Support 911Blogger


Obama advisor Sunstein's "Conspiracy Theory" : Proposals for Silencing Dissent, Misrepresenting the 911 Truth Movement

Obama advisor Sunstein's "Conspiracy Theory" : Proposals for Silencing Dissent, Misrepresenting the 911 Truth Movement

inalienable |inˈālēənəbəl| adjective unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

Just when you thought America and her citizens had suffered enough abuse from federal fraudsters demanding that We The People must give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, an ominous doom-cloud looms to further cheat Americans of those sunny rays that are freedom in America - the cloud's name? Cass Sunstein. In this post we will examine his paper "Conspiracy Theories" and contrast some snippets from the paper with videos demonstrating the misrepresentations the paper portrays regarding the 911 Truth Movement and what it stands for.

Wikipedia has a bio on Sunstein:

"Cass R. Sunstein (born September 21, 1954) is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School,[1] where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration."

So we have another Constitutional Scholar working for We The People in addition to President Obama. Perhaps this "Constitutional Scholar" will go a step further and actually work to uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Just the opposite.

Sunstein co-wrote a paper titled "Conspiracy Theories" with Adrian Vermeule. The paper can be downloaded HERE. The co-author is identified in the paper as a Professor of Law at Harvard and will be referred to as "the other guy" since he deserves no respect. That isn't to say Sunstein does but since he will be working for the Constitutional Scholar in the White House I focus on him.

To get started please listen to the founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) , Richard Gage AIA, at the 5:41 mark respond when he is asked for a theory as to who he thinks is behind the attacks of 911 if the official story is false. This follows his discussion of evidence from the crime scene that does not support the official hypothesis - in fact - it supports a hypothesis the 911 commission refused to consider - controlled demolition. Pay special attention to the fact that he doesn't start with a conspiracy theory - he starts with a discussion of evidence and resists the urge to jump to conclusions or "conspiracy theories."

Now that you've had a chance to see one member of the 911 Truth movement speak for himself let's examine some excerpts from Sunstein's paper paying special attention to the disconnect between the picture Sunstein paints of "Conspiracy Theorists" and the reality that is the 911 Truth movement he so desperately, and in vain tries to vilify.

Page 2: "Among sober-minded Canadians, a September 2006 poll found that 22 percent believe that "the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden and were actually a plot by influential Americans. In a poll conducted in seven Muslim countries, 78 percent of respondents said that they do not believe the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the U.S. or Israeli governments. What causes such theories to arise and spread?"

Has it ever dawned on Sunstein that discrepancies between the evidence and the explanation given for events would cause such theories to arise and spread? Apparently he's thought of everything under the sun except for this possibility.

Page 3: "Our main ...focus...involves conspiracy theories relating to terrorism, especially theories that arise from and post-date the 9/11 attacks. These theories exist within the United States and, even more virulently, in foreign countries, especially Muslim countries."

May I point out the authors forgot to mention Denmark and Australia as countries where 911 Truth has blossomed? Note that Muslims this and Muslims that. Don't leave out the Muslims. It's crazy people and Muslims - that's all you need to know. Let me know when you see the crazy fanatical conspiratorial-Muslim people Sunstein needs to rob of their rights as you watch the videos below.

DENMARK
Professor in chemistry Niels Harrit and Jakob Hede Madsen interviewed on TV2 - Denmarks largest TV channel:

AUSTRALIA
Richard Gage AIA and Jan Utzon of Sydney Opera House discuss 9/11 truth:

The authors wonder what gives rise to such "Conspiracy Theories." Notice so far that there is no "conspiracy theory" posited by the 911 Truth movement - although after examining the evidence they point out that it contradicts the 911 Commission official conspiracy theory conclusions, and lend support to an alternative hypothesis - controlled demolition. Below is a video you may be familiar with. Another person Sunstein needs to silence?

