Support 911Blogger


The “Strategy of Tension” in the Cold War Period

At the Journal of 9/11 Studies, we have a new article that is a revision of an important chapter from 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Dr. Daniele Ganser revised his chapter for use as an article at the Journal. Here’s an excerpt.

“Having examined much of the data related to the 9/11 events, I am convinced a new and thorough investigation is needed. But when I have questioned the official narrative of 9/11 in my native Switzerland I have encountered vigorous objections from people. Why would any government in the world, they have asked, attack its own population or, only slightly less criminal, deliberately allow a foreign group to carry out such an attack? While brutal dictatorships, such as the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, are known to have had little respect for the life and dignity of their citizens, surely a Western democracy, the thinking goes, would not engage in such an abuse of power. And if criminal elements within a Western democracy, in North America or in Europe, had engaged in such a crime, would not elected officials or the media find out and report on it? Is it imaginable that criminal persons within a government could commit terrorist operations against innocent citizens, who support the very same government with the taxes they pay every year? Would nobody notice? These are difficult questions, even for academics who specialize in the history of secret warfare. But in fact, there are historical examples of such operations being implemented by Western democracies.”

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014GanserVol39May.pdf

Good read

A good read. Consciousness is our best defense.

Ganser's conclusion

Worthwhile scholarly article. Ganser's supported conclusion:

"The two main arguments against the view that the attacks of 9/11 were influenced by the US government and its military have been a priori arguments. One of these is that civilized Western governments in general, and the US government in particular, would never do such a heinous thing. The other main a priori argument is that if the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by forces within America’s own government, this fact could not have remained secret for this long. The information in this article shows both of these arguments to be dubious at best."

Here is Ganser on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fUT7XgLiTY

The Argument is an Exercise in Fallacy

I only have a minor in Philosophy, but it is enough to know these arguments are base and an exercise in fallacy.

I open the dialogue up and invite a philosopher to elaborate why these arguments are not only illogical but a ruse.

What is logical is to realize a cabal sophisticated to pulling off "the crime of the century" would not do it without a "cover up" plan in place.

This "cover up" would clearly implicate main stream media, heavily concentrated in the hands of a few, and assets in law. Bush's cousin, the judge for the April Gallop's trial is example of this.

Only in a perfect world ...

... would people be able to pull off a perfect "crime of the century'"... *and* have in place a perfect, impermeable '"cover-up".

This was no "crime of the century" - it was a common-or-garden grubby - but militarily-precise - crime. No need to raise it on a pedestal.

It was far from a perfect crime because very revealing cracks opened up and continue to yaw..

Many flaws reveal a less-than-perfect -- though shock-and-awesomely powerful enough -- spectacle for the globalised TV age.

As for the imperfect "cover up"?

The biased western corporate media is a pushover. Its journalists are always happy to roll over for a tummy rub, given the right status, power and financial rewards.