Rigorous Intuition: Why are "insiders" not to be trusted, until they tell us what we want to hear?

Rigorous Intuition (Jeff Wells) has posted some thoughts on government work to disclose UFOs, and in that post he discusses the raft of so-called White House insiders who have come out in support of 9/11 Truth, only to become brazenly suspect in their claims:

"I remember the giddy buzz a couple of years ago when Morgan Reynolds became the first figure who could be called a "Bush insider" stepped up as a "9/11 Truth" advocate, and not the most humble one at that. His splashy website and his speaking engagements quickly carried him to the forefront of the "movement's" second wave of leadership - which, unlike the first, is largely consumed by speculative issues of controlled demolition (Reynolds wrote that "WTC demolition is truth inviolate"). It was then that his theories became increasingly bizarre and his conduct particularly divisive and fractious. Now, the planes themselves were hoaxes, and the buildings demolished by "directed energy" beam weapons. Among those signing on to Reynolds' theories was David Shayler, "former MI5 agent turned whistleblower", who alleged last September that "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes." (The Sunday Times smartly remarked, "are we sure this isn’t an MI5 agent posing as Shayler in an attempt to discredit him?")

Bill Christison, a 29-year CIA Veteran, and former director of the agency's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, has written that "An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon. Hard physical evidence supports this conclusion.... The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them.... These first two points provide the strongest evidence available that the 'official story' of 9/11 is not true." Retired Major General Albert Stubblebine, former director of the US Army Intelligence and Security Command and military patron of remote viewing, now says "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.' So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" And Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration and former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, writes "I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to 'pancake' at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false."

What credibility is lent Roberts for having served under Reagan, or for having been in The National Review's radical right stable? ("In their hatred of 'the rich,'" Roberts has also written, "the left-wing overlooks that in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government. The class genocide [in communist societies] of the 20th century is the greatest genocide in history.") Before "9/11 Truth," Reynolds was calling for the rolling back of US labor regulation, claiming that a minimum wage contributed to unemployment. To those who argue Left and Right are false dichotomies perhaps it doesn't matter, and they ought to be embraced under 9/11's "Big Tent." But to those who see in 9/11's outline a brutish war of the wealthy upon the poor of the world, perhaps it should.

Is it a sign of health that such figures have elbowed their way to the front? If he were still alive, we could ask Donald Keyhoe. What should we make of their laser-like focus upon Pentagon missile theory and demolition? Why are none of them apparently interested in talking about, say, Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission ("Do the orders still stand?"), and its excision from the commission's video archive and published record? Why are insiders not to be trusted, and their authority rejected, until they begin telling us what some of us want to hear? Then, suddenly, they become guileless figures in the know who do again what they did before: lead us."

Interesting piece. I

Interesting piece. I always cringe when I hear Alex Jones refer to Paul Craig Roberts as the "father of Reaganomics" -- as though this is something to be proud of. Last time I checked, helping to initiate a vicious war against working people on behalf of the ruling class is not something to put on one's resume. Still, I'm willing to accept that PCR has realized the error of his ways and is trying to make ammends.

Ditto Ray McGovern, who as a spook under several adminstrations was clearly a participant in genocide.

As for Mr. Reynolds, no comment necessary. He clearly never left the Bush adminstration. Methinks he might of attended one of those parties a la Lawrence KIng and has no choice but to serve as a disinformation artist.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month


He was, at least according to what we know, always and only an analyst. Now one still shouldn't work for the CIA at all but, well, he doesn't anymore. He doesn't throw out absurdities or invective or excuses for the regime. He speaks thoughtfully, analytically, and comes across in person as a soft-spoken and caring man.

One's impression can always be wrong, of course. But where do you see him doing damage?

I agree with rigint but you still have to look at people individually and decide case-by-case. Some of the insiders coming out will be genuine. Common sense usually helps in figuring it out, also a sense of our own power - actually, most infiltratrion attempts historically are clumsy and obvious. I think the worst of the ones involving themselves in 9/11 are obvious too (no names will be named in this post).

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."


Sorry if I wasn't clear; I do NOT mean to equate McGovern with Reynolds. Hence my comment that McGovern may be trying to "make ammends" while Reynolds is obviously bought and sold -- or an idiot.

My point is that McGovern WAS an active participant in genocide. Millions dead in Latin America during his stint as a high-ranking analyst for the CIA. There are degrees of culpability, and serving as a top-shelf intelligence officer for the Fourth Reich ranks extremely high on this scale.

Once again, I am not suggesting that McGovern is, at present, a sinister character; rather he's a wonderful example of the capacity for people to redeem themselves after committing horrible wrongs.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I would go one step further and say

we don't need the endorsements of former CIA to make a credible case for 9/11 Truth.

