Monday, March 10, 2008

9/11, Conspiracies, and Other C-words

If one were asked to think of a word or phrase beginning with the letter ‘c’ that is most associated with the issues surrounding September 11, 2001, the overwhelming response is likely to be “conspiracy”. Starting with President Bush’s edict: “Let there be no outrageous conspiracy theories” concerning the events of 9/11, and continuing on with an array of media gurus – both left and right – who have sought to ridicule, dismiss, and marginalize anyone who so much as hints at the possibility that the narrative being promulgated by, say, The 9/11 Commission Report is fundamentally and essentially flawed, the one word which has been used to try to frame and control the discussion about 9/11 has been the term “conspiracy”.

Of course, one can point out that The 9/11 Commission Report is, from beginning to end, nothing but a conspiracy theory. However, when one does this, the response is likely to lead to some form of cognitive dissonance in which the person who previously has been railing away at the “conspiracy nuts” will pause for a second as his or her mind seeks to find a way out of a conundrum in which the term “conspiracy” no longer seems to apply to just the people who reject the “official story’ concerning 9/11 but applies, as well, to the proponents of the “official theory” about September 11, 2001. This pause in the conversation will go on until the person caught-up in the conundrum can find a way to re-frame the discussion in terms more favorable to the individual or until that individual can invent a suitable form of rationalization or evasion as to why her or his form of “conspiracy” is so much more acceptable to the light of reason than the childish fantasies of the usual bunch of conspiratorial rabble.

Oftentimes, the people in such an emotional conundrum enter into some form of dissociation because they are cognitively unable to deal with the information concerning 9/11that is being placed before them. Because the condition of dissociation in which such people tend to find themselves is very, very disconcerting as a result of the feelings of de-realization, de-personalization, anxiety and stress which permeate that state, quite frequently, these people become angry since they feel their basic sense of identity and worldview is being called into question.

In any event, one of the factors why the term “conspiracy” has such a powerful regulatory hold on any discussion concerning the events surrounding September 11th is because there are a considerable array of “undue influence” techniques being used by almost every facet of the media, educational institutions, and the political spectrum to oppress people in the United States by preventing the latter from thinking about 9/11 in an open, rigorous, and critically reflective manner. Undue influence entails all processes that give expression to social, cognitive, and emotional methods and tactics that are used with the intention of restricting, directing, undermining, impeding, confusing, or stopping people from examining information which might lead such people in a direction other than what is desired by the people who are exercising the techniques of undue influence.

More precisely, techniques of undue influence are used to induce people to cede their moral, intellectual, and spiritual authority to another individual, group, political organization, or corporate entity so that the latter may make all moral, political, and spiritual decisions on behalf of those who have been led to believe – through techniques of undue influence -- that the latter have no inherent right to make up their own minds and hearts about any given issue while simultaneously holding that the so-called “leaders” have every right to strip people of such a right.

In short, with only a small set of exceptions here and there, the media, educational institutions, and politicians (both federal and local) in America are all engaged in using the very same kinds of technique as are religious or political cults who seek to influence the members of such a cult in ways that will prevent those members from ever having access to data which might interfere with the attempts of the cult to keep people thinking, feeling, and doing precisely what the cult wishes its members to think, feel, and do.

Among other things, the media, educational, and political cult leaders in America use emotional terms like “freedom”, “democracy”, “patriotism”, “terrorism” and /or “conspiracy” as conceptual weapons or branding irons. Thus, if a person seeks to communicate information about, say, 9/11 to other human beings – information that is in opposition to the desires of the cult leaders in the United States, -- then, the purveyors of such information are branded as anti-democratic, unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, and/or conspiracy nuts.

