Jun 08 2011

Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground

among the truthersThe internet has been abuzz for some weeks now about a NASA coverup of a prediction that in 2012 the sun will erupt in a solar flare so dangerous, that it could destroy the Earth. While Solar astronomers have assured the public that our sun is a very stable star, incapable of generating a flare strong enough to engulf the earth, it has done little to assuage the online hysteria that such stories often generate. In fact, the internet has played a significant role in the past decade or so of helping to proliferate all manner of conspiracy theories about various incidents and events, chief among them the September 11th conspiracy, and the Obama birth certificate conspiracy. A new book by blogger and journalist Jonathan Kay, paints a complex, and deeply revealing portrait of today’s conspiracy movements, particularly the so-called “Truthers,” and “Birthers.” Jonathan Kay spent two years attending conventions, perusing chat rooms, websites, and Facebook groups, and interviewing key members of conspiracy movements. His book, “Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground,” makes the connection between the general distrust that a majority of Americans have of their government, and the real and documented crimes and coverups in history that provide fodder for conspiracies. Kay also takes issue with his own profession and the mainstream media’s failure to respond to accusations of pro-government bias. He approaches conspiracy theories connected to both ends of the political spectrum from his self-described position of political centrism.

GUEST: Jonathan Kay, author of Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground, managing editor, columnist, and blogger, at Canada’s National Post newspaper. His freelance articles have appeared in such publications as The New Yorker, the New York Times, Harpers Magazine, Commentary, Salon, Reader’s Digest, and Salon.

28 responses so far

28 Responses to “Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground”

  1. Ishstradamuson 08 Jun 2011 at 9:32 am

    Jonathan Kay holds degrees in metallurgic engineering (McGill University 1994) and law (Yale 1997). I’m curious, on what grounds is he considered an authoritative voice on the psychological processes of “conspiracy theorists”?

  2. lenellon 08 Jun 2011 at 10:36 am

    I once answered during this show and mentioned that it was infact this show that got me into kpfk as a listener. I will most likely never listen ever again. I am discouraged by her sheep like mentality. I have facts and a first hand witness as well as common sense. Twin towers show the shape of planes. Pentagon, a hole. So if the wings and engines didn’t go in then where did they go? And what about William Rodriguez? Was he lying? If so why? He wasn’t. Its shouldn’t be hard to believe that a government that starts wars but sends everyones elses family to fight and die in it would murder its own people. Remember the people that start wars wont be burying their own children in flagged drapped coffins. But you might.

  3. raymondon 08 Jun 2011 at 10:54 am

    Hello All,
    I would like to ask every person on the planet this

    were do words come from—Who-Whom-wrote this first word that 6billion people-belive—————

    define these words by-culture–history-science-and Archaeology-facts

    TRUTH—-LIE——-GOD—–

    ask this question to yourself—-how does the end come.

  4. RJ Zywanon 08 Jun 2011 at 11:03 am

    Sonali, You may want to look at the Pilots for 911 Truth website and click on the members and scroll down and judge for yourself. Also you may want to think about the people who contribute to your fund drives and you may supprised to find that a lot of your money comes from these conspiracy nuts as your guest discribed them. I think the deffinition of a conspiracy is for two or more individuals to plan to do something illegal or imoral. I guess none of that is going on in the corporate board rooms and on wall street. I always follow the money trail. Let us look into Jonathan Kays backround and see where he is coming from.

  5. LAon 08 Jun 2011 at 11:42 am

    Great show – important too. Thanks for all you do.

  6. daniel patrickon 08 Jun 2011 at 11:58 am

    sonali,
    i have always enjoyed your show as well but have serious misgivings about continuing to tune in after listening to this segment. there’s more than a ‘kernal’ of truth in many of these matters, there’s facts that do not fit into many official narratives. I would have liked to hear a more in-depth summary of any of the major points of each topic rather than a blanket dismissal. And for a show and a station that prides itself on its independence from traditional media you have a guest who is representative of that entrenched institution (mainstream media) shredding the integrity of many people who are looking into the gray area between the Government/Media’s version of events and independent inquiry.