I can understand why our Harvard Law Professors, guardians of the Bill of Rights and Constitution want to silence citizen-researchers like Richard Gage AIA of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. In the following video from Canadian television Gage discusses specifics and hard facts (none of which appear in Sunstein's sciolistic scarefest white paper) like "fuel air ratios" "hydrocarbon" and "iron-rich microspheres" - incantations too fantastic for our Harvard Professors to grasp. Is this why they view members of the 911 Truth movement as witches to be preemptively silenced before they can practice their witchcraft otherwise known as the scientific method?

Other facts discussed in these videos, like the melting point of structural steel, or that no steel-framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to office fires - puzzles demanding investigation escape our Constitutional Scholars from Harvard. As Omniscient Law Professors from the illustrious Harvard University one would think they could grasp the importance of such sober concerns coming from an architect. Nope - they see terrorists they can't debate in public that must be silenced.

Go to time= 8:41 in the video below-listen to what Gage says when pressed to state a conspiracy theory - HE DOESN'T POSIT ONE. So exactly what/which "Conspiracy Theory" are Sunstein (and the other guy) referring to in their paper? Read their paper - it contains only generalizations. Gage does later talk about directions the investigation might take in light of the evidence collected - of course hypotheses will sprout - but the difference between Gage and what our Harvard geniuses misrepresent him and others as - is that Gage considers alternate hypotheses the official 911 Commission and other government investigators chose to ignore. He puts it simply: "Let the chips fall where they may."

"We bring forward the forensic-based science"

And by the way - for a couple of Harvard professors that like throwing the word "Epistemology" around it is ironic that the recommendations proposed in their sanctimonious "Conspiracy Theory" paper would also quash the Socratic method as a means of finding truth. It is no wonder, with American institutions often following the leadership of the great Harvard University; that with philistines like Sunstein and the other guy in prominent positions that our justice system is a travesty.

Later in the paper Sunstein (and the other guy) speciously draw a link between the thought-mechanisms that make people consider "Conspiracy Theories" and "Anger and Hatred." This is the set-up to start calling dissenters terrorists obviously. Translation - critical thinking skills are bad. Blind faith is good.

So lemme guess - that's the reason he needs to send out secret police and internet shills to ridicule, torment and attack with twisted logic those participating in the grass-roots-led investigation that is the 911 Truth movement. He considers all kinds of problems the government faces when faced with the possibility that a "false conspiracy theory" is spreading. Since he and other wise men can intuitively identify a "false conspiracy theory" they will protect us from ourselves by employing agents by night, infiltrators, and shills to disrupt the process by which the rest of us arrive at truth - evidence - science - debate - questioning. Never explained in the paper is how the rest of us can identify "false conspiracy theories" like Sunstein can without examining evidence and applying the scientific method - perhaps the concept is similar to the divine right of kings?

I am a bit surprised that a Harvard Law Professor doesn't leap at the opportunity to publicly debate a bunch of whackos like architect Richard Gage AIA or a plebian like Jack Rabbit. Why can't he use his impenetrable Harvard logic, scientific method, and Harvard debating skills to discredit people who he pretends don't have their facts straight?

Or does he know how to pick his fights - and knows the only way to stop a movement with the truth behind it is by corrupting the very laws that provide the citizens with the checks and balances on their government. The checks and balances that make a free society capable of dispelling myth through open debate - a society that can stop witchhunts because logic and reason rule over fear mongering and emergency measures that rob us of our liberty? Consider this snippet from this autocratically-minded soon-to-be-advisor-to-the-president's paper:

Read more at the author's website: http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-advisor-sunsteins-conspiracy.html

Sunstein & Obama:

Two guys putting the con in constitutional scholar.

Great article

This was put together really well and piece by piece takes Sunstein apart. It also underscores something many of us already know - we need to focus the most on finding the truth out and discussing the evidence, and resist from attempting to lay blame. I am not saying this is an issue, most people involved in 9-11 truth are quick to say they don't know what happened and that is why they question. One other this this brings to mind is that the people who are telling you to ignore crazy conspiracy theorists and Muslims are associated with some of the same people that benefitted the most from 9-11 and other acts of terror. Typical behavior of an addict or a criminal is to try extremely hard to misdirect your attention, and that is clearly what is happening here.