If the political, educational, and media cult leaders of America have their way, then, the conversation concerning 9/11 is never intended to go beyond the application of epithets leveled against the informational miscreants who wish to critically explore the issues surrounding the events leading up to, during, and following 9/11. Once labeled, people are dealt with in accordance with those labels, and, consequently, quite apart from whatever the merits of the information being communicated by such an individual may be, that information can be ignored because the operative factor in the affair becomes the label with which the individual has been branded by the cult leaders who head the media, political offices, and educational institutions.

Moreover, once a few people have been crucified in this manner and strung up along the pathways of educational, political, and media activity, then, as was the case with the Roman imperial cult leaders of old, the appropriate message of fear has been delivered to anyone else who might be so foolish as to seek to communicate anything about such taboo subjects as 9/11 to other individuals. Furthermore, like the Roman imperial cult leaders of old, although the cult leaders of the media, political office, and educational institutions in the United States are the actual oppressors and terrorists, these perpetrators of domestic terror and oppression have re-framed the situation to give the impression that only those who seek to throw off the yolk of oppression of the occupying forces of the educational, media, corporate, and political cults which rule America are the ones with whom fault should be found.

The previous comments serve as something of a prologue to that which is to follow. What comes next is an exercise, of sorts, to show how, in reality, there are a lot of other words and phrases beginning with ‘c’ which are appropriate to use in conjunction with issues concerning 9/11.

In fact, some of these c-words already have surfaced in the foregoing prologue – for example, “cognitive dissonance”, “cult”, “conundrum”, and “crucify”. However, let’s not bring the exercise to an end before surveying a variety of other possibilities.


Censorship: Naturally, the media cult leaders in America – whether left or right – will never admit that what they are engaged in are vigorous forms of censorship concerning 9/11. Instead, they will seek to re-formulate the issue in terms of having a duty to maintain standards of journalistic integrity such that the information that comes to their attention is properly vetted to ensure that the public has access to only the very best information available.

This sounds nice, but, in truth, the vetting process that takes place consists of a radical censoring of anyone who poses a threat to the vested interests -- whether left or right -- that the media helps to keep in place and in power. One hears almost nothing in the media about the many commercial pilots, architects, scientists, engineers, scholars, ex-military personnel, and everyday common people who are talking about “facts”, “information”, “data” and reasoned arguments concerning 9/11 which often cannot be credibly countered by the “official” narrative of the power elite in relation to September 11th.

The media will respond with something along the lines of: The reason why you hear nothing about such pilots, architects and the like is because what they have to offer is not credible. However, the public never gets to witness a fair airing of the alleged reasons why such testimony is not credible. Rather, the public tends only to hear the unelaborated conclusions /judgments about the matter (like the Supreme Court rejecting a case without comment) or the public gets a very unfair, biased, and one-sided characterization of the data and arguments which run counter to the “official” government conspiracy theory.

When the media is unwilling to put forth the various sides of an argument in a judicious manner, then, the media is engaged in censorship. They can try to re-frame what they are doing in any way they care to in order to try to make themselves look good, but they have become, in effect, censors for the power elite.


Career: While many of the political, media, and educational cult leaders in America will try to convince the public that they have only the noblest of intentions with respect to their handling of the matters surrounding 9/11, the ugly fact of the matter is that many of these cult leaders are preoccupied with self-serving intentions in relation to maintaining their careers, along with the comfortable perks entailed by such careers such as substantial paychecks, retirement benefits, health care, social status, fame, power, and so on.

Unfortunately, while engaged in finding ways to perpetuate their own careers, many of these power elite cult leaders are not at all averse to sacrificing truth, justice, or the public in their attempt to survive in the style to which they have become accustomed. They further try to shore up their shaky sense of integrity by, sometimes, arguing that if others were in their shoes, they would be doing the same thing.

However, such a contention is not true. There have been many people who have been trying to communicate with the public concerning 9/11 who have lost their jobs as engineers, scientists, and educators because of their willingness to treat the search for truth and justice as having a greater priority than that of career.