  7. sarahon 08 Jun 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Sonali had a guest on today’s Uprising show that was trying to debunk conspiracy theories – his name was Jonathan Kay. He attempted to lump those that question historical events as people who are paranoid and even anti-semetic. This was sickening to hear but expected from such a character.

    What’s really shocking is that this guy keeps some very interesting friends (see below).

    I am really confused why Sonali would have such a guest on her “progressive” show. Does she know who he is working with?

    If you want to get a better idea of his own mindset, check out the company Kay keeps at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies where he is a fellow (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_fddbios&Itemid=326). Bill Kristol? Senator Joseph Lieberman? Gary Bauer? Charles Krauthammer? R James Woolsey? Richard Perle?

    What do you think?

  8. raymondon 08 Jun 2011 at 2:00 pm

    once again we have many sides of thought–on every subject you can come up with–the point is how and who has the final say of truth—-lies——or history—-books-?

    why were so many–Muslims-islam-all people- so angry with burning a book

    why is the world at war over are ideas—-who has all the money

    making the rules–in each Government’s policies,,seems all are starting to think the same on that——

    now think of all the —–Prophets—- ,what has come true–is yet to come and just false—-every Religion

    who-what-will you be willing to die for——WHY—look around the the earth—-welcome to the internet-age

  9. AGon 08 Jun 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Sonali,

    This was a few years back, but I remember visiting
    the KPFK booth on the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica. I don’t recall the nature of the street fair but KPFK had a booth with some membership information and it was during one of the fun drives. Being a long time supporting member and listener to the station I just dropped to say hello.

    I noticed the booth had copies of the 911 Loose Change film that they were giving away as gifts for becoming a member. I don’t remember the exact exchange I had but the two KPFK members behind the booth (one was the volunteer coordinator at the station) that I was essentially nuts because I didn’t believe George Bush was a criminal mastermind or that the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people in the US government who orchestrated attack were capable to keep a secret. To further add insult, a random KPFK listener walked up to the booth, listening to our conversation and added that I was wrong and was indoctrinated by the official story. Yikes! I was ready for them to break out a chalk board or flow chart. It was embarrassing as they seemed like highly intelligent people.

    I think your guest today was spot on with his analysis.

    I enjoy your show and keep up the good radio.

  10. Cosmic Rayon 08 Jun 2011 at 2:42 pm

    I was listening to part of this show this morning and I have to confess, I am one of those people who spends time searching for information on topics that would fit similar categories. Below are some of my areas of interest:
    1) AGW being used to put in a global leftist government and redistribute the world’s wealth.
    2) Bias in the media, entertainment industry and academia.
    3) The North American Union
    4) The deindustrialization of the US/globalization and how the left has played a role in this in order to reduce world poverty.
    5) Groups like the CFR, Bilderbergs (which TheEconomist has finally come out and admitted they are for real), club of rome, etc.
    6) What liberal professor of history, Carroll Quigley wrote in his fantastic book on history, ‘Tragedy and Hope.’

    One thing I don’t do however is bounce around from right-wing to right-wing websites. If I read something of interest on a right-wing web site, it has to have a link to a credible source or I’ll have to verify it from at least a few credible sites or sources. What I consider credible websites (or sources) are sites such as for example, the MSM, UN, IMF, academia, books from notable people, or any of the well known NGO’s or policy-maker sites (WEF, IMF, CFR, to name a few). In fact, most of my links that I have saved are all mainly credible websites of which many that you could consider in the camp of the left.

    For example, from my searching the web, I can make a very compelling case that AGW is being used to redistribute the world’s wealth and as a way to put in a global leftist government that would manage the world’s resources and hence by proxy, manage the economies of all the nations of the world.

    IMO, the fact that the web makes it so easy to find information is the reason why people like Cass Sunstein are bothered by it. People like Sunstein and Kay would like people like me to have filtered information that they approve of. Why?

