Transcript Dial 911 for Evidence

Dial 911 for Evidence
What did or didn’t happen,
and (how) can we know?
1
WTC2: South Tower
2
WTC1: North Tower
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
3
WTC7: Salomon Brothers
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
4
‘Twould be nice to get into the
juicy part immediately . . .
but we really need to establish
some basics about evidence and
the working environment of
looking at 9/11.
5
What about you?
• What do you think happened before,
on, and after September 11, 2001
• Where did you get the information
that led you to think that?
6
What’s this about?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thinking about theories
Thinking about evidence
Basics: flights, agencies
The Argument: debunkers vs doubters
U.S. involvement impossible?
(in)Capability of the press
7
Thinking about theories
8
What is a myth?
(David Ray Griffin)
• A narrative that is
– Widely believed
– Does not correspond to reality
9
What is a Myth?
(David Ray Griffin)
• A narrative that
– orients & mobilizes people:
• “Who am I?”
• “Why do I do what I do?”
– is taken on faith
– is not subject to discussion
10
What is a theory?
A hypothesis assumed for the
sake of argument or investigation
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory)
11
A good theory . . .
•
•
•
•
•
Does not contain internal contradictions
Corresponds to observed data
Is not inconsistent with observed data
Does not ignore observed data
May predict not-yet-known data
12
3 ways to challenge a theory
(David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 Showdown)
1. Show that the evidence supporting it does
not withstand scrutiny
2. Show evidence that appears to contradict it
3. Show evidence that it can’t possibly be true
13
What is a “conspiracy?”
• Cabal -- an association between religious, political, or
tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by
intrigue
• Conspiracy (civil) (US) -- an agreement between
persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their
legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage
• Conspiracy (crime) (US) -- an agreement between
persons to break the law in the future, in some cases
having committed an act to further that agreement
• Conspiracy (political) -- a plot to overthrow a
government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
14
Problem with
“Conspiracy Theory”
• Used to patronizingly explain away evidence, as
in “America’s traditional love-affair with
conspiracy theories.”
• Has come to be an instantaneous turn-off of
people’s analytical willingness or abilities.
• 9/11 -- used in a one-sided perjorative sense,
when in fact there are two competing conspiracy
theories
• Apparently started with the CIA’s 1967
“Instructions to Media Assets”
15
9/11: Conspiracy theory #1
The Official Story
With no prior warning, Arab Muslim
fundamentalists hijacked airliners,
evaded a massive interception
capability, and flew them into (a) two
skyscrapers that collapsed in an
unprecedented fashion, and (b) the
most heavily constructed and least
strategic part of the Pentagon.
16
9/11: Conspiracy theory #2
The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement”
•
• The Official Story is false because it is contains
many contradictions, as well as inconsistencies
with physical and forensic evidence.
• The official defenses of the Official Story contain
so many omissions, distortions, and apparently
deliberate lies that they constitute a coverup of
whatever did happen.
• Although much evidence for an alternative story
is available, many aspects are inconsistent or
lacking positive proof, and the real story cannot
be known until there is a new, truly independent
investigation with subpoena powers.
17
9/11: Conspiracy theory #2
The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement”
WHAT? NO THEORY????
• See item 3 on previous slide
• QUESTION: Is it necessary, in proving that a
theory is wrong, to
– Offer a fully-fledged, or even partial, alternative
theory?
– Account for all the implications of evidence
brought forward?
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/implications.html
Ripple Effect, ch. 17: http://thepowerhour.com/news2/analogy.htm
18
9/11: Conspiracy theory #2
The “9/11 ‘Truth’ Movement”
To the extent that there is a theory:
• Arab individuals may or may not have hijacked
jetliners
• World Trade Center 1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by
something other than impact/fire
• The Pentagon was damaged, but by what?
• Something crashed or was shot down in
Pennsylvania, not necessarily where specified
• Some elements of the U.S. government were
involved to one of the following degrees . . .
19
Degrees of “Official Complicity”
(David Ray Griffin, in The New Pearl Harbor)
• Construction of false account
• No knowledge on part of White House, but...
–
–
–
–
Expected by intelligence agencies (in general)
Expected by intelligence agencies (specifics)
Intelligence agencies involved in planning
Pentagon involved in planning
• White House involved
– No specific knowledge, general expectation
– Specific advance knowledge
– Involved in planning
20
What is “impossible?”
