Using History Channel and Other 'Debunkers' to Identify Our Strengths and Use Them to Pursue Justice
I watched the History Channel program "The 9-11 Conspiracies" and it was one of the more wide-ranging 'debunking' efforts so far. This is a good sign. One guy ludicrously dropped 'theory' from its normal place in the epithet, and would just talk about the conspiracies abounding on the internet- 9-11 Blogger's not laundering drug money is it? They even brought up Mineta's testimony, about which Coburn from Popular Mechanics had no flippant response to other than wishing there would soon be some official response to it. We all know that there won't be until there are indictments and summonses.
Meanwhile, attempts at serious and thorough debunking efforts, although many times annoying and venomous, signal to us that we are getting closer to "breaking through." They also can give us a sense of what our strongest evidence is and what is our most contentious, stickiest and weakest "strawman" information. A clear sign that something is difficult to refute is that it won't even be mentioned. When an attempt is made to debunk one part of a theory or set of evidence and not another part, you can bet that the part that has been left out is very strong material that they can't deal with or don't want people to even think about in the first place.
Here is a short list of information pertinent to 9-11 Truth that was almost completely excluded in the History Channel piece:
-War games mimetic of the day's events (NRO plane crash drill, Joint Chiefs/NORAD live-fly hijack drill Vigilant Warrior/Guardian)
-Whistle Blowers such as Sibel Edmonds, Colleen Rowley and Robert Wright
-Threat against Bush and Airforce One- "Angel is Next"
-Contentiousness over the fact, face and practice of the 9-11 Commission itself
-Anthrax attacks after the fact targetting potential political and journalistic opposition or 'problems'
Here is a short list of information that was only patially addressed:
-Historical precedent- they only brought up Pearl Harbor and not USS Liberty, Lusitania, Reichstag Fire/Gleiwitz Radio Station,
Operation Ajax, Northwoods, Tonkin Gulf, Gladio
-Demolitions-they didn't bring up pyroclastic flow, horizontal ejections of tons of steel, much of full shots of Building 7 being demolished,
Dr. Jones' thermate analysis (he got very little time, so he must be difficult to deal with), Willie Rodriguez's testimony
-Dancing Mossad Agents-they of course played the 'Da Joos Did It" card, but left out that workers for the Israeli company Odigo got text
messages a bit before the attack (reported in Ha'aretz) and celebrating Mossad agents who later admitted they were there
to document the event. Being Jewish myself, I find it horrifically disingenuous the way they play the anti-semitic card,
especially since the War on Terror itself is anti-semitic, being that Arabs are technically semitic people
-The fact the Pentagon got hit at all and where it got hit- they spent a ton of time on the debate about what hit the Pentagon
-Motives-They covered PNAC, but didn't touch Brezinski's "Grand Chessboard" or Straussian notions of enemy images
-Cheney in the PEOC-they surprisingly brought up Mineta's testimony regarding the anomolous orders that Cheney reconfirmed as a
plane approached, but couldn't quite deal with it so proceeded to hollow shots @ "conspiracy theories." They didn't,
however, bring up the timeline conflicts implicit in Mineta's and Richard Clarke's testimony. Either the two of them are lying
or mistaken about when Cheney was in the PEOC or Cheny himself and the Commission are lying or mistaken. This is a
serious conflict of narrative and easily shown and potentially cleared up if there is no "there there" as in the Zelikowtian
Here is a list of evidence and/or theories that are weaker and/or sticky:
-The question of what hit the Pentagon
-Flight 93 and its lack of physical evidence
-Cell phones, telephone calls and voice mimicry technology, or anything that directly conflicts with a family member's experience
-any theories that fixate solely on physical evidence
-any politically simplistic theories such as "Bush did it"
Another thing we need to think through is the psychological aspect of all this. The 'debunkers' always offer up a cheap pop-psychology explanation of our addiction to secret knowledge and simple, soothing explanations. The absurdity of saying that the belief that elements of our own government were responsible for the largest terrorist attack in history is supposed to be comforting is still striking to me. It points to the fact that we need to thoroughly outline our 'debunkers' psychological flaws and motivations for all to see. Such as, they don't have the courage to face up to the hard historical facts that implicate their own impotence.
In conclusion, we must use Popular Mechanics, The History Channel, www.911myths.com, www.screwloosechange.blogspot.com to winnow down to what is most powerful in our argument. The time for speculation is over. We have what we need. No further fractious dialogues about pods, planes or no planes (Pentagon and otherwise), phone calls, dead or alive highjackers is going to help us do the diffficult work ahead of pushing Justice on through. Yes, the full truth is important, but some things we will never know for sure or hash out fully until we get people into courtrooms and/or a real, independent investigation. It is now time for focus, discipline and creativity of method. We have the Satya (Truth) we need. We can and must more fully apply its Graha (Power). Let's burn the straw men and use the light of the fire to illuminate our bedrock of Truth.