  11. SpankyPalmeron 08 Jun 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Getting back to Sarah’s comment above:

    Why did you not mention to the listeners that your guest was a member of “Foundation for Defense of Democracies” , and if in fact he had a political agenda — so in a way, that was rather disingenuous on your part.

    Also, all of the childish giggling — why not bring Alex Jones, Jessie Ventura, Benazair Bhutto, Bin Laden, or Mathew Simmons (Gulf Oil Spill Expert), David Cole (Auschwitz Documentary), Aaron Russo — Well this would not be possible because 4 of these folks are dead–and dead people can’t talk -and one has been threatened

    All in all, the way you were sugar coating everything, like you are priming yourself for NPR or as a substitute for Ian Masters….
    Good Luck, NPR most likely pays better.

  12. Lanceon 08 Jun 2011 at 5:15 pm

    I’m with many of those who commented before me. And it really did anger me to listen to the topic today.

    Based on so much great information presented on this subject by KPFK. I am amazed with your attitude. This guy was a nut.

    From what I can glean 911 was an inside job. Black Water was used and gladly wired all three buildings. The pentagon was hit by a missile and flight 93? what plane? Remember after several loud explosions heard coming from the basement the first tower hit was the second to fall. Bldg 7 ?

    In fact I don’t think a single plane was used that day.

    Buildings fall at the speed of gravity when controlled demolition is used. And what about Thermite?

    So what was your point?

    I’m sure you’ll have a big laugh. We’re all just crazy. But it’s not funny.

    Say hello to Margret Prescod.

  13. John P. Garryon 08 Jun 2011 at 5:52 pm

    Dear Sonali and friends,

    Your interview with Jonathan Kay was excellent. Conspiracy theories are a plague on the left and are undermining the credibility of Pacifica . We in the reality-based community need to provide a counterbalance to the various forms of counter-knowledge promoted on KPFK: miracle cures, medical quackery, 9/11 Truth, Chem Trails, Morgellon’s Disease, New Age exploitation, UFO/alien visitation, alchemy, angelology, government mind control, alarmist medical and environmental theories. Keep up the good work.

    John P. Garry III
    KPFK listener-sponsor

  14. Djanoaon 08 Jun 2011 at 9:00 pm

    If Ms. Kolhatkar hasn’t gone over to NPR by the next funddrive I hope she will not offer Mr. Kay’s book as a ‘premium’ . Such a disappointing interview. I really thought Sonali was better than that.

  15. Hieronymus Anonymouson 08 Jun 2011 at 11:04 pm

    I am not a journalist, but I do try my best to understand facts in order to make a reasonable assessment of the world; and it appears to me that this interview contributed nothing relevant for helping others understand this world.

    I tend to consider the facts presented by 911 investigators as very sensible, so I do not appreciate hearing someone like Mr. Kay characterize people like me as being mentally sick, or worse, “lunatic”, as Ian Masters says a lot on KPFK. I’m not sure why these people use such pseudo-psychological language, but I’d rather hear reasonable discussion of basic facts. I might not agree 100 percent with certain arguments, and I might even change my mind, but there will always be people of different degrees of persuasion, so stereotypes and over-generalizations are just plain distractions.

    The official story of the 911 attacks has many factual contradictions that need further investigation. We are looking into facts, physical, photographic, historical, and eye witness evidence. I would urge others to do the same, and this means questioning the official story. This is not a waste of time; this is not a “Hollywood” fantasy, this is not a psychosis; This is factual investigation, this is the pursuit of truth and, might I say, justice. Let’s have more of that, please.