(David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 Showdown)
• Logical -- a round square
• Metaphysical -- going back in time
and killing your grandfather
• Physical -- violation of physical laws
21
Was U.S. involvement
impossible?
A history of real, provoked, or
fictional attacks on Americans
or allies as pretexts for wars...
later
22
The link between
Theory and Evidence
23
Types of Reasoning
David Ray Griffin
• Deductive (defending official story):
Step by step -- each depends on
previous, if one is false, all fails
• Cumulative (questioning official story):
Series of independent observations -if one fails, weakens argument but
doesn’t kill it
24
Thinking about thinking
25
A priori thinking
Mind made up before looking at evidence
• Incompetence much more likely
• Someone would have talked
• It’s obvious that al Qaeda did it
26
Types of thinking
Seeing isn’t necessarily believing
• Paradigmatic -- believing only what fits the held
world view: “I refuse to believe you because I
don’t want to live in a country whose leaders
would do such a thing.”
• Wishful/Fearful -- believing what one wants to be
true, or disbelieving what one doesn’t want to be
true: “9/11 was due to incompetence (like
Katrina)” as if well-planned actions never went
awry.
• Empirical -- believing what evidence shows,
regardless of how it fits emotionally.
27
Difficulty with Empiricality
• The neurons that go from the eye to the
visual cortex of the brain aren’t the only
ones.
• Others connect the eye to the emotional
center of the brain.
• Which center gets the message first is not
a given; frequently it’s the emotional one,
disabling rational thought about evidence.
28
Difficulty with Empiricality
• Experiments show that people confronted with
identical behavior or thinking will judge it in
opposite ways depending on their perception of
the behaver.
• Example: In 2008, the CIA issued a secret report
stating that the best way to prevent the spread of
anti-war sentiment was to elect Obama. In fact,
since his election, the active objection to war and
the erosion of civil liberties has almost vanished
from the Left.
29
Fact of Life
People look at the same piece of
evidence and draw totally
different conclusions
The Soviet sub and the Queen
30
What you see...
“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75
Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police
Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency
Management, and we were operating out of there when we were
told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it
did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so
we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally
found an exit and got out....”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KtDIOS8-EM
How did Rudy Giuliani’s people know?
OS-ers: he wouldn’t be stupid enough to say something
incriminating
9T-ers: most wouldn’t notice, only those who know the lack of
precedent for steel frame buildings collapsing from fire
31
What you see...
Dust -- from air push or explosions?
North Tower
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#northtower
South Tower
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#southtower
32
Propaganda
• Not absolute lies, rather different truths
–
–
–
–
Half truths
incomplete truths
limited truths
out of context truths
• Reinforce -- not change -- existing opinions,
prejudices, attitudes
• Vulnerability of intellectuals & educated
– absorb a lot of (not necessarily good) info
– compelled to have opinion, so absorb propaganda
– feel they are immune to propaganda
• WE do truth, THEY do propaganda
33
Thinking about evidence
34
Types of evidence
• Physical
– Objects
– Observations of phenomena
– Analysis of objects or phenomena
• Behavior
– Actions
– Consistency
35
Evidence relates to
• Events
• Relationships
– Events to events
– People to events
– People to People
36
Evidence sources
1. Primary
–
–
–
–
–
Primary documents (government, private)
Video/audio (news footage, individuals)
Statements by directly involved individuals
Eye-witness statements
Empirical physical research
2. Secondary (report on Primaries)
– News analysis articles/broadcasts
– Investigative researchers
3. Tertiary (assemble Secondaries)
– Books and produced videos
– Blogs
37
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
38
Evidence/testimony credibility
Relation to physical reality
• Claim (based in NIST report evidence):
The WTC towers collapsed because of
truss failures, lower floors crushed by
structure above falling on them.
• Observation: If this were true, then at least
the top portions of the buildings would be
in recognizable pieces.
• Physical reality: all three buildings were
turned into structural steel and smallparticle dust.
39
Evidence/testimony credibility
Relation to physical reality
WTC Building 7
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Reality (from North)
NIST Model
40
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
41
Evidence/testimony credibility
Story changes
• Where were you the night of the crime?
– I was at the theater.
• The theater was closed.
– Oh, that’s right, I was with my girlfriend.
• She says she was with her husband.
– Oh, yeah, I was home reading the Bible.
