Imagine a basketball and a marble. The basketball represents the hard evidence gathered by researchers and investigators over the years about 9/11. The marble is what the public knows about the events of that day.
In “One True Thing” down below, I tried to bring to the front the mere fact that Newton’s third law could not be suspended, even for just a day. A jetliner , a hollow tube made of aluminum and some titanium cuts through a steel building like a knife through butter. I was told that I don’t understand physics! Here’s Kailey:
I’ve worked at MSU, one of the Northwest’s better engineering universities, for a long time now. Most of the students we have employed in my department have been proto-engineers. I have friends (and relatives) who are among the better engineers in the state. They all say the same thing. One of the most difficult courses they take is Materials and Structures. It’s a year long [sic] course of applying Newton’s Third Law. One thing that trips many of them up is that F=F is simple. F=ma is simple, except that mass and acceleration are vector forces in and of themselves. The math gets very complicated at that point, because vectors of force are complicated. Again, I urge you to consider that before claiming that your simplistic read of the situation ‘proves’ that the government lied. No, it really doesn’t.
“Proto-engineers?” The prefix means “first, as in “prototype.” Did he mean “porto?” “Crypto?” “Pseudo?”
Anyway, what a steaming pile of … wait a minute. Let’s go to the source. Let’s check out Newton’s Third Suggestion about motion:
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, unless F=ma, in which case simplistic statement yields outcomes of no proto-worth. If F=ma, shit, fellas, I just don’t know. It’s too complicated.”
I had not read the whole thing, short attention span and all. Goddamnit! Kailey got me again. From this day forward, his name, in honor of his statement here, shall be called “Vector.”
I maintain that the clip I showed below of the “plane” hitting the south tower is CGI. I response to this, I was shown three clips, including this one:
I am being told that because a video shows a plane hitting the building, that a plane hit the building. End of story. TV is reality. (It is worth noting that the original video, shown on CNN, did not have the sounds in the background, the screaming, an exactly duplicate of which is heard in other videos. In addition, when this clip was shown on the History Channel in a bullshit documentary, another voice track was added, this time of a man saying “Oh my God. A plane hit the building.”
I talked about “CGI,” assuming anyone who goes to movies knows what it is. Apparently not. There used to be a whole branch of the movie industry that did “special effects.” Before powerful computers as we have now this had to be done with clever trickery, but now anyone with a computer and lots of patience can produce amazing effects. Here’s a brief video showing some of that magic:
Now, here is a clip showing how CNN composited that image. You only need see the first few seconds, but the whole thing is enlightening.
We now hear from from a journalist. Here are some of his words:
I don’t “examine the evidence” of 9/11 for the same reason I have not bothered to examine the evidence for allegations that the moon landings were staged. Except that staging the moon landings would have been relatively simple, compared to the unimaginably complex achievement of actually landing on the moon.
In the case of 9/11, the case is reversed. Bunch of guys hijacking some planes and crashing them into buildings vs. government operatives murdering several hundred passengers, disposing of airplanes, wiring two of the largest buildings in the world with magic explosives (and doing so undetected), manufacturing videos and getting the networks to use them, brainwashing or terrorizing some dozens or hundreds of people in on the plot so that not one of them spills the beans, etc., etc., etc.
…In the course of my career I have been begged by intelligent and well-meaning people to tell the “truth” about evolution vs. creationism, the “myth” of the Holocaust and the mortal perils of fluoridation water. In all three cases, true believers can point to mountains of evidence that “prove” evolution is a lie, the Holocaust didn’t happen and fluoride is used by the government for … well, it varies, either simply as poison, for mind control, or a means of disposing of unwanted chemicals. And believe me, the “evidence” is out there, because true believers have been compiling (manufacturing?) it for a lot longer than the truthers have been around. I dare you to dive into any one of those subjects for a couple of months and come out sane.
I have been accused of being a patsy, a sucker and a government stooge. I can live with that, and I can live with that in this discussion.
I know there is not the remotest chance in the world of shaking your inflexible certainties, and I am just as certain that I could never describe to you how it feels to engage with you on this subject. It’s like visiting someone in an insane asylum and trying to convince him that life on the outside is much, much better than being on the inside and imagining oneself to be the king of France. The king won’t listen, but I will always be happier to be outside.
I find the statement “…getting the networks to use them” to be revealing. This is a good illustration of the divide between researchers and this journalist, who has obviously never heard the term “The Mighty Wurlitzer,” CIA Deputy Director Frank Wisner’s description of the worldwide CIA propaganda machine. He’s also not likely read fellow journalist Carl Bernstein’s 1977 Rolling Stone article in which he describes in detail the agency’s penetration of the media establishment. Getting the media to cooperate is a matter of issuing an order. He obviously envisions the networks as independent organizations.
