weren't they? :-) :
There is, I submit, in light of the obviously fraudulent class [1] ABC sequence above, taken as it is from the original on-line archives, pre- collapse of either tower, absolutely no good logical reason to gaily assume the realness of any subsequent sequence, on any TV channel, that allegedly depicts the later "collapse" of either of those same two impossibly "spinning towers", surely?
[See also 67 seconds of Truth?" and "Addendum", below].
In Summary:
In summary, if all of the original, on-line, official US network archives for the morning of 09/11/01 [i.e. class [1] type footage], is revealed to contain nothing more than:
[a]: fabricated footage of a plane, [Fl. 175], hitting a WTC tower [WTC2] on all 5 US networks........ and........
[b]: fabricated footage of two towers falling on only two networks [WTC2 then WTC1]....
...then, by logical extension, any particular class [2] video or photo you care to name depicting and replicating any one of those exact same 3 "live" TV events cannot possibly be genuine.
Simple!
A Sad Fact:
However, 99% of the "9/11 truth movement"
is either completely unaware of the vitally important "two classes of
imagery" distinction, or intentionally chooses to ignore it regardless, and is
instead fully content to wallow around forever examining/scrutinizing
mostly entirely unverifiable class [2] video footage and/or photos that
have practically nothing to do with the original, official, MSM on-line
archived "live" footage record.
Another Sad Fact:
The "9/11 truth movement" will remain lost, and floundering around, getting nowhere, as long as it insists on completely ignoring the easily provable, "in your face" fraudulence of all of the official on-line, archived, US mainstream media network records of the three 9/11 events they all allegedly captured "live"; as, for example, demonstrated in the "Nosed Out" analysis above, [see also the addendum below for 3 more clear examples of "live" MSM video fraudulence], and instead chooses to myopically focus on any/all other, class [2], none-archived, none-verifiable imagery of those alleged events, plus other, related similarly unverifiable material.
Yet Another Sad Fact: with that tactic, the most it/ they can ever hope to agree on is some broad generality; for example: "9/11 was an inside job".
The rest of the time they'll be too busy idiotically and childishly fighting over whether or not it's been "proven" [usually via class [2] video sequences or photos], that it was tower destruction by nukes, mini-nukes or exotic beam weapons, or whether or not it is "proven" [via class [2] video sequences or photos], that the plane images had to have been holograms, or just clever inserts; and, with such never-ending internal fighting, succeed only in distracting peoples attention far away from the bald fact that almost none of these "9/11 researchers" various silly hypothesis' are ever based on close analysis of any of the original, class [1] "live", on-line, official archived footage for 9/11, particularly with regard to the original, archived tower collapse imagery. [See below]
Conclusion: Yet Another Sad Fact:
The vast majority of the "9/11 truth movement" [ including its various leaders/ main spokespersons - you know who you are :-) ], appears to be almost entirely ignorant of both simple, analytical scientific procedure and common sense logic.
Plane Strike Videos Fact: when added together, the total official"live" class 1, on-line archived coverage of Flight 175's approach + hit [i.e. ABC, CBS,CNN, NBC, fox] amounts to around 40 secs . 40 seconds,that's it!
Tower Collapse Videos Fact: the total official "live", class 1, on-line, archived footage of the
collapses of WTC's 1 and 2 adds up around 27-30 secs. for the only two networks
that showed them [1 event for each channel]: the WTC2 collapse [approx.10-12 secs on NBC], and the WTC1 collapse [approx 17 secs. on CNN].
That is: to this day [2017] there are only around 27 to 30 secs. total of official, verifiable on-line, "live" archived footage of the collapses of WTC's 1 and 2 in the whole world - that's it! See also: "The "WTC Collapse" Animation Sequences"
In summary, the total amount of "live" , class 1, network footage for the 3 events the networks allegedly captured "live" on 9/11 [i.e.
{1} Flight 175's strike on WTC2, {2} the collapse of WTC2, {3} the collapse of
WTC1] is around 67 secs.
To re-emphasize:
despite the appearance that there are 100's of minutes of authentic
"live"9/11 imagery, in actual fact, there exists , to this day, no more
than around 67 secs. of original, verifiable [class [1] ] on-line archived footage of the 3 main televised events of 9/11 .
