Entire February 2010 Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist Devoted to State Crimes Against Democracy: The Case of 9/11/2001

By Elizabeth Woodworth, Professional Librarian

For 50 years the American Behavioral Scientist has been a leading source of behavioral research for the academic world. Its influence is shown by the fact that it is indexed by an extraordinary 67 major database services, causing its papers to be widely exposed on the international scene.

The publisher, Sage, is headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington DC.

Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic.

The six papers in the February 2010 issue are devoted to the recent concept of "State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD's)," with emphasis on 9/11 and on how human behavior has failed to recognize its reality. [Ref. abs.sagepub.com/content/vol53/issue6 ]

Original article at http://www.ae911truth.org/info/179

I'm taken aback

This is a remarkable development!

The arc of history IS long, but it bends toward justice.

It's a shame

It's a shame that much of this thread was steered off course. Having read these articles, I can say with confidence that this raises the work of our movement to a new level.

We are now moving beyond forensic evidence and getting solid intellectual traction in the process of exposing the underlying criminality responsible for 9/11.

The "State Crimes Against Democracy" (SCAD) construct alone is worth the read:

"This article examines the conceptual foundations, political context, and practical implications of research on state crimes against democracy (SCADs). The SCAD construct is designed to move beyond the debilitating, slipshod, and scattershot speculation of conspiracy theories by focusing inquiry on patterns in elite political criminality that reveal systemic weaknesses, institutional rivalries, and illicit networks." ("Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government," Lance deHaven-Smith)

Please don't post the papers on filesharing sites

it's been brought to 911blogger's attention that distributing these papers (i.e. via file-sharing sites) is a violation of copyright.

The papers can be accessed through many school's research databases, if you have access.

In addition, the publisher, Sage, is selling the issue for $24. (or papers can be downloaded individually for $25 ea.)


Thanks for your cooperation; comments with links to the filesharing sites are being removed or edited.


Highly recommended reading for all scholars and SCAD researchers

“Scholars who demure that 2 + 2 = 4 (i.e., the awesome intellectual silence making permissible the blithe dismissal of more than one law of thermodynamics in the World Trace Center Towers’ collapse) in fact serve a vital purpose: obscuring from judicious, democratic public review the arbitrary wishes of shadowy mandate and power. We may never know who or what, really, was responsible for 9/11, the Reichstag Fire, and like littered legacy of deception. But we will surely know who is responsible for not even trying to find out, for not safeguarding the secret doctrine that 2 + 2 = 4.”

These were the concluding words of Matthew T. Witt, (University of La Verne, California) in “”Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship”, American Behavioral Scientist 53 (6), quote on page 934.

I was a privileged early bird to be able to access these articles early on-line, printed them out, and read them from a book I made.
I second turboglo that this academic material raises our movement to a new level, not only in the US, but internationally. Please, if you can order the February issue, do so without delay, and present it /discuss it in many forums! The last time I saw such good work was issue 13 of Global Outlook: http://www.globaloutlook.ca/Store/Magazines/13/13_Executive_Summary.htm or, the scientific proof in Harrit’s et al Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

These are historic publications of our times!

Make them known!


Dr Eric Beeth
Brussels, Belgium


"unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man." (Harold Pinter)

Link doesn't work :(

No file choosen.
Please choose a file you want to upload to RapidShare. You can get further information in our FAQ section.

your work is too popular

"This file is neither allocated to a Premium Account, or a Collector's Account, and can therefore only be downloaded 10 times.

This limit is reached.

To download this file, the uploader either needs to transfer this file into his/her Collector's Account, or upload the file again. The file can later be moved to a Collector's Account. The uploader just needs to click the delete link of the file to get further information."

Maybe we should support the publisher?

Our cause might be better served by supporting the publishers. From Elizabeth Woodworth I have this:

"It's now confirmed that the February edition is available in print, and can be ordered for $24 for the whole issue.

Contact SAGE Journals Customer Service department via e-mail at journals@sagepub.com or phone 1-800-818-7243 then hit #2, then #0 for operator, then ask for "Journals", and they will mail a copy.

Otherwise individual papers cost $25 to be viewed for one day, on the journal's website, and cannot be downloaded from it. (Because the pdf could be freely circulated if it were downloadable)."


This is really worth supporting.

I just ordered a copy

I just ordered a copy using the 800 number (above). It was pretty darn easy, and now I can feel good about supporting the publication, eh?

I just ordered a copy

I just ordered a copy using the 800 number (above). It was pretty darn easy, and now I can feel good about supporting the publication, eh?

2010 is young

and its ALREADY proving to be a dynamite year for 9/11 truth!

Furious AT The Silence On NORAD


true, and it would be an even more impressive year if my shocker of an article on NORAD, Popular Mechanics magazine and The 9/11 Commission Report had been covered by the 9/11 Truth Community. They don't seem to care?

Do you have any observations as to why not one person in the 9/11 Truth Movement has commented on this find, and why the article was spiked?

I just don't get it, and I am furious at the silence!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I agree, the silence is infuriating ...

and frustrating ... not just for you personally, but for all of us trying to raise the issue and challenge state criminality.