  16. Waifunon 09 Jun 2011 at 1:27 am

    First of all I am not a Truther. I’ve been listening to KPFK for 11 years and have not taken one single 9/11 pledge gift. I always make my pledges during the Uprisng hour because I like your politics and efforts. I was shocked and disappointed by your performance during your interview with Jonathan Kay on 8-Jun-11. I have not been this disappointed with you since your interview many years ago with Salman Rushdi, when you were star-struck and subservient while that person told you that he was all for the invasion of Iraq. So many of your shows and Amy Goodman’s shows are about the morally bankrupt corporate media. Therefore I was very disappointed when you acted like a ditto-head in front of Jonathan Kay who said one of the problems with the Truthers and Birthers was the fact they get the news from the Internet, rather than through the filter of the mainstream media. You again said nothing when he made disparaging remarks about the Truthers being the type that reads Chomsky and Zinn, or when he said one of the conspiracy theories is that the US intervenes in the Middle East for oil. It appears your interview with Jonathan Kay was taped ahead and that makes it even more disturbing. It means you had a chance to review it and not realize that the interview reflects badly on you as a “journalist”, as I’ve heard you refer to yourself. Journalists ask probing questions and treat their subject’s responses with skepticism. Sadly Sonali, you are just a radio talk-show host with a personal vendetta against your brothers and sisters on the left who happen to have a different point of view that you don’t agree with.

  17. Kurton 09 Jun 2011 at 7:06 am

    Uh-oh Sonali, your mentor Amy Goodman just did a segment this morning on Area 51, the Mecca of evil Conspiracy Theorists. Apparently, there’s a “kernel of truth” in many of the crazy Area 51 conspiracy theories (according to the author of the book Amy was interviewing). Better send a nasty-gram to Amy and scold her for engaging those nutty leftist conspiracy theorists. No worries though, Jonathan Kay, that toady for the corporate media can be your new friend and mentor. Wow, that Noam Chompsky is a real loon, isn’t he?

  18. Joeon 10 Jun 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Why should the guests be vetted for liberal ideology? Or why do we need Sonali to use disclaimers or other means to make sure the listener understands a guest’s “biases”. Frankly, I’d rather make that decision myself and I welcome presentation of a diversity of views.

  19. James Welleron 18 Jun 2011 at 2:42 pm

    I’m appalled by the deeply faulty reasoning displayed by you guest author Jonathan Kay. Without defining the term “conspiracy theory” even provisionally, he sweeps the diverse views, beliefs, and suspicions of millions of people under one ridiculously broad generalization in order to build a patently spurious general theory of conspiracy theories – in this respect, his arguments cannot be taken seriously in any reasonable critical analysis.

    Kay’s repeated use of strongly biased rhetoric like “America haters” and “conspiracism” is but one example of the many logical fallacies he deploys. His appeal to a sort of “golden mean” fallacy in order to locate himself in the “mainstream” and as a “moderate” is another.

    Real life in political economy does presently, and has for centuries frequently involved big lies, deep secrecy, and actual conspiracy on the part of small groups of powerful elites inside and outside governments – here and abroad. It is simply wrong to characterize all so-called “conspiracy theories” as delusional. Some are; others aren’t.

    To paint those of us even-tempered, well-educated and reasonable citizens who strongly suspect that the official stories of 9/11 and subsequent related events are false in many of their aspects with the same brush used to color the so-called “birthers” is itself an exercise in deception and deliberate political ambiguation.

    Your guest is no more credible than some of the more risible characters he mentioned in his talk. And, Sonali, this reflects poorly on your own capacity for critical analysis, I am afraid.

  20. HUNTER WALLOFon 19 Jun 2011 at 9:11 am

    What a load of crap, Sonali; it’s obvious you both went into this with the preconceived idea that all things labeled conspiracy theory are bunk and not worth looking into.
    I have a theory: Americans are educated to swallow any crap the authorities feed them. It takes a departure from our authoritarian educational system to develop an ability to “think outside the box”; although I did get some very good guidance in abstract concepts from a Professor Schultz, at UC Berkeley in the early 80′s, his curricula seems to be the exception and I find many well educated people who refuse to think . Please, open your eyes & your mind.
    Or, perhaps it’s just a complete lack of understanding of the laws of physics; how can a building damaged in a few upper floors collapse completely into its own footprint through the path of least resistance- the rest of the building below it- in little more than the time it would take a bowling ball to fall if dropped from the same height? Of course, the pancake theory. Now there is a theory one can put their faith in. Sit on it; see if it hatches.