-- from David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Myth and Reality
42
Official story changes
to handle objections
• (9/11-12/01) Joint Chiefs head & NORAD
spokesman: Didn’t get interceptors into air until
after Pentagon hit (sounds like stand down? 9/14:
CBS says fighters were up)
• (9/18/01) NORAD timeline: up, but too late due to
FAA failure to provide timely notification (hmm -there still was time)
• (7/04) 9/11 Commission -- FAA never notified
military of any of the planes, except a phantom
Flight 11 (which had never been previously
mentioned)
43
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
44
Evidence/testimony credibility
Inherent predisposition
• A person is known, through prior
statements or association, to have a certain
predisposition.
• Two possibilities: s/he claims to have
witnessed -- or discovered -- something
– that is congruent with that predisposition
– that contradicts that predisposition
• Which of these is likely to be more reliable?
45
Pentagon reporters
David Ray Griffin, Ultimate 9/11 ‘Truth’ Showdown
• Of 7 who say they saw a jetliner hit the
Pentagon
– 5 worked for Gannet (USA Today)
– one described wing dragging the ground (but
no scar)
• Those who arrived immediately after:
– CNN: “very small pieces you can pick up with
your hand, nothing large”
– ABC (early close look inside): “could not see
any plane wreckage”
46
Pentagon police
Flight 77: Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files (DVD)
• Filling their cars at “the Citgo station”
• They say (on camera, in uniform) that they
saw the plane go by north of the station
• The alleged flight data recorder (and
apparent damage path) says it went south
of the station.
• Real, or a byzantine straw-man plot to
discredit the 9T movement? (Hmm, this
begins to get strange)
47
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
48
Evidence/testimony credibility
Nature of expert
• Professional qualifications
• Relevance of these to
evidence/testimony
• Free from potential conflict of
interest or duress?
• Relevant previous performance?
• Story changes (what context)?
49
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
50
Evidence/testimony credibility
Reputation of source
• How do others in his/her/its field feel about
him/her/it?
• Has other information provided by him/her/it been
successfully debunked (when seen in context)?
• Approach: “hot” or “cool”
• (Trickier) Is there baggage that you feel damages
credibility for you? (e.g., UFOs, anti-Zionist)
• Have there been changes to him/her/it or
circumstances?
51
Evidence/testimony credibility
Reputation of source
Example: David Ray Griffin
• Well respected as theologian, many books, dean
of the “9/11 Truth” movement
• Researcher who gathers together others’
research, does some checking w/primary
• Possible debunks
– 757 didn’t hit Pentagon
– Hijackers not there and/or still alive
– “FAA” doc on intercept timing is not FAA.
• Baggage: concern for Constitution/world
52
Evidence/testimony credibility
Reputation of source
Example: NIST
• Well respected descendent of National
Bureau of Standards
• Staffed with experienced scientists
but . . .
• "Distortion of scientific knowledge for
partisan political ends”
-- signed by 12,000 scientists (including 52 Nobel
laureates, 63 National medal of science)
53
Evidence/testimony credibility
Reputation of source
Example: NIST (continued)
• "By 2001, everyone in NIST leadership had been
trained to pay close heed to political pressures
...friends who are still there and who have been
closely, though unhappily and often unwillingly,
involved in some of the politicization [of NIST]
and its effects.” -- former NIST whistleblower
• Sources of interference: oversight by
– NSA
– Commerce HQ (no release w/out changes)
– OMB (presence of policy overseer)
54
Evidence/testimony credibility
Reputation of source
Example: Popular Mechanics
• Well-respected popularized science/engineering
magazine for over a century
but . . .
• In 2005
– editor and much of staff replaced
– one of writers a nephew of head of Homeland Security
(PM denied there was any connection, turned out there
was)
55
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
56
Evidence/testimony credibility
Technical issues
• Is there evidence or suspicion of photo or
video or audio alteration or faking that
can’t be discounted?
• Is technical evidence invoked that sounds
impressive but is flawed or contradicted
by observation?
• Do more persuasive technical
counterarguments exist?
57
Evidence/testimony credibility
Technical issues
Alternative: http://journalof911studies.com/
Debunking: http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
• Fake? 911Comm: found DoD audio file
about Flight 11 heading to DC, no source,
no dating, not available.
• Fake? 911 cell phone calls that were
impossible to make.