McGovern seems genuine; but perhaps we shouldn't have to judge each one that arrives on our doorstep for his air of trustworthiness.

I recognize we need the support of some establishment figures, but must we accept those who are, as it were, so close to the belly of the beast (CIA, FBI, former senior Reagan & Bush officials)?

I'm not judging Ray McGovern. I'm saying, why should we have to judge Ray McGovern? There is a case for 9/11 Truth without the double-edged sword of an endorsement from a former spook.

I'm particularly interested in


"To those who argue Left and Right are false dichotomies perhaps it doesn't matter, and they ought to be embraced under 9/11's "Big Tent." But to those who see in 9/11's outline a brutish war of the wealthy upon the poor of the world, perhaps it should."

Naturally, one should read his entire post for proper context. But the piece I excerpted here does point to a real problem in 9/11 Truth: the same people declaring there is no right/left divide are the people who rush to embrace every right-wing MIC shill who utters the words every truther wants to hear, "I believe."

I'm beginning to think not only should we be suspect of those who emerge from the MIC in support of a particular version of 9/11 Truth, we should be contemptuous of these people for the place from which they emerge. RI is right: This is a "brutish war of the wealthy upon the poor," and we don't need the suspect endorsements of the foot soldiers of the wealthy.

Not sure if like this article.

The only name mentioned in the article that IMO deserves suspicion is Morgan Reynolds (together with Fetzer and Woods).

As for the Pentagon attack. It is still very much an open case. The evidence situation is so unclear.
I don't think it hurts the 911 truth movement to keep an open mind.

Don't trust their authority

Analyze what they are saying, and learn from it if valid or not valid.

Morgan Reynolds happens to be right on the basic issue of crash physics. For all I know, his intent could be to discredit that by associating it with a former Bush insider, but I don't care. He spurred development in my understanding of the events and that is a good thing.

Why the association with Shayler, who talks about "holograms"? Granted, Reynolds also has some seemingly far-fetched ideas about a cloaked plane diverted at the last second, but that is more feasible than holograms, which is generally understood to be impossible in open sky.

These people have as much credential as I to state the obvious about the "collapses" - what's wrong with them saying it? If it gets people to listen, fine.

All we can do is think for ourselves.

Is it not natural

to trust someone who is not denying obvious facts about a crime? If Wells has looked at the destruction of the WTC towers and does not understand that plane impacts and fire could not have brought them down, then his judgment is highly suspect to me.

They are not

talking about "obvious facts," and that is the problem. Further, we don't need a former apostle of Reaganomics to tell us what makes sense in the case of the WTC collapse. None of these individuals is speaking to his known specialty (state security intelligence or economics, for example). Doesn't that strike you as odd? And what good is their testimony if it (a) supports shoddy ideas like space beams, and (b) doesn't apply to their known expertise?

I find it very odd that former CIA don't testify to the deep politics of 9/11. Instead, they testify to the absolute importance of "No Plane at the Pentagon".

The absurdity of the official "collapse" theory is obvious

and I agree, we don't need Scott to tell us that. What I cannot understand is how Wells cannot see it.

Wells sees it, I think

but if you read his blog you will see he is wary of reliance on physical evidence, as are other prominent truthers (Mike Ruppert, Sander Hicks). I agree with Jeff on the issue of the Pentagon. Sometimes Jeff goes too far down the rabbit hole, perhaps because of his passion for deep politics, but generally I think his assessments capture the tenor of deep political thinking better than most. Certainly, his classic piece, A Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11, is one of the more compelling arguments against the official theory.


here's an excerpt from Ruppert's piece on physical evidence:

"There is a mountain of physical evidence that blows the government story in my mind, but my experience says that it will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way that will bring about change. What will penetrate, from my experience, is taking non-scientific reports that most people instantly accept as credible, whether news reports or government statements or documents, and merely showing that they are lies. That opens the wedge, and removes any reliance upon expert or scientific testimony which is typically used to confuse simple facts. From there, you can begin to show people all the other documentary evidence of foreknowledge, planning and participation."

Is the current flap over BBC and WTC7 an example of what Ruppert is saying "works"? Could be.

It's the story surrounding 9/11 that is so difficult to destroy, because government propaganda has been so effective. However, if you show video of the WTC collapse to an 18-year-old, or someone who has not been directly battered by propaganda for five years, that person will immediately recognize a building being blown apart.

Save the scare quotes, Jeff

I suppose Mr. Wells is just trying to telegraph how impeccably above the fray he is by putting quotes around the movement. When was the last time you got your ass in the street for 9/11 truth, Jeff? Other than that, I agree with the sentiment of his article.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month