The love that you withhold is the pain that you carry

Watch out for the traps

This Sunstein issue is a volatile one. It is riddled with landmines and could do more harm than good to our image, depending on how we react. We all need to be very careful about what we say, especially when we write stuff. I've been pondering this carefully and I have a few thoughts:

1) It is our IMAGE and not our ISSUES that is being challenged. In a nutshell, Sunstein is lumping us in with Holocaust deniers and then expounding on how both lead to violence, hence, deserving govt intervention. I think we need to show discipline and restraint in one respect, and focus and resolve regarding how we are perceived. Arguing various aspects of 9/11 is basically futile and nothing will change Sunstein's mind.

2) the main problem with Sunstein’s paper is that his definition of a “theory” is wrong and manipulative. A “theory” is neither true nor false (look it up in a dictionary). IT’S A THEORY. If a theory is proven to be true, then it is no longer a theory, but a fact. So for Sunstein to posture that there are true theories and false theories is a flat out invalid assumption. We use theories to get at the truth, but they, themselves, are not the truth. One definition of a theory from wiki: “a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena” We ARE theorists and there is nothing wrong with that. And we have radical elements and there is nothing wrong with that either. That’s all just human nature. In response to Sunstein I think we need to stick to the facts. We need to show people that we are capable of discerning fact from theory. David Ray Griffin says it the best: "There is the Bush/Cheney theory and some alternative theories and the real task is to determine which theory is best supported by the evidence." The best arena for that is a criminal investigation, which hasn’t happened. So what are the pertinent facts? It is a fact that more than half of the commissioners have distanced themselves from the governments theory. It is a fact that there was no criminal investigation. It is a fact that there has not been a single instance of violence by 9/11 truthers. We could just stop there if we wanted and force an opponent to respond and defend Sunstein, And if they go off-topic, bring them back on-topic. But certainly don't expound on nanothermite, Project for a New American Century, etc., etc.

3) Another problem is where 911 truth is compared to Holocaust denial. Why does Sunstein stop at theories about the US govt or Israel? There are many who think the CFR and Bilderberg group was behind the attacks. It is Sunstein who has the pre-occupation with Israel, not the conspiracy theorists. What about Holocaust denial? This is the most clever part of Sunstein’s approach. The Holocaust is a documented fact. We have had the trials and the evidence and witnesses have been presented. There has been no trial where evidence and witnesses have been presented and scrutinized regarding 9/11, which is what we are calling for. And Holocaust denial HAS led to violence. No argument on that. In that regard, Holocaust denial could be appropriate for his thesis, but there has been no criminal investigation, no trials and no violence associated with 911 truth, so it has no business being lumped in with Holocaust denial. The fact that Sunstein lumped the two together is extremely manipulative.

4) I really think the Tonkin Gulf story is the best example of a conspiracy theory to use to explain how conspiracy theories can pan out to be true, and we don’t use it enough to our advantage. Truthers love bringing up Northwoods, but that story only illuminates one aspect of our theory. Tonkin Gulf is a much more comprehensive and revealing incident to get people to ponder because it is now proven that the govt. not only lied, but intended to lie. For many, many years, there was a conspiracy theory that Lyndon Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us into Vietnam. The government flat out denied that the incident was fake and that's how it was reported in the press. It has now been proven that Johnson and the military did in fact lie. So what the conspiracy theorists thought might be true is actually true and therefore is no longer a theory, but a fact. But it used to be a conspiracy theory. So some theories prove to be true and others prove to be false. Big deal! We should respond by asking if the clusters of conspiracy theorists who thought the Gulf of Tonkin was faked by the White House and military should have been infiltrated and broken up, as suggested by Sunstein.