• WTC gravity-energy argument:
–
–
–
–
–
–
No: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html
Yes: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Yes: http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
No: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
Yes: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf
No: http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
58
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
59
Evidence/testimony credibility
Quotation issues
• Is the attribution provided correct and
findable (lots of web pages gone; why)?
• What is the context?
• What is contained in...the portion omitted
by use of ellipses?
60
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
61
Evidence/testimony credibility
Contradicting evidence
• Molten steel in the WTC foundations
– http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501
• Some hijackers still alive
– Yes: Griffin, 911Commission Omissions & Distortions, p.19
– No: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/david-ray-griffin-115-things-he-gets.html
• Barbara Olson phone call from Flight 77
– Yes: proves hijackers had box cutters, 77 in air at that time
– No: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514
62
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
63
Evidence/testimony credibility
Misleading
• Deliberate
– Using in wrong context
– Omitting important information
– Distorting reality
• Accidental
– Quoting evidence cited by someone else
64
Evidence/testimony credibility
Misleading -- AT’ers
• Hijackers on planes?
– CNN passenger lists with no hijackers’ names
cited as indication of absence
– But CNN article popup window stated the
hijackers were expressly omitted
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/index.html
• Potential rapidity of response
– 1998 FAA document cited saying jets would be
on tail of oddity in “10 or so minutes”
– Document actually was a manual for air traffic
control training software, with disclaimer.
http://www.xavius.com/080198.htm
65
Evidence/testimony credibility
Misleading -- OS’ers
• The 9/11 Commission Report’s complete omission or
distortion of testimony that conflicted with their
assertions
– Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta
– FBI translator Sibel Edmonds
– much more...
• The assertion that the “mystery” sulfur on WTC steel
came from gypsum wallboard instead of the
pyrotechnic thermate
– ignores steel vaporization/melting in the sulfated area
– ignores the absence of calcium (part of gypsum)
66
Evidence/testimony credibility
Disingenuous Debunking
• Use “conspiracy” as one-sided perjorative
• Straw man -- pick an outlying or irrelevant
position and claim/imply this is the meat of the
argument.
• Distort positions
• Ignore inconvenient evidence
• Cite potentially compromised sources
• Guilt by association (unpopular ideas)
• Lie
• Combine all the above for confusion
67
LIES!!!
• Knowingly stating something that is false
– Richard Cheney comes to mind on many
fronts.
• Lots of accusation from both sides
• Can be hard to prove that something is a
lie, but not always impossible.
• Be wary (but open) when you see
accusations of lying
68
Evidence/testimony credibility
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Correspondence to physical reality
Changes in story
Inherent predisposition
Nature of expert
Reputation of source
Technical issues
Quotation issues
Contradicting evidence
Misleading
What else??
69
Basic Information
•
•
•
•
•
Flight destinations/paths
Civilian agencies
Military/Intelligence agencies
Private organizations
Official reports
70
Flight Destinations
•
•
•
•
•
American Airlines 11: North Tower 1
United Airlines 175: South Tower 2
None: WTC Building 7
American Airlines 77: Pentagon
United Airlines 93: ? (Pennsylvania)
71
Flight Paths
77
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/map.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77
72
Civilian Agencies
• EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (DC)
• FAA: Federal Aviation Administration (DC)
– Boston Air Traffic Control Center (Boston)
– Herndon Command Center (Herndon VA: suburban DC)
– Headquarters (DC)
• FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency (DC)
• NIST: National Institute of Standards & Technology
(Bethesda, MD: suburban DC)
• NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board (DC)
• OEM: Office of Emergency Management (NY City)
73
Military/Intelligence Agencies
• CIA (Langley, Virginia: suburban DC)
• FBI (DC)
• NORAD: North American Aerospace Defense
Command (Colorado Springs, CO)
– NEADS: Northeast Air Defense Sector (Rome, NY)
• NMCC: National Military Command Center
(Pentagon)
• NSA: National Security Agency (Fort Meade, MD:
suburban DC)
74
Private Organizations
• ASCE: American Society of Civil Engineers
Volunteers assigned by FEMA to study the damage
at the World Trade Center and Pentagon (& OklaCity)
• PNAC: Project for the New American Century
Neoconservative think tank, applied Brzyzinski’s
concept of a “new Pearl Harbor” to the need to
speed up the transformation of the military to
facilitate American hegemony.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and
Resources For a New Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
75
Official Reports
• 5/02 -- FEMA (ASCE volunteers): World Trade
Center Building Performance Study
• 1/03 -- FEMA (ASCE volunteers): Pentagon
Building Performance Report
• 12/03 -- Congress: Report of Joint Inquiry into
Intelligence Community Activities
• 8/04 -- 9/11 Commission: Report of the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States)
• 9/05 -- NIST: World Trade Center 1 & 2
• 8&12/08 -- NIST: World Trade Center 7
76
The Argument
Debunkers vs. Doubters
Doubters vs. Doubters
77
Methods of Marginalization
(most often used by debunkers, but sometimes by doubters)
• Straw man -- picking a minor or not-widely held
point and portraying it as characteristic or vital to
opponents position
• Evidence -- ignoring/omitting evidence inconsistent
with one’s own position or supporting opponent’s
• Personal attacks -- beyond legitimate questioning of
qualifications (including questions of financing)
• Language -- snide, vitriolic, drowning-out
• “Balance” -- presenting two sides but deliberately
damaging one
78
Methods of Marginalization
Cognitive Infiltration (Cass Sunstein, 2008)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conspiracy theory: asserts an event is caused by
machinations of powerful people who hide their role
CT can be true -- government sometimes does bad things -but usually not.