************************************************************* Addendum:
For Your Further Viewing Pleasure!:
Two more short analysis' demonstrating the complete fraudulence of the original online, archived 9/11 "historical" record provided by the 5 US national TV networks:
1] Oversize bridge caught on the move by stationary camera :-) :
See also, "September Clues" starting at the 14 min mark, through to the 15 min. mark, the "Matrix Shots", where all 5 networks used the same twin tower image, but each inserted [impossibly] different foregrounds, backgrounds, and colors to give the appearance of different, independent, coverage.
And finally, here's a good example of what CGI could achieve back in 2014 :
Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All" Also: "The Burden of Proof" Principle 1]:Fake 9/11 Bird Flock Video: First of all, here is an undeniably faked bird flock doing a glorious twin towers "fly-by" on 9/11, complete with its own pixel cloud following along, that is taken from an allegedly live 9/11 TV broadcast, as discovered/presented by 9/11 researcher Simon Shack, which can be seen at : 29min 08secs of the official TV archives:
Secondly, let us remind ourselves of the simple, basic legal evidentiary review principle usually known as "false in one , false in all"[falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus].
Many 9/11 researchers remain completely in the dark regarding this very important , simple principle which "should" be applied when reviewing ALL alleged 9/11 alleged "evidence" [at least by any serious, honest researcher].
Simply put, there is a fundamental, basic legal principle named "false in one, false in all[falsis in uno, falsis in omnibus],whereby a judge may instruct a trial jury that should they find that any part of a witness/entities testimony to be false, then they each have the individual, incontestable right to discount all "evidence" provided by that alleged witness/entity.
Therefor, applied outside of a courtroom, if a person wished to utilize that very same legal principle as a 9/11 research tool/principle, and according to that well established, very old legal principle:
Thirdly, it might also be worth your while to consider another very simple [but similarly very important] legal principle- the burden of proof issue, during your 9/11 investigation.
According to this principle, the burden of proof always lies with the accuser- in this case the US federal government:
Utilizing that principle, it is important to understand that any/all alleged evidence [i.e. all photographs, all "live"videos, all eyewitness testimony, all government agency reports, etc. etc.] that the US government has used to date to try to "prove" its case, outside of a courtroom, or alternatively, that it could, or might use in future as "evidence" in an actual criminal trial to prove its case [in the extremely unlikely event that that ever actually occurred],must first of all be established to in fact be genuine, reliable evidence, and not just hastily pre-judged/pre-assumed to be genuine"right off the bat", without ever having undergone any serious tests in order to try and determine whether or not that so-called "evidence" is in fact genuine.
Idle Speculation And The 9/11 "Truth Movement":
Meaning that, outside of a court trial, any honest, independent 9/11 researcher who is interested in a genuine search for 9/11 truth, must, assuming they are aware of this principle, consistently apply that principle [burden of proof] to their very own research [as well as using the previously mentioned "false in one-false in all" principle in tandem], and, in my opinion at least, hold in high suspicion all of the research of any/all claimed 9/11 investigators who consistently avoid applying both of these basic, simple, and very important legal principles - in truth, such "researchers" findings simply cannot be trusted and are really nothing more than idle speculations.
"Chain of Fools"?
And yet to date, as with "false in one-false in all", in their own 9/11 research, practically every researcher [and yes, I'm including nearly all of the supposed "big name" 9/11 researchers here: Fetzer, Jones, Wood, Hall, Khalezov, Baker, Reynolds, Johnson etc. ] , have consistently chosen to also ignore this extremely important, very simple to understand legal principle, and have mostly assumed, without ever having thoroughly tested and cross-tested, to try to establish whether or not any of the various photos, videos and eyewitness testimonies and government reports they all rely on to "prove" their particular version of 9/11 "truth", are in fact genuine and therefor even reliable as evidence.
Question For Ya:
Why are all of these persons listed [and others] consistently ignoring both the amazingly simple, easy to understand,"false in one, false in all" principle, and at the same time almost entirely ignoring the equally simple , and equally important, burden of proof concept, in their various 9/11 "investigations"?
Your guess is as good as I mine, I suppose :-)
Regards, onebornfree.
MoreAbout "Onebornfree":
"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom .
Onebornfree's commentary:Despite the fact that Mr North's article showcases a video presentation regarding a Canadian publicity campaign by an organization called "Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth, and despite the fact that North appears to be entirely unaware of the research into large scale 9/11 MSM video fakery by persons such as Simon Shack, who has amply demonstrated that the entire collapse sequence for WTC7[ on which the Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth Canadian campaign is mostly focussed], is a computer generated fabrication, just like the other televised WTC1 and WTC 2 collapse sequences, the article still does a good job of outlining the problems that are inevitably to be encountered by those attempting to spread the word about "9/11 truth", however defined. For example, he observes : "When dealing with the government's version of history, always ask this question: "Who is covering up?" But don't forget this question: "Who is paying for this round of uncovering?" And this question: "Why?"". He also gets into the daunting real world economics of "getting the word out" , plus why trying to do so almost always fails. He concludes with this simple advice, which I agree with: "Show why and how the government is lying. Show that lying is part of the government's underlying -- with the accent on "lying" -- agenda. That should be good enough for anyone." Anyway, perhaps food for thought, even if you do not agree with North's, or my own opinions on this[ as I expect most readers won't] - regards onebornfree.
Of Course the Government Is Lying About 9-11.
" This month, a campaign in Canada is challenging the government's 9-11 story. I am in favor of this, both as a professionally trained historian and as a believer in a general policy of examining official government positions. Here is a short video on the campaign: √ The group wants to get the word out. I am all in favor of getting the word out on 9-11. This could be a hook for getting the word out on other issues. People who finally figure out that they have been manipulated by the spin masters in the U.S. government are probably more prepared to accept the message that there is a long-term pattern of deception here. The video focuses on Canada. This may work. There is a higher percentage of Canad ians who think the U.S. government is willing to lie, than there is of Americans who think this. Anyway, that is my guess. But the question occurs to me: "Who is putting up the money for this campaign?" Then this question occurs to me: "Why?" I am a great believer in searching for historical truth. I am also a great believer in the fact that hardly anyone is committed to such a search, and of those who are, most of them don't have much money. When dealing with the government's version of history, always ask this question: "Who is covering up?" But don't forget this question: "Who is paying for this round of uncovering?" And this question: "Why?" GETTING THE WORD OUT Fact: it does no good to get the word out unless you have a very explicit, tightly focused program to mobilize people after you get the word out. The marketing campaign must be an extension of the mobilization plan. It must reinforce this plan. It must ignore everything that is not an aspect of this plan. We have limited resources. It is very easy to waste resources. This is why a marketing campaign is necessary: to conserve resources. There must be a specific, measurable goal for the expenditures. There must be success indicators. There must be rapid reporting on the results of the expenditures. There must be a way of generating money from the campaign, so that there can be another follow-up campaign. Until all this is in place, and tested on a limited, statistically representative scale, the money will disappear into the void. Direct-response marketers understand all this. They live with it. Yet very few people understand this, and fewer still discipline themselves to follow this procedure. People get on board a project "to get the word out" for many reasons. There is no universal pattern for joining a cause. It is too expensive to devise a separate recruiting campaign for each of these motivations. The budget is too small. The markets are too diversified. The personal motivations are too different. Those who promote the official version also have multiple motivations. But they have a huge advantage: government money, government power, and the mainstream media, which fear government power and want in on government money. Most people do not have time to re-think every government position. Even with the big positions, people do not have time to re-think them in detail. They sense the personal cost of such investigations. If they ever figured out that they have been lied to deliberately, they might lose faith in the government. This is like abandoning the religion of your youth. The costs are high. The older you are, the more emotional capital is invested in this "market." To abandon faith in the official line means admitting that you had previously fallen for a grand deception. You were played the sucker. You were, in Lee Harvey Oswald's now-famous term, a "patsy." There is an old line: "You cannot change just one thing." When you abandon faith in the broad outline of the government's official explanation, you then feel as though you must offer a better one. This opens up a huge can of worms. This may take you down rabbit trails. Then this may take you down rabbit holes. You may be like Alice. You may enter Wonderland. You may never re-emerge. LOSS OF FAITH My loss of faith in the federal government's version of American history began in the fall of 1958. I wrote a high school term paper on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. I reached a conclusion: President Roosevelt not only knew that an attack was imminent in the first week of December 1941, he had for a year authorized policies that he believed would provoke such an attack. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson spoke for Roosevelt when he made this entry in his diary on November 25, 1941: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot. . . ." I did not know in 1958 that he had been Secretary of War under Taft, Secretary of State under Hoover, and was later known as "the chairman of the American Establishment." I was young and naïve in 1958. I am no longer young. I trust that I am not naïve . . . not about the U.S. government, anyway. This week, I read yet another book that purports to explain why the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor: Operation Snow (2012). It blames Stalin and Harry Dexter White. It does not come close to proving its case. The author explicitly says that President Roosevelt knew nothing of what was about to happen at Pearl Harbor, that he in no way goaded the Japanese into attacking the fleet. Therefore, he says, Harry Elmer Barnes was wrong (p. xx). This book was published by the Henry Regnery Company, whose founder published the most detailed account of Roosevelt's behind-the-scenes manipulation of these events, Back Door to War: The Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941 (1952), by Charles C. Tansill, who in 1952 was one of the two or three most distinguished American historians on American foreign policy. It does not appear in the bibliography of Operation Snow. Neither does Charles Beard's President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War (Yale University Press, 1948). Operation Snow has not one footnote. Yet Regnery published it. This is what happens to every movement devoted to rejecting the official government position. Unskilled amateurs get an outlet for their half-baked theories. So do outright crackpots. Then the skeptics must spend more time and money trying to keep the movement on track. Problem: there is no single track. The government has a single track. The skeptics do not. This is why there are more books on Kennedy's assassination than on any other single event in modern history: too many tracks. The government has a single track: the Warren Commission Report. At the core of every historical revisionist movement there must be a core assumption: "The government's versions of turning-point domestic historical events are guilty until proven innocent." The revisionist history movement is in fact a resistance movement. In the minds of most citizens, it has the greater burden of proof. It must therefore begin the process of recruitment with overwhelming evidence regarding a single central and representative fact in the government's account of the event. This presentation must prove that whatever the government and the dutiful mainstream media have promoted could not possibly have taken place. This creates the initial seeds of doubt. Plant these seeds. Water them. Nurture them. Then look for more seeds. Problem: as soon as a prominent skeptic in the camp of the revisionists offers a theory of what did happen, the can of worms gets opened. This will begin almost immediately. It may even launch the revisionist movement. When you identify what could not have happened, you call the government's version into question. You also put a "Detour" sign on a rabbit trail. In the case of 9-11, the skeptics should begin at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 at Shanksville, Pennsylvania. There was no debris. Conclusion: it was not a crash site. Whatever happened to the plane, it did not end up at the official crash site. The on-ramp to the highway of skepticism should begin wherever there can be no counter-argument -- preferably an argument based on physics or engineering. Begin where the official report offers zero evidence. Begin where there is self-imposed silence, coupled with ridicule of conspiracy theories. That will be enough to raise serious doubts. As soon as the Shanksville investigators get this story out and defend it in multiple media outlets -- videos, articles, books -- they can go on to Building 7. Meanwhile, the Building 7 specialists are building their case. "Why does this look like a controlled demolition?" Pentagon crash skeptics are doing their work, too. "What really hit the Pentagon?" All of them should keep asking this: "Why have we never been told what was on the 'black boxes' -- which are in fact orange -- that record the flight data that precede a crash?" The government is zero for four. "It's just four of those things, four of those crazy things." If the goal is to raise serious doubts about the government's version, this approach will be successful. On the other hand, if the goal is to explain the four plane incidents by means of a coherent narrative, it will take a lifetime of many investigators, and there will be no agreement. The noise will overwhelm the narrative. The irreducible complexity of history will thwart a common story that has sufficient footnotes to sufficiently reliable sources. For those in search of a theory of why 9-11 happened, here is a good place to start: http://www.garynorth.com/public/12227.cfm CONCLUSION The conclusion of Gödel's theorem also applies to historiography. It is impossible for human beings to come up with a single narrative of any event that is both consistent and complete, relying on nothing outside of its limited evidence. The more information we have, the less consistency our narrative will have. This applies to the official version, too. So, let us concentrate our limited resources on persuading intelligent people that the government is not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Then let us take the next step: "The government is lying." Then let us follow the confession, follow the money, and follow the organizations involved in the government's official version. Let us ask this economic question: "Who wins? Who loses?" Then let us ask this political question: "Who? Whom?" That was Lenin's question, a master of who/whom. Then let us ask the question that Lenin also asked, stealing it from Cherneshevsky: "What is to be done?" You cannot come to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The government can't, either. But you can make a pretty good case that the government will not even make the attempt. Show why and how the government is lying. Show that lying is part of the government's underlying -- with the accent on "lying" -- agenda. That should be good enough for anyone. It will surely be good enough for me." Original article source