Don't take it personally, all we can do is persevere and persist, stay strong, stay focused, keep plugging away ...

Your research and efforts - like all research and efforts by individuals and groups concerned with raising 9/11 truth - are valuable, effective and incredibly important.

"When people are confronted with evidence contradicting the U.S. official account of 9/11, it is unlikely that immediate, prolonged discussion and debate regarding evidence supporting alternative accounts will change people’s minds. However, the more the general public is presented with dissenting opinions, the more accessible to conscious processing that information becomes; such familiarity can translate into increased support for those dissenting opinions... An opinion is likely to be more widely shared the more [frequently that] different group members express it... Repeated exposure to an opinion increases the accessibility of the opinion in memory and results in a feeling of familiarity when the opinion is encountered again... Opinion repetition from one source can lead individuals to change their own attitude toward an issue."

Stay positive and keep up the good work.



thanks for the comment. I've waited exactly one month for it!

What gets me is that the article also proves (using The 9/11 Commission Report itself!) that Popular Mechanics magazine and NORAD lied about NORAD's true monitoring capabilities on 9/11. One would think The 9/11 Truth Community would like to hear about that.

It 's just bewildering to me. Maybe it's simple snobbism; if David Ray Griffin had found the quotes I found in The 9/11 Commission Report admitting that NORAD was actively monitoring on radar Flights 77 and Delta 1989 and was looking for Flights 11 and 93 on their radar screens, then I'm sure the article would have been plastered all over the Internet.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I don't think it's snobbism

I understand the frustration you feel, Dean. It is very difficult to get ones voice heard on the issue of 9/11, there are so many obstacles and barriers to the truth movement, and we all know why that is. At the root of this problem are the criminal players and the corrupted system that permits their continued criminal activities by refusing to consider that these criminals even exist.

I don't think it helps to blame fellow truth activists who feel every bit as furious and frustrated as you do, simply because there is not a great response to your own personal efforts. We all have to deal with this sort of disappointment if we are making an effort to raise 9/11 truth.

I think your work is important, keep pushing it out there, don't get discouraged by unsatisfactory responses, these are what we get all the time and we can't let that get us down or we'll never prevail.

I think we need to show each other respect and appreciation for our collective efforts. Every little bit counts. Let's not forget that most of us are doing this simply because we believe it is vitally important to the health of our democracies, our human rights, civil liberties and the future our children will inherit, and for those innocent people in other countries who are suffering as a result of our govts' response to the crime of 9/11 ... we do this out of a sense of civic responsibility, not for personal kudos or financial gain.

But the truth movement is not a coherent, organised movement, it is an enormous, diverse, dispersed, loosely knit world wide coalition of like minded souls, all doing our best to make a difference, to have an impact, to challenge the stranglehold of official dogma, to expose the criminality that has infected the state and currently threatens humanity... we need to focus on supporting each other, not wasting our time and energy on fighting each other...

ACARS Article Was Posted In The NEWS Section Even Though...


as I said to Danse in a reply to his comment below (he suggested I rewrite my article to the format suggested by LeftWright):

-- you mean like the traditional format in the article below?


Not to mention the broken English.

But don't get me wrong here, the content of the article from our Italian friend is one of the best I've read, but it's not traditional, and it takes a lot of concentration to understand, but I managed to comprehend it after an hour. I didn't care about the yellow and blue colors used to emphasize portions of quotes in the article. I got through the broken English just fine too. What was important to me was the CONTENT. Period." --

Now, according to LeftWright's arbitrary posting guidelines for inclusion to the NEWS section of 9/11 Blogger, the outstanding ACARS study article should have been posted in the BLOGS section, and I would have missed it. Thank God it was posted in the NEWS section because that article impacted the May 2008 article I wrote on Flight 93 landing at Cleveland Airport (http://sites.google.com/site/deanjackson60/oneofouraircraftisn%27tmissing).

The ACARS study shows TWO Flight 93s in the air. After some conversation with Woody Box on this matter, it hit me that on 9/11 there were standby aircraft at other airports that were to be used in case the primary aircraft couldn't take off due to a mechanical failure, sick passenger/disruptive passenger, or a flight delay caused by other aircraft that were delayed. Now my article on Flight 93 landing at Cleveland Airport makes more sense to me.

If you remember, last year I commented here on 9/11 Blogger that I believed that Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 took off from military airfields because military airfields could control for unforeseen complications as discussed above. However, using standby aircraft would do the job just as well. For example, if Flight 77 couldn't take off from Dulles Airport, then the standby aircraft at another airport would take its place.

When you think about it, the planners of the 9/11 attacks would have had to have employed standby aircraft at different airports just in case the aircraft at the primary airport couldn't take off.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Constructive (hopefully) feedback

Hi Dean,

When you first published the NORAD papers IV article, I went to look at it and read through it. Honestly, it didn't have as big of an impact for me as I was expecting (after having seen your comments in various places in the days leading up to the publish date).

I've been seeing your concerns expressed several times in the past few days in other comments, so I decided to go back and have another look at the information you published in hopes of providing you some feedback that you could use to maybe have a deeper impact on people.