911Truth believes government knew and allowed, destroyed
WTC and covered up
They accept this not because of mental illness, but lack of
good sources (“crippled epistemology”)
Demonstrably false, unjustified, weak/nonexistent evidence,
leads to “degenerating research program” (continue)
Summary from Cognitive Infiltration: An Obama Appointee’s Plan
to Undermine the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory (David Ray Griffin)
79
Methods of Marginalization
Cognitive Infiltration (continued: #6-10)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
9/11 Truth are extremists who will become violent -- or at
least spread skepticism and dampen govt support,
undermine democratic debate
Conspiracy theories hard to undermine/dispel, but if
dangerous, government should do so
Undermine by
•
Demand: inoculate public against it
•
Supply: debias or disable believers
Presenting credible evidence won’t work: theory is “selfsealing” and resistant to contrary evidence
Can’t ban theory or punish proponents, so must “engage in
cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy
theories”
80
High-quality Web Sites
• The doubters
• The debunkers
(attacking the doubters)
• The timeline
81
High-quality web sites:
Questioning Official Story
• 9/11 Research -- exhaustive critical careful evidence, but author
has moved on to other things -- http://911research.wtc7.net/
• Journal of 9/11 Studies -- peer reviewed papers, mostly technical,
some question the reviewing -- http://journalof911studies.com/
• Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice -- research papers and
archival documents -- http://stj911.org/
(not to be confused with http://911scholars.org/ )
• Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth -- excellent video slide
show on WTC -- http://www.ae911truth.org/
• Pilots for 9/11 Truth -- analysis of airplane aspects by aviation
professionals -- http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
• 9/11 Blogger -- wide ranging discussion on 9/11 and its effects,
but places limits on topics -- http://911blogger.com/
82
High-quality web sites:
Supporting Official Story
or “debunking” questioners
• 9/11 Myths -- good detail
http://www.911myths.com/
• Debunking 9/11 Conspiracies & Demolition
http://www.debunking911.com/
• The Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracies
http://www.jod911.com/
• JREF -- James Randi Skeptics
http://www.jref.org
• AE911 Truth.INFO -- against Architects & Engineers
http://www.ae911truth.info/
• Chris Mohr’s YouTube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/chrismohr911
83
High-quality web sites:
Reference: can be used by either side
Paul Thompson’s Timeline
Online:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline
Book (Terror Timeline; available from SWH Library)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060783389/
84
Doubters vs. Doubters
• Allegations
–
–
–
–
Junk science
Disinformation
Dysfunctional focus
Impossibility
• Examples
–
–
–
–
Architects/Engineers <---> Wooders
Architects/Engineers <---> Pilots
Wooders ---> Steven Jones
9/11 Blogger ---> Pilots
85
Was U.S. involvement
impossible?
A history of real, provoked, or
fictional attacks on Americans
or allies as pretexts for wars...
86
History: false flags and
provocation setups
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mexican American war: setup
Spanish-American war: false flag?