I strongly recommend that when discussing the problems with Sunstein, don’t fall into the trap of arguing 911 issues. That’s NOT the problem with the paper from our perspective. The paper does not purport to be an examination of 911 issues. All of our theories are only theories, waiting to be proven to be either true or false. Sunstein treats these issues as having been proven, and they have not. Don’t go down that rabbit hole because that is one of the traps designed to make us look foolish. Notice none of the blog commentators even mention 911. That’s because they see the main problem with Sunstein has nothing to do with 911, but with the form of his argument and the measures he is calling for based on faulty logic.

So I think the best response from us is to shatter the comparison with Holocaust denial and insert a more applicable comparison relating to Tonkin Gulf.

Be careful out there.

Update: I just found this oped piece. It's a good example of how to destroy Sunstein without going near 9/11 issues. It's seems more and more people are inching closer to understanding our perspective. That "critical mass" that people like to talk about might be closer than we think.

http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/15238/7/conspiracy+theories,+online+...

Disagreement is healthy

Jack Rabbit

911Peacenik says:
"It is our IMAGE and not our ISSUES that is being challenged."

False. Sunstein isn't attacking your image one bit. He is attacking your issues. He is attributing "false conspiracy theories" to the 911 Truth movement when they don't exist. As far as your image I can't remember one word.

911 Peacenik says:
"he main problem with Sunstein’s paper is that his definition of a “theory” is wrong and manipulative."

False. The main problem with Sunstein's paper is that he wants to strip you of your right to free speech which is an inalienable right - an oxymoron. As far as it being wrong and manipulative - the response I wrote to it is an attempt to explain exactly why it is wrong and manipulative. More specifically it is manipulative in the sense that is uses scapegoating with the 911 truth movement as scapegoats to accomplish the stripping of the right to free speech.

911 Peacenik says:
" Another problem is where 911 truth is compared to Holocaust denial. "

True or False? Who cares. Who's denying the Holocaust? Don't let Sunstein stifle anyone with that - especially Americans who STOPPED the Holocaust and protected the SCAPEGOATS/VICTIMS of the Holocaust. Now he's leading a movement that relies on scapegoating - but this time it's "false conspiracy theorists" - a bit ironic .

911 Peacenik says:
"I strongly recommend that when discussing the problems with Sunstein, don’t fall into the trap of arguing 911 issues. "

I disagree - what trap? His paper clearly scapegoats the 911 Truth movement and that charge must be answered point by point . That was the purpose of this blog post - and Richard Gage AIA and others do us proud.

His assertions are layed bare for everyone to see them for what they are - fabrications and misrepresentations of reality. Rational people who take the time to watch the videos and read the text will see the truth. And the truth will set you free.

Many thanks to Richard Gage AIA for his leadership, boldness and sacrifice.

Let's clarify

UR actually proving my point even though you think otherwise. Not one of your rebuttals refers to the twin towers, building seven, the pentagon, Shanksville, cell phones, mysterious passports, etc. Why? Because you don't need them to rebut me or Sunstein.

It's a trap because the media and govt is chomping at the bit for us to overreact so they can point the finger at us and demonstrate how fanatical we are. Even if he is never able to implement any of his suggested policies, he will have succeeded in smearing our image if we go over the top in attacking him. He's begging to be attacked, he's not THAT stupid. And if he is begging to be attacked it means he has a strategy for when it happens. All I'm saying is don't give him that opportunity.

Scapegoat definition: One that is made to bear the blame of others. Indirectly you are right, but not directly. We are not taking the blame for any one or any thing. We are being portrayed as wackos.

When I said we shouldn't argue 9/11 issues, I meant the evidentiary issues, i.e controlled demolition, the hole at the Pentagon, etc. There are plenty of 911 issues we can use to rebut him, especially regarding the coverup. I'm just saying that every issue is not applicable and that we need to be careful about which issues we call out.

Who cares about the comparison to Holocaust deniers? I do. This card is pulled every time they get boxed into a corner. And It's effective. There are no comparisons and we need to rebut THAT, vigorously

"Rational people who take the time to watch the videos and read the text will see the truth." Great. So we're safe with 1% of the population. I'm concerned with the other 99%, that portion of the public that is swayed with a couple of 30-second spots on TV.

"Sunstein isn't attacking your image one bit. He is attacking your issues. He is attributing "false conspiracy theories" to the 911 Truth movement when they don't exist." If he was attacking our issues, he would take each one and counter them with evidence of his own as they do at Screw loose Change. But he doesn't do that. Instead he assumes the fallacy of our contentions and proceeds to portray us as radical and dangerous. He doesn't dare go near our issues because he knows he might lose.

Yes, many thanks to Richard Gage, Steven Jones, et.al. And one glaring mistake in my thesis is regarding the FACTS. It is definitely a fact that for the first 2-plus seconds, Building Seven fell at freefall speed. Excuse me but it sounds kinda weird to bring that up when you are being compared to Holocaust deniers. Maybe I'm the weird one.

But thanks for chiming in. It seems you joined up here at Blogger to rebut ME. I'll take the compliment. Welcome.

And there is one other thing we can take comfort in. There are lots of blog posts out there defending our 1st amendment rights, even if they do not endorse our opinion. I don't think that would be the case if our issue was denying the Holocaust. We can assume to a certain degree that these writers may not fully endorse our opinion, but they don't fully reject it either. In some respects we have become the poster child for free speech. and that's fine with me.

Don't act guilty when you are not guilty.

Jack Rabbit

I'm talking about 911 because the story told doesn't add up.

I defended the 911 truth movement since it is specifically used as a scapegoat by Cass Sunstein to excuse his justification for secret police and infringement of the first amendment.

I don't want to talk about the Holocaust - period - but there is some irony that needs to be pointed out so people can see the hypocrisy inherent in the speaker.

Although articles had been written in response to the traitorous article - not one that I'd seen defended the 911 truth movement specifically - despite the heavy reliance of Sunstein's paper on scapegoating specifically the 911 truth movement. I took the responsibility to do what my limited resources allowed - the result is the article above.

This is information warfare - winning war means taking risks. Be bold.

One humorous point in Sunstein's paper

I had to laugh when I saw this:

Infiltration of any kind poses well-known risks: perhaps agents will be asked
to perform criminal acts to prove their bona fides, or (less plausibly) will themselves
become persuaded by the conspiratorial views they are supposed to be undermining;

I can just see Dr. Steven E. Jones telling the agent to go steal all the chalk and erasers from the Physics Department lecture halls at BYU! And may the Powers forbid the cognitive infiltration agent should have his own epistemology crippled by little things such as irrefutable evidence and rational analysis.


"Man muß die Dinge so einfach wie möglich machen. Aber nicht einfacher" -- Albert Einstein

Perhaps we should thank Sunstein

I've been reflecting on Sunstein's paper, and now realize that it is probably a blessing in disguise. He is basically codifying what was already taking place. We have already encountered "countermisinformation" and "cognitive infiltration". The Executive Office was already coordinating information releases, etc. All Sunstein seems to have done is to explicitly state the existing practices. In doing so, he gave us something tangible to point to as clear evidence that such practices have been advocated. All we need do is "flip the script" and and assume Sunstein knows - as anybody who has taken the time to investigate will - that 9/11 really was some kind of inside job. What he has done is publish the playbook.

Thank you Dr. Sunstein!


"Man muß die Dinge so einfach wie möglich machen. Aber nicht einfacher" -- Albert Einstein

I agree ...

Sunstein's demonstrable advocacy of "cognitive infiltration", an activity that many of us have suspected for quite some time, clearly affirms our suspicions and provides the 9/11 truth movement with a powerful argument against the state's professed concern for truth and the principles of democracy. In other words, Sunstein's paper is in itself, armor for the 9/11 truth movement. Let's use it!