  21. Salon 22 Jun 2011 at 5:42 pm

    A bizarre listening experience, where the subversive thought of the day rehashes prevailing wisdom, and the the uprising is to go along with that pitched by conventional media.

    Was it just me, or was this episode something Orwellian. Looking at Jonathan Kay’s history, you can understand why his views don’t deviate from what we’ve all been told, but for Sonali to essentially co-sign is tragically disengenious on a show titled Uprising:subverting the airwaves.

    Jonathan essentially asserted that if your perspective deviates from the government’s/mainstream, you have a psychological problem despite whatever evidence you may have (which curiously was never tackled). What a way to dismiss free thought!

    Sonali, the responsibility falls on you to address the actual arguments being made by those who have found discrepancy in official story lines, aswell as and the information that those arguments are based on. Otherwise your misleading any listeners who may not be familiar with the evidence that contradicts what Mr. Kay’s basic assumptions and various arguments argues.

    Like others have suggested, do a little more research into these issues, and perhaps bring him on again. Let’s get it together. Cheers!

  22. Amayzen Mayon 23 Jun 2011 at 9:37 am

    Before closing this program with a Vincent Bugliosi quote which labeled a conspiracy theorist as a “provable nut,” the host admonished her listeners, who might have the temerity to post a comment here, about “name calling.” In fact, this whole broadcast was an exercise in “name calling” in which the acknowledged goal was to designate anyone who disagrees with the establishment as mentally ill. Doublethink much?
    Beware of phony revolutionists who serve as apologists for a criminal elite that not only controls the government but also the mainstream propaganda machine. “Uprising?” Not at all. Just the same old lies all dressed up as activists “subverting the airwaves.” Just about anybody can raise a clenched fist in the air. That’s symbolism meant to distract the audience’s attention from what is really being promoted: a big government police state controlled behind the scenes by international banksters.

  23. psikeyhackron 30 Jun 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Physics is incapable of giving a damn about conspiracies but investigating Newtonian Physics 40 years after the Moon landing is ridiculous.

    The physics profession has hopelessly ruined its reputation by not demanding information as simple as the distribution of steel in a couple of skyscrapers. Are we supposed to believe that physicists who claim to understand Black Holes and the Big Bang can’t figure out the physics of skyscrapers and analyze a supposed gravitational collapse?

    http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html

    The physics profession has made 9/11 hilarious. When has Steven Jones even discussed how the steel had to be distributed in WTC 1 & 2 just to hold itself up against gravity?

  24. Kiton 18 Jul 2011 at 6:06 pm

    Jonathan Kay left a lot to be desired. He failed to mention PNAC (Project for a New American Century document) as evidence of motive of the neo-con cast of characters; and the Manhattan Project as proof of a massive MIC (Military Industrial Complex) clandestine program kept secret until revealed by the MIC.

    Pointing out the difference between “bending the rules of logic” versus presenting evidential data and documented historical episodes distinguishes conspiracy theorists from conspiracy factualists. Kay failed to make this distinction.

    A judge in a courtroom will be unwilling to call in a jury to hear an arson case unless the prosecutor can show between eight to a dozen evidences of smoke. This protocol is an obvious application to the study of conspiracies, unobserved by Kay.

    Kay spent a lot of time confabulating stereotypes and labels without sorting the documented truth that can be sifted from the disinformation and misinformation. A notice of Cointelpro, MK Ultra, Chaos, Monarch, etc. would have shown that he understood the real parts in the history of “conspiracism” and the world of conspiracies, his subject of supposed expertise.