Pearl Harbor: another setup
Cuba: false flags
Vietnam: twist on false-flag
Gulf War: double deception
87
Mexican-American War
a setup
•
•
•
•
Disagreement about border of Texas
U.S. wanted northern half of Mexico up to Oregon
Mexico refused
President Polk sent troops into territory Mexico
had never ceded
• Mexico attacked, shedding of American blood
used as pretext for war
• History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
Lincoln: http://medicolegal.tripod.com/lincolnvmexwar.htm
88
Spanish-American War
false-flag?
• Spain economically/militarily weak
• American support for Cuban independence
(with subsequent double-cross)
• U.S.S. Maine sent in response to riots
• Exploded in Havana harbor when something set
off the magazines: coal fire or a mine -- still
disagreement over which and why and who
• Conveniently used as pretext for wide war
•
History: http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/navalbattles1800s/p/ussmaine.htm
89
Pearl Harbor
another setup
• U.S. administration well-documented as wanting to
enter World War II, but opposed by 88% of Americans
• Sought means of provoking Japan -- e.g. freezing of
Japanese assets to deny oil
• FDR sent fleet to exposed Pearl Harbor, refused to
permit return, then misinformed them about
negotiations
• Intelligence about Japanese pre-attack spying was
not passed on, Congressional inquiries blocked.
• The attack produced a massive turnaround in opinion.
•
History: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
Why little-known: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north26.html
90
Cuba/Operation Northwoods
false flag proposal
• Strong support in JFK administration (except JFK) for
regime change in Cuba
• Bay of Pigs: attempt using surrogates fails
• Needed a pretext for actual invasion
• Operation Northwoods: Joint Chiefs of Staff proposal
suggesting numerous false-flag pretexts
– about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
– documents: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
– video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IygchZRJVXM
91
Vietnam
twist on false flag
• Gulf of Tonkin “attack” (or rather the key
supposed 2nd attack), used as the pretext
for full-scale war, didn’t take place
– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident_-_First_attack
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/press20051201.htm
92
Gulf War
double deception
• Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie tells
Saddam Hussein the U.S. won’t get
involved in Arab/Arab (Kuwait) conflicts
(8 days before invasion)
http://arabic-radio-tv.com/greenlight.htm
• “Nurse” Nayirah and the incubator babies
(was daughter of Kuwaiti ambassador; whole
thing cooked up by a paid PR firm)
– description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah
– video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qE9zEu78o
93
Credibility
A USA today poll found that 24% of Americans
trust the media and only 6% trust the government
to tell them the truth. Why is it then that when an
idea that is contrary to the "official story" is
presented, it is met with ridicule and
condemnation?
-- Dave vonKleist (producer of 911 Ripple Effect)
94
The Fourth Estate
•
•
•
•
•
Conspiracy?
Misdirection
Self-censorship
Corporate censorship
Failure to connect the dots
95
Conspiracy?
• Perhaps not a conspiracy in the
traditional “heads together” sense
• Mostly an omnipresent combination
of patriotism, paradigmatic thinking,
and the Bottom Line.
• But there was also . . .
96
Misdirection
CIA: 1967 “Instructions to Media Assets”
In 1977 a “Destroy when no longer needed” 1967 CIA document
was unearthed, with an oddly strident and detailed set of
instructions on how to derail any further “conspiracy theories”
in the press about the JFK assassination. Some consider this
the origin of the term “conspiracy theories.”
“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any
significance in the major media.” -- former CIA director William
Colby
97
Press Censorship: How
• Disinformation
• Direct external pressure
• Self-censorship
98
Press Censorship: Who
•
•
•
•
•
Government agencies
Advertisers
High-level media ownership
Editorial staff
Reporters
99
Press Censorship: Why
•
•
•
•
•
“National security”
Serious embarrassment of subject
Bottom line (advertisers, lawsuits)
Chicanery
Ideology (e.g., Rupert Murdoch)
100
Self-censorship
"Anyone who claims the US media didn't censor
itself is kidding you. It wasn't a matter of
government pressure but a reluctance to criticise
anything in a war that was obviously supported by
the vast majority of the people. And this isn't just a
CNN issue -- every journalist who was in any way
involved in 9/11 is partly responsible.”
-- Rena Golden, 8/02 (CNN International Exec. VP/General Mgr)
101
Self-Censorship
QuickTi me™ and a
Moti on JPEG A decom pressor
are needed to see thi s pi cture.