Anyway, after going back to your site for the second time, the biggest takeaway I got from the information is that, based on the 9/11 commission report itself, one can infer that
1. Popular Mechanics was lying about whether or not NORAD was looking "inwards" on 9/11
2. NORAD spokesperson Douglas Martin was also lying when he stated the radar tracking was like a donut

My next takeaway is that you're asserting that these two items together imply that there was a grand conspiracy to cover up the true nature of NORAD's mission.

I hope I'm right about the big takaways. If I'm not, then that might be a red flag for you - if I don't "get it" then maybe others aren't either.

Anyway, assuming that I understood the points you were trying to make, let me make a few comments...

The first comment is that for whatever reason, I had to read your publication three or four times to get this takeaway. The first time I read it several weeks back, I can remember not getting it at all. Now I know I'm not that smart, so it may take longer for me to get the point than other people, but I do think that there must be something you could do to "connect the dots" more efficiently. I don't have much good advice on how to improve that however.

My second comment is that, at least from my experience, the biggest misconception that most non-truthers have about NORAD and the military response is that it was just a big screwup and that any lies told by NORAD are just to cover for their screwups. Given that, I would guess that most non-truther people would discount the statements by Douglas Martin as just CYA and possibly just being ignorant of the FAA radar situation.

The third comment I wanted to make is that I think you need to elaborate a little bit more on how you established the truth of the pseudo-mathematical statement:

LIED(popular mechanics) AND LIED(Douglas Martin) => GRAND_CONSPIRACY(911)

The way it stands, I don't feel like you made a bullet-proof case that
1. PopMech lied (rather than possibly being "innocently" misinformed)
2. Douglas Martin lied (again, possibly he was just a misinformed spokesman)
3. That the combination of these two implies that was a grand conspiracy to cover up criminal malfeasance in 911

Without providing a more clear/well-explained series of logical implications, that people can follow along with, I think people (however incorrect they might be) will automatically and subconsciously lump your statements into "raving-lunatic" category.

Please don't take my comments as a rebuttal of your publication or of your fundamental points. Rather, I'm interested in:
1) Seeing you not be frustrated by what you perceive to be a deafening silence
2) Seeing if you can provide a more easily understandable and defensible explanation of why your findings are so important so that I and others can more easily use this information to help us further the cause of truth.

Ditto for me

I admit I have had trouble really grasping where you were going with the article. Despite that, I linked to it from my blog, since my general sense was that it was important.

Still, you might consider rewriting to make it clearer to someone who has not looked much at that area of 9/11. Sure, I am not always that fast on the uptake, but probably you need to give more background in the article. I know that you have been working on it in your other articles, but to topic has not been a hot button for me so I have not looked as hard as I have at WTC7.

I do appreciate that you are putting in a great effort, and in no way am I belittling your work. I just need an explanation of what you think is going on that is clearer to me. Doubtless other have the same take on it.


Now I'm No Longer Furious, I'm Just In Shock


my article clearly says that the official narrative on NORAD is that NORAD couldn't monitor United States airspace. I even quoted NORAD and Popular Mechanics magazine to make that clear. I would think by now everyone who is active in The 9/11 Truth Movement knows what the official narrative on NORAD is!

My article then, for the first time, quotes previously unnoticed passages in (of all places, and this is the big shocker) The 9/11 Commission Report itself that affirms that NORAD did monitor, on radar, hijacked aircraft that originated within the United States on 9/11. It's a huge find, and I'm shocked you didn't get it!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Probably others did not get it as well


Please don't be shocked. Reflect on why people might not have fully grasped your point - and maybe don't see the implications as clearly as you do. Note I am not denying the implications, just saying that for me personally it did not come out. Perhaps only a failure of my imagination and reading comprehension, but it could indicate that a re-write might make it more obvious. Remember, you are immersed in the topic - others are not.


Subject Matter Confusion


The NORAD Papers VI article covers what The 9/11 Commission Report itself admits was NORAD's true monitoring capabilities on 9/11. It's the 9/11 Commission Report's quotes that call Popular Mechanics (PM) magazine and NORAD's accounts a lie, not me. But I don't really care what PM and NORAD said (there accounts are secondary to my article's main point).

My article's main focus is what The 9/11 Commission Report admitted about NORAD technicians actually monitoring on radar Flight 77 and Delta 1989, and looking on their radar screens for Flights 11 and 93.

Let me give you an example using the World Trade Center. What if you found unnoticed passages in The 9/11 Commission Report that said there were bombs in the buildings. You then write an article on it and nothing happens! That's the essence of what I'm furious over.

I'm afraid you missed the subject matter of my article.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I'm still not getting it

I'm sorry, I'm still not getting your point. Sorry for being so dense. Maybe it's because I haven't spent too much time understanding the NORAD angle and related areas so that I'm not able to piece the information you are providing together with other information you have in your head to jump to whatever conclusion you have in your head.

Perhaps you could just come out and spell it all out, step by step, so that dense people such as myself can get it.

Maybe you could start out by summarizing your findings in such a way that you cannot help but understand what the problem is. For example, you could start out saying something like (fill in the blanks below with the key info).