    In conflating the Bilderberg group with the Jews as the replacement in the basic structure put out in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a small. “Secretive group,” he neglects citing one of the biggest and best works on the subject by Jim Keith, The Octopus. Keith likens the secretive coterie to an Octopus with one head and many tentacles. Kay obviously has not done his homework completely, I suspect out of an anti-conspiracy bias.

    If Kay’s intentions were true and legit, he would’ve talked about Project Blue Beam and H.A.A.R.P. technologies, for example, conspiracies of today which have traction from solid evidence like patents in the National Patent Office and declassified military documents. And in addition to “American haters” he would have brought up “haters” of multi-national corporate interests, those against the IMF, and World “Bank-sters” found often among folks grounded in the values of the Global South.

    Kay refers to pieces of truth in a spoofing way, marginalizing them and thereby putting out not just misinformation, where key parts of the picture are missing, but worse, disinformation which twists the truth into a lie.

    Thus I must conclude that this was simple fluff, a hit piece, neither deep nor particularly revealing, without even an attempt to educate the information consumer on methods of deconstructing the veracity of information.

    Your questions overlooked this glaring fact. Your shows on world politics are so astute and wonderful, but this time Uprising puts out another softball interview on national politics. Insulting my intelligence, the interview outrageously omits salient questions like, “What about the so-called ‘Global Elite’ and ‘Global Management System’?”(More respected conspiracies in the field than those Kay brings up.) And “Who else can be named beside Alex Jones, and some of the most debunk-able conspiracy opinion leaders like Chavez and Ahmadinijad–for example, Mike Ruppert or other more credible sources, like KPFK’s Dave Emory?” I do like Jesse Ventura, but he hasn’t reached the credibility of a Michele Chossudofsky.

    And if the New World Order is such a hoax, why didn’t either of you question the many mentions of it on Main Stream Media by such notables as Father Bush in his famous 1991 speech in Congress, Clinton and Gary Hart documented on camera referencing that speech, Britain’s Gordon Brown and other high-profile speakers. The bow that tied up the package and puts the cherry on top was at the end, quoting Bugliosi, a conspiracy mocker.

    Respectfully submitted,
    Proudly a conspiracy factualist

    Please read a deep and revealing article from Global Research, worthy of attention in this vein~ The Federal Reserve Cartel: The Eight Families

  25. chris burnetton 22 Jul 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Sonali,

    It is sad that you continue to peddle such vile nonsense by right wing “journalists” in the face of mounting scientific evidence that challenges the official story of 911.

    Did you notice that not once did you or he actually address the evidence? The entire interview was an ad hominem attack. And what about his comments about Chomsky or our imperial conquest of oil rich regions? Do you have no comment?

    You should read a couple grounded reviews of Kay’s book by 911 Truth activists, one an engineer and the other a professor of globalization studies:

    A JOURNEY WITH JONATHAN
    A Review of the Book, “Among the Truthers,” Written by Jonathan Kay
    By: Jonathan H. Cole, P.E.
    http://911blogger.com/news/2011-07-22/journey-jonathan

    The Sacred Myth of 9/11 as Propaganda for Aggressive War
    by Anthony J. Hall
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/27/jonathan-kay-defends-the-sacred-myth-of-911/

    Or, how about we hear from actual chemical engineers about the data:

    Mark Basile, C.E.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frIpyTBAV_Y

    Sonali, what you fail to understand in your safe-liberal-political-echo-chamber is that the state has historically engaged in false flag terrorist attacks in order to provide the necessary political cover in order to advance it’s agenda.

    You don’t think this is true? You need to read the book by Swiss scholar Daniel Ganser. His book is called NATOs Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. This book, ironically, has a blurb on the back by Noam Chomsky. It documents the CIA/NATO use of terrorism against civilians in Europe to destabilize the communist left, and prevent it from achieving state power. Get it here:

    http://amzn.to/lU7Ep2

    Finally, you need address Lynn Margulis’ support of 911 Truth. She is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the recipient of the National Medal of Science in 1999.