[Onebornfree commentary: this is a very good essay from 2002 by "anarcho-capitalist"Butler Shaffer on the extremely close, symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship between the government and its wars, and media and other assorted government sycophants. Shaffer dutifully mentions the historian Randolph Bourne, and his famous observation "War Is The Health of the State". I think that it is worth reminding you, dear reader, that that statement was not an "off the cuff" remark tossed out there by Bourne merely for outrageous effect, but a serious statement of truth [at least in my opinion] from a serious intellectual. War is literally the health of the state. War is the "business" [for want of a better term], of the state. If you have a government in the first place, you must have war[s]. The state depends on the fomentation of new wars for its very existence. Therefor, numerous planned events [i.e. "false flags"] such as 9/11, are constantly in demand, and always will be, as long as governments exist. These "false flag terror" events are simply the inevitable, unavoidable consequence of having a government in the first place.
Strangely enough [sadly?], as far as I am aware, despite his mentioning of the movie "Wag The Dog", to this day, Mr Shaffer, like most "anarcho-capitalists" it appears [but not yours truly :-)], seems entirely unaware of the groundbreaking work of Simon Shack, who has, as far as I'm concerned, proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the supposed "live" footage we were all shown on Sept.11th. 2001, was in actual fact all pre-manufactured, computer generated imagery. And so it goes :-) . Regards, onebornfree.]
If I were to offer a seminar on the nature of war, I believe that the first class session would include a showing of the film Wag the Dog. Those who wish to justify the obliteration of hundreds of thousands of total strangers in the name of "good" versus "evil," or "national honor," will likely find the movie discomforting. As the governments of India and Pakistan self-righteously, and in the name of "God," threaten one another with a nuclear war that could instantly kill anywhere from ten to twenty million people, it is time for decent, intelligent people to put down their flags and begin to see war for what the late General Smedley Butler rightly termed it: "a racket." This film offers a quick reality fix.
Randolph Bourne's observation "war is the health of the state" is familiar to most critics of militarism, but few have delved into why this is so. Statism is dependent upon mass thinking which, in turn, is essential to the creation of a collective, herd-oriented society. Such pack-like behavior is reflected in the intellectual and spiritual passivity of people whose mindsets are wrapped up more in images and appearances than in concrete reality.
Such a collapse of the mind produces a society dominated by entertainment — which places little burden on thinking — rather than critical inquiry, which helps to explain why there has long been a symbiotic relationship between the entertainment industry and political systems. Entertainment fosters a passive consciousness, a willingness to "suspend our disbelief." Its purpose is to generate amusement, a word that is synonymous with "diversion," meaning "to distract the attention of." The common reference to movies as a form of "escape" from reality, reflects this function. Government officials know what every magician knows, namely, that to carry out their illusions, they must divert the audience's attention from their hidden purposes.
Michel Foucault has shown how the state's efforts to regulate sexual behavior — whether through repressive or "liberating" legislation — serves as such a distraction, making it easier for the state to extend its control over our lives. It is instructive that, in the months preceding the World Trade Center attacks which, in turn, ushered in the greatest expansion of police powers in America since the Civil War, the news stories that dominated the media had to do with allegations of adulterous affairs by a sitting president and a congressman. It is not coincidence that both the entertainment industry and the government school systems have helped to foster preoccupations with sex.
The authority of the state is grounded in consensus-based definitions of reality, whose content the state insists on controlling. This is why so-called "public opinion polls," rather than factual analysis and reason, have become the modern epistemological standard, and why imagery — which the entertainment industry helps to foster — now takes priority over the substance of things.
Politics and entertainment each feed upon — and help to foster — public appetites for illusions and fantastic thinking. The success of such undertakings, in turn, depends upon unfocused and enervated minds, which helps to explain why motion picture and television performers, popular musicians, and athletes — whose efforts require little participation on the part of the viewer — have become the dominant voices in our politicized culture. It also helps to account for the attraction of so many entertainers throughout the world to visionary schemes such as state socialism, as well as the increasing significance of entertainment industry gossip and box-office revenues as major news stories.