1. The 9/11 Commision report discusses NORAD technicians monitoring Flight 77 (let's save Delta 1989 for backup , unless you think it is really really important to argue the point). Therefore, there is no argument that NORAD was in fact monitoring this flight.
2. The commission report further notes that NORAD was activity looking at their radar screens for flight 11 and flight 93.
3. This is important because
a. (fill in the blanks)
4. This also contradicts key elements of the commission report and/or other official reports in the following ways (for example...)
a. On page xyz of 911CR, it states (fill in the blank)
b. On page wxy of some other document, it states (fill in the blank)
c. The president, in his state-of-the-union speech claimed that (fill in the blank)
d. The New York Times in an article dated abc, stated that (fill in the blank)
5. Together, the above facts imply:
a. (fill in the blank) because (fill in the blank with short explanation)
b. (fill in the blank) because (fill in the blank with short explanation)
5. And these implications in turn, taken together imply that there was a grand conspiracy to (fill in the blank)

Then after setting the stage with the conclusion you are trying to get me to understand, you can then go on to explain each point in the above in more detail. You can provide quotes as it makes sense to avoid forcing people to go to the source documents (few will do this, but it is good to provide a link as you do in your articles in case one should want to look).

In reading your response to Mike Zimmer, I see that you are shocked that he didn't get it. My suggestion, for whatever its worth, is that you need to assume that 99% of people are not as informed as you are about the facts related to NORAD and/or the 911 Commission report. Also, 90+% of people will not bother to go through all the articles on your site to gather all the relevant facts together. So if you want to impress upon people the importance of your findings, you need to take the time to clearly and succinctly connect the dots for people. It's unfortunate that this is the way it is, but that is reality. To do otherwise, practically begs for people to give you a deafening wall of silence. That's what you've got so far and you shouldn't be surprised by this.

The Article Couldn't Be Any Clearer for 9/11 Truthers


I expect that 99% of people wouldn't get my article either, but not 99% of persons who read 9/11 Blogger, especially since the beginning of my article spells out what the official narrative on NORAD was on 9/11. I then follow that with what The 9/11 Commission Report admits (accidentally probably) was NORAD's true monitoring capabilities over the United States on 9/11.

My article is perfectly sequential:

1. It tells the reader what the official narrative on NORAD was on 9/11; then
2. It hits the reader with the previously unnoticed passages from The 9/11 Commission Report that say NORAD was monitoring, on radar, hijacked aircraft flying over the United States on 9/11.

I couldn't be any clearer!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Don't be so indignant


I'm sorry you feel offended by my comments and those of Mike Zimmer. I'm also sorry that you felt my attempt at constructive criticism was anything but.

I'm sorry I wasted an hour of my time trying to understand your article and writing up some hints to try to help you get your head out of (fill in the blank).

I'm also sorry that people who go out of their way to try to give you advice are simply pummelled with: any real truther would have gotten my article, so you must not be a real truther.

Call me what you will, belittle me all you want. My criticism still stands and obviously, everybody on this board must not be real truthers, because NOBODY got your article. THIS is why the silence has been deafening.

I'm new here, so I guess I fell for the "let's be nice and try to give constructive criticism" approach rather than just ignoring you like everybody else has been doing. Chaulk one up for experience. Now I know better.

Show "Play-Acting" by brian78046

re-read first comment

Go ahead, take my advice or not. You'll continue to get deafening silence on your work and you'll wonder why. You'll be all furious and you just won't get it.

Facts are facts, whether you choose to ignore them or not:
1. No one has made any comment about your work, with the exception of me, John, and Mike.
2. Your articles, by your own admission have not been given front-page status and no one seems to care.
3. No one has even acknowledged your points - not that I have seen, anyway. And not for lack of trying by you.

There must be a reason.

Here's some other possibilities:
1. Your ideas are crazy and/or worthless and no one on this blog wants any part of them
2. You can't explain your ideas well enough so that anybody but yourself can understand them
3. You've angered everybody you've encountered and nobody wants to waste any more of their time on you
4. Everybody except you is a complete idiot and only you have been blessed with enough intelligence to figure out these dark secrets so hidden before our very eyes.
5. Nobody saw any of your comments/postings and so was not aware of your fabulous find
6. No one here actually cares about 911 truth and therefore they do not care about your damning new evidence

I think that mostly covers the range of possibilities.

I gave you my opinion as to what the reason was, but you did not accept it and further insulted me. Given that and your further comments, I've revised my opinions. But since it is your viewpoint that you're trying to get everybody to pay attention to, I'll let you decide which of the possibilities is most likely the reason for the observed facts.

Even Veterans Get It Wrong


don't feel bad. Even veterans such as Barrie Zwicker make tactical miscues when talking about NORAD on 9/11. In the last documentary I saw him in (the Canadian CBC documentary, The Fifth Estate. see link below.), he said "There's no U.S. Air Force...That is when the penny dropped for me". The host of the documentary then went to Popular Mechanic's editor James Meigs who said that NORAD wasn't prepared to monitor aircraft that ORIGINATED in the United States. If Barrie Zwicker had read my earlier five articles on NORAD, he would not have fallen into that trap, and affirmed up front that NORAD on 9/11 monitored ALL aircraft flying towards the United States and WITHIN the United States. One has to know the subtleties of the subject or else one is going to get pummeled by the opposition.