    Two Hit, Three Down – The Biggest Lie
    by Lynn Margulis
    http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/353434420/two-hit-three-down-the-biggest-lie

    It’s time you and notable others begin to act like the journalists you claim to be, and actually interview the scientists, engineers, architects, physicists and chemists that challenge the nonsense peddled to us about 911.

    Otherwise, you are potentially susceptible to being remembered as those that continued to peddle one of the biggest lies of the 21st century in the face of overwhelming evidence against it.

    Sincerely,
    Chris Burnett
    Host of “Indymedia On Air” on KPFK

  26. Brutal Truthon 14 Sep 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Well I see this is just another left gatekeeper blog. Let me give you an education Sonali about 9/11. Believing in the official 9/11 mythology as spouted by the government and by neutered sheep like many of the American public sadly are requires you to overlook numerous glaring problems with the official story that render it not only implausible but downright impossible. Here are some of the more blatant problems with it, ALL of which have appeared individually in regular mainstream media sources:

    1.) The alleged “hijacker pilots” had no experience whatsoever in flying anything with jet engines and had proven consistently that they were quite incompetent in even flying small propellor engine planes. That they could allegedly jump in the cockpits of jet airliners and fly them like experts strains credulity far past the breaking point.

    2.) The alleged “hijackers” were to an individual so un-Islamic that they drank liquor heavily, snorted cocaine, ate pork, went to strip bars where they got lapdances and gambled in Vegas. That they would then be so allegedly devoted to Islam as to be willing to sacrifice their lives for their religion and take some “infidels” with them is laughable.

    3.) Several “hijackers” turned up alive and well days later and demanded an explanation as to why their names and photos were being used in connection to the 9/11 story, as reported by the BBC. Nevertheless the American corporate-owned news media still continues with its same “nineteen hijackers” nonsense as if this didn’t occur.

    4.) Several “hijackers” lived in military base housing, one had attended the Defense Language Institute at Monterey, California, several others lived just outside the gates of the N.S.A. in Laurel, Maryland, others lived in close proximity to C.I.A. headquarters and still others lived with an F.B.I. informant. Sound like “Islamic radical hijackers”? Or C.I.A. asset patsies who thought they were in training to be C.I.A. drug smuggling pilots?

    5.) None of the airline pilots from the alleged four airliners in question entered the simple four-digit code that sends the message “Hey, I’m being hijacked”. Not one.

    6.) The Pentagon was struck in the one wedge that was under renovation at the time meaning comparatively few military personnel were present that morning there instead of the other four wedges. And the one wedge that was struck had recently been structurally reinforced to make it more difficult for a massive fire there to spread elsewhere. And it was the farthest point in the building from Rumsfeld’s office. And consider: If one intends to crash into the Pentagon and do the most damage possible one would fly the plane down into the roof, not zoom around and fly just above the ground to strike it in the outside wall. Not to mention that it would be infinitely easier to hit the roof. So wasn’t it nice of the “hijacker terrorists” to go out of their way to make sure that when they hit the Pentagon they did so in a way that would inflict the least amount of damage and death possible? So they were humanitarian terrorists then?

    7.) The “airliner” that crashed into the Pentagon left no wings, no fuselage, no tail section, no luggage etc. on the Pentagon’s lawn and the official story literally tells us that the wings folded alongside the fuselage and the whole plane was sucked into the building, then all 255,000 lbs. of airplane vaporized. Yeah.

    8.) The “airliner” that crashed near Shanksville in Pennsylvania also vaporized itself into nothingness, just a crater in the ground. But wouldn’t you know it, even though a great big airliner vanished into thin air they were still able to “find” a “hijacker’s” passport, youth hostel card and a bandana in pristine condition? Just like the “hijacker’s” passport “found” days after 9/11 near Ground Zero. Wow they should make airplanes and buildings out of paper and plastic so as to be as indestructable as those convenient passports, right?