The entertainment industry helps shape the content of our consciousness by generating institutionally desired moods, fears, and reactions, a role played throughout human history. Ancient Greek history is tied up in myths, fables, and other fictions, passed on by the entertainers of their day, the minstrels. We need to ask ourselves about the extent to which our understanding of American history and other human behavior has been fashioned by motion pictures, novels, and television drama. Through carefully scripted fictions and fantasies, others direct our experiences, channel our emotions, and shape our views of reality. The fantasies depicted are more often of conflict, not cooperation; of violence, not peace; of death, not the importance of life.
Nowhere is the interdependency of the political and entertainment worlds better demonstrated than in the war system, which speaks of "theaters" of operation, "acts" of war with battle "scenes," "staging" areas, and "dress rehearsals" for invasions. The pomp and circumstance of war is reflected in military uniforms that mimic stage costumes, all to the accompaniment of martial music that rivals grand opera. A Broadway play can become either a "bomb" or a "hit;" troops are "billeted" (a word derived from the French meaning of a "ticket"); while the premier of a movie is often accompanied, like a World War II bombing raid, by searchlights that scan the skies. Even the Cold War was framed by an "iron curtain." Is it only coincidence, devoid of any symbolic meaning, that at the end of the American Civil War - one of the bloodiest wars in human history - its chief protagonist was shot while attending the theater, and that his killer was an actor who, upon completing his deed, descended to the stage and exited?
Adolf Hitler understood, quite well, the interplay between political power and theater, a truth that continues to reveal itself in entertainers involving themselves so heavily in political campaigns, some even managing to get themselves elected to Congress or the presidency! Nor was it surprising that one of the first acts of the Bush Administration, following the announced "War on Terrorism," was to send a group of presidential advisers to Hollywood to enlist the entertainment industry's efforts to portray the war as desired by Washington! As with earlier wars, the "military/entertainment complex" will continue to write the scripts and define the characters that are required to assure the support of passive minds in the conduct of war.
Furthermore, because entertainment is often conducted in crowded settings (e.g., theaters, stadiums, auditoriums) there is a dynamic conducive to the generation of mass-mindedness. One need only recall the powerful harangues of Adolf Hitler that coalesced tens of thousands of individuals into a controllable mob, to understand the symbiotic relationship between entertainment and politics.
Entertainment is a part of what we call "recreation," which means to "re-create," in this case to give interpretations to events that are most favorable to one's national identity and critical of an opponent. In this connection, entertainers help to manipulate the "dark side" of our being which, once mobilized, can help to generate the most destructive and inhumane consequences. World War II movies portrayed Japanese kamikaze pilots who crashed their planes into Navy ships as "crazed zealots," while American pilots who did the same thing to Japanese ships or trains were represented as "heroes" willing to die to save their comrades. German and Japanese soldiers were presented as sneering sadists who delighted in the torture of the innocents, while the American soldiers only wanted to get the war over with so they could get back home to mom and her apple pie! How many of us, today, think of 19th century U.S. cavalrymen — as portrayed by the likes of John Wayne and Randolph Scott — as brave soldiers, while Indian warriors were "savages" for having forcibly resisted their own annihilation?
All of this leads me to ask whether the entertainment industry is an extension of the war system, or whether war is simply an extension of our need for entertainment? What should be clear to us is that entertainment is one of the principal means by which our thinking can be taken over and directed by others once we have chosen to make our minds passive, which we do when we are asked — whether by actors or politicians — to suspend our judgment about the reality of events we are witnessing. When we are content to be amused (i.e., to have our attention diverted from reality to fantasy), and to have our emotions exploited by those skilled in triggering unconscious forces, we set ourselves up to be manipulated by those producing the show.
Politics differs from traditional theater in one important respect, however: in the political arena, we do not call for the "author" at the end of a war! Most of us prefer not to know, for to discover the identities of those who have scripted such events might call into question our own gullibility!
May 29, 2002
Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail] teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.
More about "Onebornfree" : "Onebornfree", or "O.B.F". is the generic, 15+ year online business name for my internet persona and various entrepreneurial activities]:
