Here's a story that'll interest Jim Corr- The O-Zone: 05/05/2009 HERALD (Dublin)
http://www.herald.ie/entertainment/around-town/the-ozone-05052009-1728871.html
The O-Zone: 05/05/2009 HERALD (Dublin)
By Olaf Tyaransen
Tuesday May 05 2009
TUESDAY
Here's a story that'll interest Jim Corr. Recently Open Chemical Physics Journal published a paper with the snappy title: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Centre Catastrophe.
Authored by an international team of physicists and chemists who had forensically examined the WTC dust, the peer-reviewed article stated: "We conclude that the red layer of the red/grey chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."
If correct, the paper destroys the official story that "no evidence" exists for explosive or pyrotechnic materials in the WTC towers, and is devastating to the official explanation that the buildings were demolished solely by hijacked planes.
Needless to say, the story hasn't been widely reported anywhere in the mainstream media. Not possessed of the expertise to understand the science, The O-Zone can't really comment on the veracity of their claims. However, I found an online TV News interview on Denmark's national station with one of the main physicists, and he made a very interesting comment: "Two airplanes hit two skyscrapers on 9/11 -- yet three skyscrapers collapsed that day. Symmetrically." (Another building, WTC7, collapsed that day).
Conspiracy theory? Of course -- yet another one. But anybody who still believes the official Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld version of events truly needs their head examined.
- Joe's blog
- Login to post comments
Old question / topic for a new paper?
It's good to see somebody noticing the scientific paper. We could use a few million more.
I would really really really like to find a way to deal with the absurdly pejorative connotation of: "conspiracy theory." The scientific paper by Harrit et al. IS NOT a "conspiracy theory." It examines and describes explosive/incendiary material discovered in the dust of the WTC from 9/11. How on earth is that a "conspiracy theory"? It does destroy the Official version, but does not present a theory as to how the material got there, or who did it. That information, hopefully, is to come. Dealing with that pejorative phrase is nothing new...but still...it would be nice to discover the route that could chart around or through it and have done with it as a barrier to people's perceptions. (Hmmm...a paper on that subject?)
But still happy to see this was written, and I love the fact that the author recognizes the absurdity of the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield" version.
conspiracy theory retorts
Here are two ideas:
"If you're not a conspiracy theorist you are not paying attention!"
Also sometimes I acknowledge that the phrase is well motivated because it tries to make the point that one shouldn't be chronically suspicious. But then I say that it is equally bad to not be suspicious enough - to not question enough! And I mention that wise people through the ages have intructed us to be skeptical of power.
Helluva quote
That quote is amazing. Did you coin that? It's perfect: concise, memorable, and...humorous. Humor can be of the utmost importance, often when dealing with matters of the highest seriousness.
The second part of what you state is equally valid.
A full-length paper by, say, Michael Green, on the continued pejoration of "Conspiracy Theory" could be effective, too.
But, wow, that quote is great. That's the kind of thing that can lodge beneficially in a person's mind, and allow them to alter to a more honest assessment of things--an assessment based on evidence, rather than misdirection. That is, it can get them, by questioning what they've been told , to start thinking for themselves.
Glad you like it
I shared it on a piece of paper with DRG in Portsmouth recently but I am not sure if he has used it since it is so different from his "official conspiracy theory" angle.
www.maine911truth.org
I often say:
"When it comes to 9/11, everyone is a conspiracy theorist. The question is, which theory is best supported by all the facts?"
or
"Unless you believe one guy did 9/11 by himself, then you're a conspiracy theorist. Is your theory supported by all the facts?"
I've never let the "conspiracy theorist" label put me off, I just smile and try to hook them with an interesting fact or appeal to their basic humanity. Of course, I've been called a "conspiracy theorist" ever since I started trying to convince folks that the CIA was running cocaine as part of Iran-Contra back in the 80's, so I'm quite used to it.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Orwell 101
The 'aburdly pejorative' connation of 'conspiracy theory' is just one more absurdity arising from an overall absurd state of affairs, whereby the term 'democracy' is routinely used to describe a society in which a small elite minority exercises power over a vast majority.
Step one: Restrict the meaning of 'conspiracy theory' to cover only those views which diverge from the ones being presented by the government and corporate news media. Oh sure, the government and news media might make assertions--which may be no better than theoretical in nature--concerning criminal conspiracies; but they never, never espouse 'conspiracy theories,' heaven forbid! And alas, they have successfully exercised their power over information and language to the point that many people--even those who question government accounts--accept it as basic to the definition of 'conspiracy theory' that it can only ever refer to conspiracy theorizing by those outside of government and corporate news media.
(Example: Have you ever heard someone who is showing some receptivity to 9/11 truth arguments say something like, 'I don't know--maybe it was a conspiracy.' As if the official version which they've been more or less accepting to that point hasn't been about a 'conspiracy' all along!)
Step two: Have government spokespersons and media commentators employ the term not only in a restricitive way, but in a highly pejorative way--to make it sound as if all thoughts concerning conspiracies which differ from those emanating from the political establishment are necessarily kooky, no need to even examine the substance of whatever arguments are involved.
End result: Millions and millions of people come to believe, consciously or not, that to have any doubts regarding the basic truthfulness and reliability of reports from government and the corporate media is not only tmistaken...but is actually a sign of being mentally defective!!
We've heard about how, in the former Soviet Union (for example), the goverment would sometimes deal with political dissidents by sending them to mental institutions. Here, without resorting to such direct methods, the ruling class has been able to employ its power over media to control language--and thereby thought--in such a way that capitalizes on the public's fears of such ostracism and institutionalization, to the point that millions of people in a 'democracy' accept that 'sanity' depends on an unswerving confidence in the truthfulness of their ruling elites--who by definition can only ever be guilty of 'negligence' and 'incompetence,' nothing more!
Drove it home - thoroughly
I don't think I've ever read a better elucidation of the propaganda value of having a monopoly on the definition of 'sane', in order to squash dissent and smother impertinent questions.
(You should write a blog article about it..have you?)
Thanks
No, no blog article--but thanks for your comment. I don't know if I could elaborate on it much more. I think this is the first time I've verbalized these thoughts in writing. I recall first expressing them in public during question and answer period with the makers of the film 'Stealing America Vote By Vote' when they were present for the screening I saw late last summer. (Election-theft activism has, of course, suffered from the same kind of propaganda techniques as 9/11 truthers!)
Election fraud
Yes it has suffered from the same propaganda techniques. Interestingly Greg Palast, who has had some friction and some reconciliation with the truth movement, was himself indeed labeled a "conspiracy theorist", when he turned up the volume on his work uncovering the election fraud. There was nothing conspiratorial about it, of course, just hard facts.