    9.) The N.I.S.T. and 9/11 whitewash Commission both admitted that the Twin Towers, once the “collapses” started, came down at freefall rate in air. Meaning they expect you to believe that all that solid concrete and steel underneath the uppermost falling mass offered no more resistance to said mass than air. This is preposterous in the real world unless one is talking about controlled demolitions using explosive charges, a common sense issue considering when one thinks about it one quickly realizes that something (i.e. explosives) had to have reduced the solid majority of skyscraper to such a state that it is unable to offer any more resistance than air. Common sense OK? Solid things in the real world offer many magnitudes more resistance than air unless one disintegrates them with explosive charges. Which would explain the numerous eyewitness accounts of first responders who said they saw, heard and felt explosions, some even being blown down by the overpressure wave. It would also explain the “collapse” of WTC # 7 building which came down later that day immediately after two parallel lines of puffs of smoke went up the face of the building. Wonder what that was. Maybe demolition charges? Ya think?

    10.) The most expensive and technologically advanced air force the world has ever seen was no more effective that morning, the most important morning of its existence, than if they had been flying ancient biplanes. Part of the reason is that most of the fighter planes in the northeast U.S. had been conveniently sent to Alaska for military exercises scheduled for the morning of 9/11 so they would be far out of the way. (What a strange coincidence, right?)Others that remained were scrambled to intercept with no ammo for their guns and no missiles and instead of being flown straight to Manhattan were flown by a circuitous route taking them out over the Atlantic and eventually to New York. But if it was incompetence then why was the highest ranking Air Force officer, Gen. Richard Myers who was then the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not fired or court martialed? Instead, a month after 9/11, he was PROMOTED to full chairman.

    11.) In the week just before 9/11 there were record amounts of “put” options placed on the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines and several companies based in the WTC. Put options are basically betting that a certain stock is going to plummet in value. Was someone just a really really really good guesser?

    12.) The mayor of San Francicso at the time, Willie Brown, was warned in advance to not fly on September 11, 2001 and to avoid the World Trade Center in New York. More psychics at work I guess.

    13.) When Bush was in Booker Elementary that morning and was told by Andy Card that “America is under attack by terrorists” then instead of being allowed to remain in that school for over a half hour, even giving a short press conference on its front steps (!), Bush’s Secret Service agents SHOULD have immediately whisked him away to a much safer location. Were the official myth of 9/11 true then letting him remain there would have been putting Bush’s life at risk, their own lives at risk as well as all those schoolkids. So they would have had to know that Bush wasn’t even a possible target that morning, something they would have absolutely no way of even guessing about if 9/11 wasn’t an inside job.

    14.) Bush had war plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk ready to be signed two days before 9/11, even though it would have been politically impossible for the U.S. to have launched the invasion of Afghanistan WITHOUT a 9/11 event. So, is Bush clairvoyent? Or was 9/11 an inside job?

    15.) Bush and Cheney stonewalled against allowing a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed for over a year, only relenting when they were allowed to dictate its scope (no going beyond the official “nineteen hijackers” myth) and the terms by which they themselves would appear before it, namely behind closed doors, with Bush and Cheney together so their stories can’t be contrasted, with their attorneys present, NOT under oath and with no recordings made and no notes allowed to be kept. Now does this sound like the actions of two men with nothing to hide?

    These and other bits of evidence all point to one inescapable conclusion: The official story of 9/11 is an impossible myth and by extension the ones forcing this myth down America’s throat are the ones responsible. Ignoring it won’t change this, it will only make it that much more likely that if there is another false flag attack you will again be a dupe and fall for it. So either you can grow a pair of doodads and start making up your own mind about important matters or you can continue to live in your fantasy world where governments always tell their own people the truth. Your call, but whichever your choose it won’t change reality.

  27. Jeffrey Brosigon 08 Sep 2013 at 11:41 pm

    Brilliant. Made me laugh aloud!

  28. multilingual seoon 10 Sep 2013 at 3:32 am

    all of them are real life issues so I love them all ! great book as well !

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply