Political Scientist Mary Maxwell Believes 9/11 Was an 'Inside Job'

9/11 and Internet credibility - By Mary Maxwell, Ph.D.

How long must we wait to judge the validity of the September 11th conspiracy theories that have floated around on the Internet for years? I believe there is a way to grant status and authority to the many excellent reports and analyses whose only sin is that they appear in electronic form instead of newsprint. Moreover, we should start this process right away. After all, if our government is behaving maliciously, we need to know it, communicate it to others, and act on it with urgency. This will require that we make judgments about September 11th now and not wait for 'perfect proof.'
The inside-job theory concerning September 11th - which accuses the government of collusion with the 'hijackers' is already backed up by hundreds of trutho pages on the Internet. Almost any reasonable person would be persuaded by this denuded-of-junk material. Luckily, there is a good structure to the research that was contributed by many people over the four years since 2001. The main four parts of that structure are as follows:

  • speculation as to motive. E.g., the government conjured up a fearsome enemy, Osama, because that would give the green light for military invasion of Afghanistan, and it would prepare Americans to surrender many of their political freedoms;
  • evidence that suggests insider foreknowledge. E.g., the telltale fact that Larry Silverstein leased the World Trade Center's Twin Towers only six weeks before the event and set himself up for large reimbursement by insurance companies, and the fact that many FBI whistleblowers claim that the White House obstructed their pre-9/11 trailing of suspected terrorists;
  • the flimsiness of the official story. E.g., the government's highly implausible claim that NORAD, with its superb surveillance system, lost track of four planes, and the allegation that someone found the passport of one of the hijackers on the ground in New York - a miraculous occurrence if it fell from a burning plane;
  • lack of any proper investigation or prosecutions. E.g., the official 9/11 Commission did not require sworn testimony from Vice President Cheney, and the firefighters' request for a proper incident report has gone unheeded. Even public debate was suppressed by dubbing it 'unpatriotic' or 'paranoid.'

I feel no embarrassment in saying that I accept the inside-job theory. To me it makes perfect sense. Once I have admitted this, however, I am forced to move to the next stage and face the truly frightening question, "What should we do now that our government seems to be our violent enemy?" For the moment, let us look at one more conspiracy theory that has been canvassed on the Internet.

I said it last week and I will say it again. Now is the time for those in the academic world to harden their beliefs and come out with public statements. Thanks Mary.

dz: infowars.com has got the

dz: infowars.com has got the story + video up now....


Interesting article,

Interesting article, although I felt it wasn't very focused. I mean, the title suggests that she's going to talk more about the internet credibility issue -- she DID talk about it, but then just switched subjects to the Hinkley story. Regardless, it was good to hear her join the ranks of those of us questioning the official story of 9/11.

Just saw your breaking news

Just saw your breaking news above this article -- about Tucker Carlson saying 9/11 skeptics should leave the country. Now that sounds more like the twerp we all knew he was....

I was beginning to wonder about last night's interview with Steven Jones -- Carlson just seemed too conciliatory, and that was strange in and of itself. So, why the extreme change tonight? Vedy interesting. Somebody's been talking to Tucker.... or threatening him! ;-)

I've got my bags packed. :)

I've got my bags packed. :)

kw: I'll tell you what I

kw: I'll tell you what I heard Mary state:

A Challenge.

For you and me and every other thinking American to grow a set, and be publically UPFRONT and UNAPOLOGETIC for using common sense and healthy skeptism. Believing our "lying eyes".

Thanks Mary. Sometimes, we need a little encouragement to continue the hard fight against The Establishment. A fresh breeze, and a little wind in the sails.

Thanks again. Will do.

Without question, we need an

Without question, we need an official, bi-partisan investigation.

If you do your research, it seems almost impossible for Building 7 to come down as it did.

A bi-partisan investigation?

A bi-partisan investigation? How about a panel with 12 people, six of whom are Democrats and Republicans (one party), and six of whom come from the rest of us (the other party). To reflect the population better, maybe we should have a 12-person panel with one Republican, one Democrat, and 10 other people.

I know this is the thread

I know this is the thread about mary maxwell, but I just wanted to point out that tucker carlson couldn't have had Jones on his show without the MSNBC big wigs approval, and they must have been well aware of the potential ramifications of having Jones on. so his apparent reversal into the role of fool the following night might have been designed to promote yet more controversy. see what I'm saying? IF THEY DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK ABOUT IT, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE LET JONES AND HIS REPORT ANYWHERE NEAR A TV CAMERA. sorry for yelling... but they couldn't start out by putting it in prime time -