I once had an animated discussion with an individual who rejected the idea of there being any other account of 9/11 which is true except that of the “official” power elite. The person in question argued that there are so many media people who hate the existing government administration that such people would be dancing in the streets if they had an opportunity to bring down the present government with any kind of scandal involving 9/11. And, given the fact there are no such people who are dancing in the streets, this is prima facie evidence that there aren’t any credible arguments capable of disproving the official narrative of the power elite.

The aforementioned individual is, to say the least, a little naïve when it comes to the sort of calculus which people employ when their lives and career may be at stake. There are very few, if any, media types – whether left or right -- among established newspapers, magazines, radio stations, television stations, or scholarly journals who are willing to pursue matters concerning 9/11 because, both individually and collectively, they understand that such an undertaking likely would lead to career suicide in one form or another.

Journalists and columnists are answerable to editors. Editors are answerable to senior editors and editorial boards. Editorial boards are answerable to media lawyers, owners and/or boards of directors. They are all answerable to advertising revenues.
In these sorts of environment, there are many points of entry through which vested interests can make the weight of their interests known. People who work in such environments are acutely aware of who butters their bread, and they quickly learn how to work in accordance with the degrees of freedom existing in those environments or they find themselves out of a job or they find themselves losing advertising revenue.

There are any number of ‘left-leaning’ media people who refuse to rigorously pursue the issues surrounding 9/11 because they fear being labeled as card-carrying ‘conspiracy nuts’ or ‘terrorist enablers’ or members of the ‘lunatic fringe’. Once labeled in this manner, they believe this would cast a shadow over, or doubt upon, everything else they do or report or about which they write … which is just another way of saying that they are worried about their career as leftists.

Many of these so-called left-leaning or liberal or progressive media types will gladly engage in any manner of administration-bashing – and, quite frequently, with considerable justification – for whatever constitutional, economic, or political sin is the soup de jour that has been concocted by the various chefs of the current administration. However, those same media types will not venture into the tricky waters of 9/11 because they fear the labeling process that is likely to ensue and which would tend to marginalize all that they have to say about other matters of importance as their entire body of work is reduced down to “why, he or she is just one of those conspiracy nuts, or one of those terrorist lovers, or one of those unpatriotic people who hates freedom and America.”

Good-bye credibility. Good-bye Career. Good-bye influence. Good-bye paycheck. Good-bye perks.

However, one is likely to get very limited and limiting truths from someone who is more concerned about her or his reputation and career than such an individual is concerned with matters of truth and justice. Unfortunately, the issues of truth and justice which are caught up in the actual nature of 9/11 underlie virtually every problem in which the United States is currently embroiled – from: Iraq and Afghanistan, to: energy policy, military spending, the deficit, health care, the “intelligence community”, public debt, education, the Constitution, civil liberties, and the economy.

Currently, there is no more important topic to explore than the realities of 9/11. Yet, while educational institutions, the media elite, as well as elected and unelected officials are willing to explore a vast array of issues, nonetheless, the one topic – namely, 9/11 -- which is not critically pursued encompasses a set of forces which is relentlessly destructive in relation to democracy, the Constitution, human rights, freedom, truth, justice, and the economy.


Courage: There are all too many individuals in the media, in government, and in education who lack courage concerning the events of 9/11. Apparently, they feel or believe that if they can continue to ignore the problems surrounding and permeating the “official” account of 9/11 as communicated through documents like The 9/11 Commission Report, NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers, and The Pentagon Performance Report then, perhaps, they will be able to avoid ever having to put their life, reputation, and job on the line for the sake of truth and justice.

The line which comes to mind with respect to a lot – but not necessarily all – of the foregoing individuals is from the movie The Rainmaker based on a John Grisham book of the same name. During a meeting intended to generate some depositions, the Matt Damon character, Rudy Baylor, a lawyer for the plaintiff, asks a question of the big corporate lawyer played by Jon Voight whose firm is representing a life insurance company that is refusing to pay out on a claim made by the plaintiff. After continuously being given the run-around by Jon Voight’s character, the Matt Damon character poses the following question: “Do you even remember when you first sold out?”