Fast forward to 4:00 minutes:


See how Barrie Zwicker puts his foot in it?

Now, for some reason unknown to me my shocking article on NORAD and The 9/11 Commission Report was spiked. If it had been covered, James Meigs and the other bastards he brought with him to Popular Mechanics in the summer and fall of 2004 would be receiving unemployment, and Popular Mechanics itself would either have folded or about to fold. Maybe we have a lot of readers of Popular Mechanics magazine in the 9/11 Truth Movement!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Everyone cannot be an expert on everything!

If one is a 9/11 Truther, then one better understand the facts of NORAD, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Flight 93, otherwise you're a danger to the movement if you don't know what you're talking about.

Are you really saying that we need to have a PhD in 9/11 truth to educate the public?

While I certainly agree that we should all strive to be as informed as possible on as many facets of 9/11 truth as possible, that's asking a bit much, don't you think?

I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to say "I don't know, I'll have to look into that and get back to you, ok?"

Tolerance and humility go a long way when building a movement.

Show "I've Been Waiting Over A Month Now, And Now I'm Furious Again!" by brian78046

Dean -

Exactly how is your article relevant to this blog?

This is not the first time you have attempted to hijack a thread to hype your article, please stop doing this.

Seeing as how you feel so aggrieved by this perceived slight, let me briefly address this issue here and now.

Start by looking at your blog entry, I assume this is the one you are referring to:


There we find a few short paragraphs and a link to the rest of the article. Clicking on the link does not take us to the full article, but to an entire web page where we have to scroll down to find the article. You probably lost 50% of the people who clicked on the link right there, I know you lost me the first time I tried to follow it. Then, once you scroll down you find the relatively short article in blazing read, yellow and white with the notes in an entirely unreadable blue. Thus the visual presentation of the article is not professional, not serious and hard to read. Thus, the second time I tried to read the article I just took my tired and overworked eyes elsewhere and emailed you to ask for a version I could print and read carefully, which you refused to do. [Even by cutting and pasting it I have to then highlight all the text and change it to black, just how much work do you want busy readers to do in order to read what you write?]

I would suggest that if you really want people to read the article, you would make it as accessible and readable as possible, is that too much to ask?

With that in mind, next time put the entire article in the blog (we are talking about twelve short paragraphs and a few notes, yes?) and maybe people will actually read it and comment on it.

Additionally, the general tone of your comments regarding this article/blog does not draw readers to look at it, but rather repels them from it, imo. The fact that you have pushed it on threads where it is clearly off topic (like this one) does not help your cause either.

Where else have you posted your article? Is it even on OpEdNews? Did you submit it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies? Did you send it to Dr. Griffin? Have you contacted the many people in the 9/11 truth community who have online radio shows and podcasts to see if they want to interview you about it?

If you really feel that this is as groundbreaking as you claim, why haven't you put it everywhere on the web that you could, in every form possible?

We have to be the media AND our own PR firms as well, yes?

Finally, based on your own description of the article here, it calls to mind the FBI busting Al Capone for tax evasion, it's argument is one of technicalities which are just not very sexy and thus don't get the attention that NIST admitting to free fall or the discovery of nanothermite in the WTC dust attracts within the 9/11 truth community, let alone the general public. Most people already look at the 9/11 Commission Report as a whitewash full of hundreds of lies, so one more lie about NORAD and radar is really not that consequential to many, if not most, people.

I will say that I think your find is useful to me as an activist interested in educating the public and I will add it to my ever growing bag of facts, so thank you for that.

I hope that you will take these criticisms in the spirit that they are given (one brother in truth to another).

Be well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Show "Esthetics Rule At 9/11 Blogger; Content...Who Cares" by brian78046

I didn't "spike" anything

and you obviously can't take any constructive criticism, from anyone apparently.

Take a deep breath, read what I wrote, think about it and respond to it, point by point.

Or perhaps you wanted the moderators to create the blog for you.

If that is the case, then why didn't you simply ask us to?

Do you really think that how something is presented does not effect how it is perceived?

If you like I will re-write that blog in a manner that will guarantee greater exposure AND elevate it to the front page, but it will still be posted on the same date (02/02/2010).

Please stop having an off topic tantrum across threads and in this one or you will find yourself in moderation for a cooling off period.


For the love of Pete


I for one am very interested in your findings. Sounds like the mods just want a more traditional format. Let's be real: rainbow colored text is unprofessional. Rewrite it and get it on the front page.

Show "You Think That's It?" by brian78046

Brian !

Please stop this nonsense and respond to my email.

If you persist in polluting blogs with this off topic stuff, I will put you in moderation until you realize the error of your ways and agree to adhere to the site rules.

I have offered to help you, but you appear to be more interested in playing the victim here and not resolving the underlying issue.

Please respond via email.

Thank you.

I Did Reply To Your Email!


I will comply, and desist.

I did reply to your email yesterday evening. I said, "my article is the current article up at www.DNotice.org. It's been there since February 3 for anyone to read."