102
Self-Censorship
“... you know there was a time in South Africa that
people would put flaming tires around people's necks if
they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you
will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of
lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that
fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of
the tough questions, and to continue to bore in on the
tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to
say, I do not except myself from this criticism.”
-- Dan Rather, CBS News (BBC interview, May, 2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7oxH95dy5g (~3 min)
103
Self-Censorship
QuickTi me™ and a
Moti on JPEG A decom pressor
are needed to see thi s pi cture.
104
Self-Censorship
“... It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself. It
carries through with a certain knowledge that the
country as a whole -- and for all the right reasons -- felt
and continues to feel this surge of patriotism within
themselves. And one finds oneself saying: 'I know the
right question, but you know what? This is not exactly
the right time to ask it'... What we are talking about here
-- whether one wants to recognize it or not, or call it by
its proper name or not -- is a form of self-censorship...”
-- Dan Rather, CBS News (BBC interview, May, 2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7oxH95dy5g (~6 min)
105
Corporate Censorship
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
106
Corporate Censorship
“I think news reporting has drastically changed
since 9/11... The reporting now, there is always use
of caution in how we cover a story.... We are every
day kicking and screaming in the news room,
trying to get stories out. But we could do a story
and it might not make air. You have someone from
the corporation making the editorial decisions.
These are not journalists.”
-- Rebecca Abrams, Assignment editor, ABC News (in Press for Truth)
107
Corporate Censorship
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
108
Corporate Censorship
“Fahrenheit 911, which is based a lot on our reports at
BBC Television on my book -- ABC News has free
access to everything we do at BBC television. We say,
"Go ahead, run it. You don't like the way Michael
Moore does it -- you think it's too polemical, or
biased? Fine. Run the hard news, buddy!"
-- Greg Palast, BBC correspondent and investigative reporter (in Press for Truth)
109
Connecting the dots
“It would be impossible as a citizen to be up and
informed on every single topic, because it took
us thousands of hours of research in order to be
informed enough to ask the right questions here.
And that's where you need media, because, you
know what? Somebody has to be out there
connecting the dots, and we don't have that.”
-- Mindy Kleinberg, Jersey Girls (in Press for Truth)
110
Connecting the dots
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
111
Connecting the dots
“[Putting the conflicting information up side by
side and comparing is] not the job of reporting.
That's the job of editorial pages and politicians
and others, to make those kinds of judgments.
And the public itself -- the 9/11 relatives
themselves, to make those kinds of assertions.
All we can do in our reporting is report facts, and
we have reported those facts, and we have held
those facts up against public statements at the
time. Which is why they know that's what took
place -- from our reporting.”
-- Len Downie, Exec. Editor, Washington Post (in Press for Truth)
112
Connecting the dots
QuickTime™ and a
Motion JPEG A decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
113
Connecting the dots
“As I began researching, I noticed this curious
phenomenon that there's a lot of explosive
information that HAS come out in the mainstream
media, but as a casual observer I'd never noticed
any of this stuff. You might find one important bit
of information in, say a newspaper story, and
another bit of information on a news show. And if
you start to put all those rather obscure stories
together, you end up with an almost completely
different narrative. For just about any area relating
to 9/11, the story is quite different if you dig deeper
into the news.”
-- Paul Thompson (in Press for Truth)
114
Connecting the dots
“... You could have one story that comes out on
the front page, and another story that comes out
on page B-12. And what I found out was that
many times, the story that comes out on page B12 is more important than the story that comes
out on the front page.”
-- Paul Thompson (in Press for Truth)
115
Press Censorship: Examples
“Into the Buzzsaw”
Stories told by award-winning investigative journalists
•
•
•
•
Total suppression of stories
Lawsuits against journalists
Destruction of careers
“Kill this thing. Drive a stake
through its heart and bury it -so it’s gone. -- CNN manager
116
Press Censorship: Examples
“Into the Buzzsaw”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
TWA Flight 800 (Navy, FBI)
Bovine growth hormone
Election theft (large scale)
Clinton’s Arkansas history
Food industry malfeasance
South Korean govt murders
Iraq non-starvation in 1990’s
Nerve gas in Vietnam
Prisoners of war in Vietnam
and more . . .
117
Press Censorship: Examples
“The Secret Life of Bill Clinton”
•
•
•
•
Oklahoma City bombing
RICO situation in Arkansas law enforcement
(non)Suicide of Vince Foster
and more . . .
118