This reminds me – does anyone remember this? A New York Times reporter gave the CIA an advance copy of a Maureen Dowd column.
New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti e-mailed an advance, unpublished copy of a Maureen Dowd column dealing with the CIA to an Agency spokeswoman last year, according to newly released emails obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act.
There is a name for Mazzetti – he’s a “mole.” Newspapers are crawling with them, as are the networks, as many as 400 said Bernstein, one of whom I suspect is Bob Woodward, given his easy access to power.
Russ Baker (not a “truther”) is a journalist who wrote the book about the Bush’s called “Family of Secrets.” The interesting thing about the book, from a journalistic standpoint, is that Baker went into the project without an agenda, and came out a changed man. He started out only wanting to know about W’s odd National Guard “service.
The more I learned, the broader my questions grew. And as my research deepened, disturbing patterns coalesced… To my surprise, I began to see that understanding George H.W. Bush (Senior, or Poppy, as his relatives and friends call him) was really the key to understanding the son …
Far from just understanding that W was a shirker, he came away questioning the official stories behind JFK and Dallas, and Watergate.
Contrast this with
I don’t “examine the evidence” of 9/11 for the same reason I have not bothered to examine the evidence for allegations that the moon landings were staged. Except that staging the moon landings would have been relatively simple, compared to the unimaginably complex achievement of actually landing on the moon. …Bunch of guys hijacking some planes and crashing them into buildings vs. government operatives murdering several hundred passengers, disposing of airplanes, wiring two of the largest buildings in the world with magic explosives (and doing so undetected), manufacturing videos and getting the networks to use them, brainwashing or terrorizing some dozens or hundreds of people in on the plot so that not one of them spills the beans, etc., etc., etc.
Again, I think we are encountering Vector’s conundrum – we can’t really understand Newton’s Third Law because it is too damned complicated, and we can’t really investigate this massive crime which killed thousands of people who day and led to millions more deaths because … I guess, it is too hard to believe that it is any other thing than what our government tells us. Note how absurd the 19 hijacker theory is, and how natural it would be, given, say, world history, for a government to be involved. That, in a nutshell is American journalism.
Here’s Baker from an interview some months ago:
As a more or less traditional journalist … I’ve kind of carved my own path over the years and works for a wide range different news organizations while trying to keep my independence, but I am one who has establishment credentials. And because of that I think it took me years and years to accept that there was really something wrong overall with the media in this country. And it’s harder for those of us who work for these places to see this. There is no overt censorship, there is not a cabal who sits there and dictates all of these things. It’s much more insidious than that. It’s that we ourselves … there’s a line in my book Family of Secrets which gets quoted quite a bit, [roughly] to the effect that the tyranny is in our own minds. It is not just journalists. This is all of us who are part of the corporate system. We are constantly on a day-to-day basis making sacrifices and compromises in terms of our own understanding of what is expected of us. And this is what I think is really wrong with the media. It’s not that the New York Times is officially part of something bad. It’s that there’s an understanding there that they have to be “responsible”, that they have to be “good citizens,” that they don’t want to rock the boat in a way that would destabilize the country or our society.
Many media critics make the mistake of assuming that reporters decide what gets printed. They also assume that reporters let personal prejudice interfere with their reporting. Journalism is a culture, and there are unstated rules. If our journalist quoted above were to express doubt about the official 9/11 story, he would be moved to the margins, perhaps even out. The culture is set not by reporters, but by owners, stockholders, publishers and editors they appoint, and with smaller organizations, what the larger organizations are doing. Truth, or at least stories that government does not like, does not easily filter through this system, and as can easily be seen with 9/11, the censorship regime is rigid.
So, to close, what have we learned? We have learned that we can learn more, if only we take the time and trouble, and that we don’t take the time and trouble. Vector says that physics is too complicated for mere mortals, another because TV cannot be anything other than real, and the journalist because he knows in advance that a story is not worth pursuing.
What follows is a link to a video of a presentation given in London by Dr. Judy Wood (not a “truther”) on the evidence at the World Trade Center on the day of the tragedy. Dr. Wood is, like so many professors I had, uncomfortable in front of a crowd and not a good speaker. The presentation is over two hours long. Her strongest point is that she lets the evidence speak for itself, and does not draw unwarranted conclusions. As citizens it is our job to hold our government accountable. This time investment would be a good place to start, unless you know in advance that it is not worth your time.