Obviously you want me to change my article's format. I won't. It stays as is. As I said, CONTENT rules.

Did you request that the ACARS Study article be changed before posting it in the NEWS section?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC


I really like you brother. PEACE. I ask that you take a deep breath and relax. You are obviously hurt.

LeftWright's comment is very well written and thought out, and he obviously took a lot of his time to explain to you how he perceives any misunderstandings happened. I completely agree with his constructive criticism.

Take his suggestions to heart and resubmit the article, and submit it elsewhere as he also suggested. Keep up the great work.

With you in the struggle,
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

These scientific papers are a valuable resource

and provide a powerful rebuttal or defense against the pseudo-academic tirades targeting so-called "conspiracy theories", tirades such as those peddled by the likes of Carl Sunstein and their lackeys in the corporate media. Truth activists can benefit from studying these papers and arming themselves with the arguments and insights contained therein.

Thanks for putting this up earlier


Thanks for posting this material earlier. It should give us a lot of ammunition to use against the shoddy academic charge that we have psychological problems or are suffering from "a crippled epistemology".


Yep John deserves a lot of credit.

He has some good blog entries and comments including this one...


Wow, I'm no behavioral scientist, but

this seems HUGE! Going to reach a whole new group. And they will tell 2 friends and they will tell 2 friends and so on and....

I've used the metaphor before. The snowball of truth is hurtling down the mountain. Getting bigger every day. Gaining momentum. Unstoppable.

Would love to hear who is responsible for the concept of this issue, buy him or her a beer. Sounds like a fairly prestigious journal. Wonder how many folks read a given issue.

I agree, camusrebel,

this information will reach a whole new group. It's inspiring to see names such as Jones, Griffin, Szamboti, Zwicker, Legge, Harrit, referenced and/or specifically discussed. To the best of my understanding, the American Behavioral Scientist is peer-reviewed and mainstream.

Many behavioral scientists will read it. Some will already "know." Others will be surprised, and many of these latter ones will study the matter for themselves.

The paradigm is shifting...it is truing.

Pay and see

Why are these articles not available to the public?

Has anyone yet doled out the cash to view the articles in question?

This is the 21st century. Forcing people to pay for access to knowledge reminds me of churches speaking in Latin.

Purchase Short-Term Access
* Pay per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 1 day for US$25.00. Purchase Short-Term Access

bofors: thanks for the upload but the rapidshare link reads:

This file is neither allocated to a Premium Account, or a Collector's Account, and can therefore only be downloaded 10 times.

I guess I will be buying a copy.

I certainly want to read these papers.

[Yes, I did edit this comment]


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Why are these articles not available to the public?

Good question! Especially since most academics and a lot of academic research grants are publicly funded, and what is the point of having academics doing research if their findings are kept hidden away from the public, gathering dust on library shelves.

All this knowledge does the public not one bit of good if no one ever gets to hear about it, and it sometimes looks like the academic elite aren't really all that interested in sharing all this wonderful knowledge they have locked away in their ivory towers.

Is there an upside to this sort of elitism? Maybe there is, for a small section of society... if this kind of research was made common knowledge, the ruling elite might find their agenda hindered or disrupted by an educated, well informed public.


Well-said John. There are few things quite so reprehensible as ivory-tower elitism. As the son of a librarian, I look forward to actually reading these articles.

Every book store or library

I enter, I always ask the staff if they have any 9.11 truth books.

Thanks ...

well I'm the son of a librarian too ;-) my dad was a university librarian, and my mum an english teacher, so yeah, i love books and reading and i don't really have a problem with academics or the academic lifestyle ... I think academia is overrated and undervalued ... here's a link to the paper i downloaded for $25

repost pdfs?

Can one of the ten people who downloaded these please repost them?

How to order the print edition: 6 papers for $24

Each of the six papers can be viewed online for a day, at a cost of $25 a piece. You cannot buy the electronic pdf file, for the obvious reason that it could be circulated as a copyright violation.

Sage has written: You can purchase the whole print issue over the phone by calling 800-818-7243 or by emailing us back your credit card information as well as the shipping address. The single issue individual price is $24.00 USD. Email address is Journals@sagepub.com

The more people who buy the print copies and encourage discussion of them, the better.

Elizabeth Woodworth

Six very interesting

[comment edited by moderator to remove link to megaupload- see 3rd comment on first page; these papers are copyrighted- loose nuke]

This is highly recommended scholarly material, which allows us to graduate from the category of adepts of a “conspiracy theory” to researchers of state crimes against democracy (SCADs).
I printed out the full PDFs of all 6 articles below to place as reading material in my patients’ waiting room.
The abstracts are readily available on the internet: if it is considered a copyright violation to interest our readers in the articles by presenting the 6 abstracts below, then delete this post. Please give full credit to these authors and the publishers of “American Behavioral Sciences” Feb 1st 2010 issue: $ 24 is a very small price to pay for this high quality material !

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/783 Sense Making Under
“Holographic” Conditions: Framing SCAD Research
Matthew T. Witt1 University of La Verne, CA, USA, and Alexander Kouzmin2 Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales (NSW), Australia; University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia (SA), Australia
The ellipses of due diligence riddling the official account of the 9/11 incidents continue being ignored by scholars of policy and public administration. This article introduces intellectual context for examining the policy heuristic "State Crimes Against Democracy" (SCAD) (deHaven-Smith, 2006) and its usefulness for better understanding patterns of state criminality of which no extant policy analytic model gives adequate account. This article then introduces papers included in this symposium examining the chimerical presence and perfidious legacy of state criminality against democracy.
Key Words: state crimes against democracy • empiricism • shock and awe • holographic state
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 783-794 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353272

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/795 Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government
Lance deHaven-Smith1 Florida State University, Tallahassee,
This article explores the conceptual, methodological, and practical implications of research on state crimes against democracy (SCADs). In contrast to conspiracy theories, which speculate about each suspicious event in isolation, the SCAD construct delineates a general category of criminality and calls for crimes that fit this category to be examined comparatively. Using this approach, an analysis of post—World War II SCADs and suspected SCADs highlights a number of commonalities in SCAD targets, timing, and policy consequences. SCADs often appear where presidential politics and foreign policy intersect. SCADs differ from earlier forms of political corruption in that they frequently involve political, military, and/or economic elites at the very highest levels of the social and political order.The article concludes by suggesting statutory and constitutional reforms to improve SCAD prevention and detection.
Key Words: state crimes against democracy • conspiracy theory • assassinations • constitutional reform • political corruption • National Security Apparatus • criminogenic
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 795-825 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353274

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/826 Negative Information Action: Danger for Democracy
Christopher L. Hinson1 This article explores evidence of, and provides insight into, secrecy-related information actions that are sometimes used to circumvent established government policy and law. These information actions may also be used to cover up such circumventions after the fact. To better understand secrecy as a negative information action and its impact on democracy, secrecy-related information actions are described according to methods, information technologies, and knowledge support. Negative information actions are willful and deliberate acts designed to keep government information from those in government and the public entitled to it. Negative information actions subvert the rule of law and the constitutional checks and balances. Negative information actions used by government officials to violate policies and laws during the IranContra Affair are identified, analyzed, and categorized by type. The relative impact of negative information actions on enlightened citizen understanding is demonstrated using a Negative Information Action Model by assigning a location according to type on a continuum of enlightened citizen understanding. Findings are compared with democratic theory and conspiracy doctrine.
Key Words: conspiracy doctrine • democratic theory • enlightened citizen understanding • government secrecy • group-danger rationale • information policy • negative information action • SCAD • state crimes against democracy
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 826-847 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353276

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/848 In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public
Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11
Laurie A. Manwell1 University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
Protecting democracy requires that the general public be educated on how people can be manipulated by government and media into forfeiting their civil liberties and duties. This article reviews research on cognitive constructs that can prevent people from processing information that challenges preexisting assumptions about government, dissent, and public discourse in democratic societies. Terror management theory and system justification theory are used to explain how preexisting beliefs can interfere with people’s examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy (SCADs), specifically in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, and the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Reform strategies are proposed to motivate citizens toward increased social responsibility in a post-9/11 culture of propagandized fear, imperialism, and war.
Key Words: state crimes against democracy • terror management • system justification • government • media
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 848-884 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353279

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/885 The USA PATRIOT Acts (et al.): Convergent Legislation and Oligarchic
Isomorphism in the “Politics of Fear” and State Crime(s)
Against Democracy (SCADs)
Kym Thorne1 University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia and Alexander Kouzmin1,2,3 University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
The irrelevance of habeas corpus and the abolition of "double jeopardy," secret and protracted outsourcing of detention and torture, and increasing geographic prevalence of surveillance technologies across Anglo-American "democracies" have many citizens concerned about the rapidly convergent, authoritarian behavior of political oligarchs and the actual destruction of sovereignty and democratic values under the onslaught of antiterrorism hubris, propaganda, and fear. This article examines synchronic legislative isomorphism in responses to 9/11 in the United States, the United Kingdom and European Union, and Australia in terms of enacted terrorism legislation and, also, diachronic, oligarchic isomorphism in the manufacture of fear within a convergent world by comparing the "Politics of Fear" being practiced today to Stalinist—Russian and McCarthyist—U.S. abuse of "fear." The immediate future of Anglo-American democratic hubris, threats to civil society, and oligarchic threats to democratic praxis are canvassed. This article also raises the question as to whether The USA PATRIOT Acts of 2001/2006, sanctioned by the U.S. Congress, are examples, themselves, of state crimes against democracy. In the very least, any democratically inclined White House occupant in 2009 would need to commit to repealing these repressive, and counterproductive, acts.
Key Words: USA PATRIOT Act • "War on Terror," politics of fear • policy and oligarchic isomorphism • state crimes against democracy
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 885-920 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353280

http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/53/6/921 Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of
Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship
Matthew T. Witt1 University of La Verne, CA, USA
This article opens with an inventory of how popular culture passion plays are homologous to the stampeding disenfranchisement everywhere of working classes and the emasculation of professional codes of ethics under siege by neoliberal initiatives and gambits. The article then examines a recent example of contemporary,"deconstructive" scholarly analysis and inventory of presidential "Orwellian doublespeak." The preoccupation among contemporary critical scholarship with "discourse analysis" and language gambits is criticized for displacing interrogation of real-event anomalies, as with the porous account given by the 9/11 Commission for what happened that fateful day. The article concludes by explaining how critical scholarship consistently falls short of unmasking Master Signifiers.
Key Words: neoliberalism • poststructuralism • racism • discourse analysis • 9/11 • habeas corpus • thermodynamics
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 53, No. 6, 921-939 (2010)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764209353281

Thank-you for bringing this to my attention: it is very reassuring that our universities are joining in to help high-light the patterns of high crime that we have had within high echelons of our government. It is high time to expose the people hiding in Zellikow's parallel universe !

Greetings from Brussels, Belgium !

"unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man." (Harold Pinter)

very interesting indeed

I will be very interested to know the reaction of the scientific community to these papers. I've briefly looked at them all, and skimmed the papers 'In Denial of Democracy' by Manwell and 'Beyond Conspiracy Theory' by deHaven-Smith, which seem to have more focus on 9/11 in particular, and I looked at the sources Manwell and de Haven-Smith used.

I have several criticisms of de Haven-Smith paper, though what's more important is the response that gets published by ABS/other journals.

De Haven-Smith says there have been documented State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) and that there are patterns and similarities between them from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn, and recommendations made. He makes numerous speculative assertions, some of which he treats as factual in reaching conclusions, others he acknowledges are speculative, including controlled demolition of the WTC, but he doesn't acknowledge competing hypotheses, whether the official version or work done by 9/11 researchers. For example, this statement, "Evidence also indicates that the Pentagon was hit by a missile rather than a passenger plane." (pg 818)

The above statement references Note 2, which says,
"2. A large and growing literature challenges official accounts of the events of 9/11. See, for example, Griffin (2004, 2005), Hufschmid (2002), Paul and Hoffman (2004), and Tarpley (2005). There is also a “9/11 Truth Movement,” which is producing a detailed studies of 9/11 issues and anomalies. For example, see www.911truth.org, www.911scholars.org, and www.911essentials.com." (821)

So, as evidence of a '9/11 Truth Movement', in addition to 911truth.org, the only other sites he cites are Fetzer's 911scholars.org and a relatively minor site, 911essentials.com, which seems to represent the worst of the 'New World Order conspiracy theorist' stereotype. There's no mention of the Jersey Girls and the other family members who agitated for a full investigation and have gone on record as skeptical of the 9/11 Commission and supporting a new investigation, or of any of the whistleblowers (Rowley, Shaffer, Edmonds, Singh, etc.). Also omitted were many prominent 9/11 researchers, activists and orgs- Hoffman, Jones and Scott's research is cited- but why cite a minor site like 911essentials.com and omit JO911S, STJ911.org, ae911truth.org, 911blogger.com, cooperativeresearch.org, justifcefor911.org, truthaction, etc.?

Throughout the paper, in addition to numerous credible (but not peer-reviewed) sources, he also cites dubious sources such as Jim Fetzer, Webster Tarpley, Eric Hufschmid, Morgan & Henshall and David Ray Griffin (yes, DRG's support for fake calls, all manner of 757 didn't the Pentagon theories, and citation of the work of racists, holocaust deniers and Wood, Fetzer, Reynolds, CIT and other dubious sources make me consider him a dubious source).

In the paper, de Haven-Smith gives numerous examples of alleged SCADs, and I agree it's likely they're crimes by people connected to the deep state, but they have not been proven as such by official investigations or court cases, there's no scholarly consensus they're state crimes, and while the alternative explanations may be popular, they're also controversial. If he mentions torture, rendition or warrantless wiretapping as examples of SCADs i missed it- and these are things Bush and Cheney admitted to on national TV and even in these cases, it's disputed whether crimes were committed or whether it was legal, and no one's been held accountable. If he examines in depth why that is the case, i missed it, though he touches on it briefly here and there. Peter Dale Scott has done great research in this area and he cites him. Unfortunately Scott has not published in a journal on this subject (that I know of) though Road to 9/11 was published by a reputable university press.

Manwell's paper analyzes psychological blocks to considering evidence and explanations that implicate the state in crimes incl. 9/11, and I didn't see red flags/problems like I pointed out in de Haven-Smiths, but it cites de Haven-Smith's recent and other papers, as well as Fetzer (although he's one of many cited to support the same claim).

As i said, I'll be very interested to see the reaction of the scientific community to these papers.

I believe it would be worthwhile...

to email the most pertinent authors, or perhaps each of the six authors of the papers. The points you make are good. My gut feeling is that the authors are sincere, but, in some cases, not substantially educated in the specifics of 9/11.

They quote, for instance, Morgan Reynolds. The quote I'm thinking of is okay in and of itself, but the author (I forget which one) seems unaware of Reynolds's history of mis- or disinformation.

I plan on sending some informative and respectful emails to at least some of the authors. However, many others at 9/11Blogger are more knowledgeable than I, and I hope others here will email as well.