Do the individuals who do the nightly news on television and who are news television commentators and opinion makers, or do the columnists and editorial page writers, or do the individuals who are running for the presidency of the United States or for other political offices in the forthcoming elections, or do the individuals who are supposedly educating the youth and hope of tomorrow even remember when they first sold out to the myth makers of 9/11? Unfortunately, the sordid condition of American public life is such that, for the most part, only those who lack the courage to serve truth and justice are permitted to have ready access to the rest of the American people so that the latter may become infected with the same sort of cowardice that governs the former.

Many from the media, political life, and educational institutions have become like Jayson Blair, the disgraced journalist who was fired from the New York Times because, among other things, he fabricated data and failed to do his own, independent investigations on any number of stories while, instead, uncritically borrowing from the work of others. Similarly, all too many media representatives, educators, and politicians have failed to exercise due diligence with respect to 9/11. Their critical, investigative skills, along with their moral integrity, appear to have gone on an extended hiatus, and they tend to just go with whatever they are told by “official” sources concerning 9/11, and, in the process, they all have betrayed the public.

There may be a variety of reasons why the people being alluded to above have decided it is in their best interests to betray the public’s trust on the 9/11 issue. However, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that many of the people involved fail to do due diligence in relation to their jobs because they lack the courage to stand up and fight on behalf of the citizens of the United States rather than on behalf of the members of the power elites who wish the matter of 9/11 to be understood in a way that advances their own self-serving goals rather than the public good.


Complicity: One doesn’t have to resort to the word ‘conspiracy’ in order to understand the nature of the failure of educational institutions, the media and elected officials to critically, thoroughly, competently, and rigorously investigate the issues surrounding 9/11 [and neither The 9/11 Commission Report, NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers, The FEMA Report, The Pentagon Performance Report , nor the Popular Mechanics’ article/book are critically competent, thorough, or rigorous efforts]. For the most part, these various sectors of the power elite did not gather together to conspire about anything. Rather, they are all, each in its own idiosyncratic manner, complicit in, among other things, the on-going censorship with respect to almost all of the important facets of 9/11.

All of the individuals and groups making up the collective power elite have their own individual vested interests, agendas, values, goals, needs, and resources. At some point, the issues of 9/11 impinge upon their activities, and they make individualized judgments about how to handle such issues.

They look at what different branches of the government are doing. They examine the current political landscape. They consider the activities of the military. They assess the activities of various competitors or players in the business and corporate world. They take the pulse of the media and educational institutions. They poll the public or do marketing research. They reflect on their resources, liabilities, and needs. They do risk assessments concerning an array of political and economic situations in various regions of the world. They think about the future. They make assessments about the meaning, nature, and significance of 9/11.

They take all these factors and run them through their models, formulas, and methodologies. The result is a judgment about how to proceed.

For a variety of reasons virtually all of the players who participate in the collective power elite have -- somewhat independently of one another -- arrived at very similar and, in certain respects, overlapping decisions. They believe that the easiest, least problematic way for them -- as individuals, groups, institutions, parties, or organizations -- to move forward is to avoid looking at the events of 9/11 too closely.

Arriving at such a decision is not because they have definitive evidence that the “official” government narrative concerning 9/11 is true or viable. Most of these people have never read The 9/11 Commission Report, nor have they gone through and reflected on NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers, nor have they perused The Pentagon Performance Report, nor have they read the book Debunking 9/11 Myths issued through Popular Mechanics, nor have they read the 20 or 30 other major works which critique all the foregoing, nor have they viewed the many videos which critically examine the available data entailed by 9/11.

Furthermore, arriving at such a decision is not because they have sat around in some boardroom or participated in a teleconference or met clandestinely with fellow conspirators and worked out a narrative for 9/11. In fact, in many ways, these individuals and groups probably don’t care, one way or the other, about the realities of 9/11, but, instead, they just want to know how they effectively can use or adapt to whichever way the political, economic, and judicial winds seem to be swirling with respect to that issue in order to be able to successfully advance their individual agendas, goals, aspirations, programs, and bottom lines.

Are such individuals, organizations, corporations, institutions, and so on complicit in, among other things, maintaining an environment of censorship concerning the realities of 9/11? Of course, they are.

However, they didn’t have to conspire with one another in order to reach such an arrangement. All they had to do is arrive at a decision in which it was considered prudent to leave 9/11 alone and run with the ‘official’ government version of the matter.
Various members of the media, as well as an array of educators and political officials (both elected and unelected), may be complicit in wrongdoing linked with 9/11. Various members of the media, as well as an array of educators and political officials (both elected and unelected), may be complicit in many different kinds of injustice linked with 9/11. Various members of the media, as well as an array of educators and political officials (both elected and unelected), may be complicit in the censorship that has gone on in relation to 9/11. Various members of the media, as well as an array of educators and political officials (both elected and unelected), may be complicit in the oppression that has arisen in relation to 9/11. Various members of the media, as well as an array of educators and political officials (both elected and unelected), may be complicit in the shredding of the American Constitution and its Bill of Rights that have taken place in conjunction with the events of 9/11.

None of the foregoing, however, necessarily means that those who are complicit in the ways indicated are conspirators. On the other hand, there might be some individuals – not yet definitely identified – who are hidden among those who are complicit in matters concerning 9/11 and who actually are conspiring against Americans – including some of the individuals and groups that are merely complicit -- and, perhaps, quite unknowingly involved -- in helping such conspirators to achieve their aims and ambitions.


Confabulation: In psychological terms, to confabulate is to create a memory of a supposed past event that, in point of fact, did not necessarily take place. Alternatively, if the event on which the confabulated memory is based did take place, then, the act of confabulation may mean that the event did not actually occur in the way in which one remembered it as happening.

Sometimes confabulation occurs in the context of what is known as a “flashbulb memory”. A flashbulb memory is an extremely vivid and clear recollection of a purported past event.

Sometimes, however, one may not have had the necessary experience or could not have been in a position to be able to have a reliable and true memory of whatever event one clearly and vividly is remembering. In such a case the flashbulb memory episode is an instance of confabulation in which the content of the ‘clear and vivid’ memory, has been invented, either partially or wholly.

For example, Jean Piaget, the famous Swiss developmental psychologist, had a vivid memory of having been kidnapped as a child. He carried this memory with him for many years until the nanny who looked after him finally confessed that the kidnapping event never occurred.

Elizabeth Loftus, who has done a lot of groundbreaking research involving eyewitness accounts and false memory syndrome, also had a vivid recollection of seeing a dead relative floating face down in a backyard pool. The problem was, as she found out years later, the event that she remembers so clearly and vividly never took place.

President Bush had a confabulated flashbulb memory with respect to the North Tower of the World Trade Center in relation to September 11, 2001. He reports -- and I have seen the video news coverage of his speech -- that he had been waiting outside the elementary classroom in Florida where he was scheduled to meet with children and hear them read from a now famous book about a pet goat. He recalled that he had been watching a television set that was located outside the classroom, when he saw the first plane fly into the North Tower and, recalls himself at the time making a remark to the effect of: ‘boy, that was one bad pilot.’

The problem with the foregoing recollection is that he could not possibly have been in a position to witness what he claimed to have remembered. The only video/film coverage of the North Tower event was by the Naudet brothers of France who were in Manhattan on September 11, 2001 doing a documentary on New York fire fighters.

The Naudet brothers’ video/film footage of the North Tower September 11th event was not released until September 12, 2001. Consequently, President Bush could not possibly have witnessed what he claimed to remember while waiting to go into the elementary classroom on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Was there a television set outside the elementary classroom? I don’t know.

Was President Bush watching television before he entered the classroom? I don’t know.

However, irrespective of whether there was or was not a television outside the classroom and irrespective of whether he was or was not watching the television, the one indisputable fact is that he could not possibly seen what he claimed to have seen on the morning of September 11, 2001 because the film/video concerning the crash of Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center was not released until September 12, 2001.

Similarly, there are many people who claimed to have seen, on the morning of September 11, 2001, a large commercial jet plane flying between 10 and 50 feet off the ground knocking over lampposts along the highway as the airplane approached the Pentagon, skimmed over the grassy area in front of the west façade of the Pentagon, hitting a construction transformer truck, before slamming into the Pentagon. The Pentagon Performance Report seems to corroborate such accounts because the report indicates that the airplane struck the first floor of the Pentagon going at more than 500 miles per hour.

The problem with all of the foregoing is that due to aerodynamic factors such as ‘the ground effect’, wing-tip vortex effects, and so on, it is not physically possible for a 2000-ton plane flying at 500 miles per hour to follow a relatively level flight path that permits such a plane to get closer than about 65 feet above the surface of the ground – in contradistinction to eyewitness accounts which positioned the plane as being between 10 and 50 feet off the ground over the last two to four hundred yards before allegedly striking the Pentagon. What people claimed to have seen in this respect is in violation of known laws of physics, and, therefore, one suspects that, to varying degrees, what one is dealing with in relation to these kinds of report involves some form of confabulated memory.

Just as President Bush, Jean Piaget and Elizabeth Loftus all claimed to have clear memories of something which did not or could not have happened, so too, many of the eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen a large commercial plane flying at some 500 miles an hour (according to The Pentagon Performance Report) and running between ten and fifty feet above the ground as it approached the Pentagon on 9/11 were providing an account that could not have happened in the way in which they remember. Furthermore, physical laws of aerodynamics are such that what The Pentagon Performance Report’s claims to have been the case – namely that the commercial plane that hit the Pentagon did so on the first floor of the building – also could not have been true because a 2000- ton plane traveling at 500 miles per hour would not have been able to strike the first floor in the manner in which the Report claimed due to the aforementioned aerodynamic factors.

Were the people who gave such accounts lying? Not necessarily. The fact of the matter is – and this is a well-established phenomenon in courtrooms across America – eyewitness testimony is often inaccurate, and part of the reason for this is a direct result of the human tendency to confabulate, to varying degrees, with respect to our memories of past events.

In addition, there is a further problem with many of these eyewitness accounts in relation to the precise direction from which the alleged plane was coming as well as in relation to the nature of the angle of the plane when it allegedly hit the Pentagon. More specifically, there is detailed, videotaped testimony from three individuals – namely, two Pentagon police officers (Chadwick Brooks and William Lagasse) as well as Robert Turcios who was working at the Citgo gas station about a quarter of a mile away from the west façade of the Pentagon – which directly contradicts the testimony of a number of eyewitnesses concerning the flight path of a large commercial airliner that appeared to strike the Pentagon.

The issue has to do with the location of the commercial jet in relation to the Citgo station when it flew over that area as the craft headed for the Pentagon. Did the plane fly to the north of the Citgo station or did the plane fly to the south of the Citgo station?

If the commercial jet in question flew to the south of the Citgo station as it headed for the Pentagon, then, this would be consistent with a flight path in which lamp posts were allegedly knocked down along the highway running past the Pentagon, --one of which supposedly fell on a taxi and punched a hole in the car’s windshield as the plane made its way toward the Pentagon. Such a flight path also would be consistent with The Pentagon Performance Report that purportedly reconstructed what would have been necessary with respect to the plane’s flight path in order to be able to account for the pathway of damage inside the Pentagon.

However, if the plane’s flight path took the craft across an area to the north of the Citgo gas station, then, at least two things are not true. First, the individuals who claim they saw the plane follow a flight path to the south of the Citgo gas station are mistaken (possibly another case of memory confabulation), and, as a result, this leaves one in need of an explanation for what knocked down the lampposts because those lampposts are in a location which is entirely away from any flight path which went along a line to the north of the Citgo gas station. Secondly, if the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon followed a flight path to the north of the Citgo gas station, then, The Pentagon Performance Report is incorrect with respect to its account of what caused the pathway of internal damage in the Pentagon because its report requires a plane which came at the Pentagon from a direction that was to the south of the Citgo station … not the north side of the Citgo gas station.

Finally, irrespective of who is correct in her or his memory of what transpired on the morning of September 11, 2001 in relation to events at the Pentagon, the foregoing discussion indicates that there are those among the witnesses who are enveloped in confabulated or invented memory, in part or in total, with respect to the flight path of the plane in question. The large commercial jet that people claimed to see hit the Pentagon on 9/11 could not simultaneously have approached the Pentagon on both the north side and the south side of the Pentagon.

Although the two Pentagon police officers who, independently of one another, claim to have seen a commercial plane traveling toward the Pentagon on the north side of the Citgo gas station both believe that the plane in question did strike the Pentagon, there is some other information that may be inconsistent with the striking part of their account. First, although The 9/11 Commission Report claims that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37-38 a.m., there is evidence that the Pentagon was struck by an earlier event that had a sufficiently violent shockwave to stop all battery operated clocks in and around the so-called ‘crash’ area at 9:32-33 a.m., some five minutes before the alleged plane crash took place.

Furthermore, April Gallop, an employee at the Pentagon with top security clearance, was seated at her desk within 60 feet of the alleged crash site. As she hit the start-up button for her computer, there was a tremendous explosion that buried both her and her infant child who she was going to be taking to daycare shortly after starting up her computer.

After pulling herself and her daughter out of the rubble, as well as helping a few other people who had been buried during the blast, she exited the Pentagon via the hole that had been created by whatever the nature of the event was that had caused the explosion. She was in her bare feet because she had lost her shoes during the explosion.

She reports that there were no fires. Nothing was hot to the touch. There was no plane wreckage – not fuselage, not people, not luggage, not engines.

Were there fires later on? Yes, there were. Nonetheless, despite whatever may have caused those subsequent fires, initially, the explosion that April Gallop lived through involved no fires and no plane wreckage.

Secondly, a number of military personnel who were caught up in the initial Pentagon blast indicated that they smelled cordite, not jet fuel, and these individuals had sufficient training and experience to know the difference. Cordite is associated with the explosion of munitions not jet plane crashes. Consequently, irrespective of whatever else may have happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, there was at least one, and possibly two, explosions at the Pentagon that were munitions-related and not jet crash-related.

Finally, exploding jet fuel does not cause blast injuries. Yet, the medical first-responders at the Pentagon reported that they had been treating a lot of blast injuries as well as burn injuries on the morning of September 11, 2001. For example, Captain Stephen S. Frost of the Medical Corps stated: “We saw many blast injuries” – such as pulmonary blast injuries, gastrointestinal blast injuries, concussions, as well as secondary (being hit by debris propelled by a shock wave) and tertiary blast injuries (being injured as a result of being thrown by the force of the blast’s shock wave.).


Credibility: A document such as The 9/11 Commission Report which fails to include the testimony of, among others: Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley, Kenneth Williams, and Robert Wright – all of the FBI and all of whom had vital information about the events transpiring before, during, and following 9/11– or a document which fails to include the testimony of David Schippers, William Rodriguez, Norman Mineta, Pierre Bunel, April Gallop, and Indira Singh – all of whom had relevant testimony concerning the events leading up to and/or transpiring on 9/11, or, as well, a document which fails to include the testimony of Lt. Colonel Anthony Shafer or former Army Major Erik Kleinsmith (both of the Abel Danger project which had been gathering data relevant to terrorist cells in the United States) fundamentally undermines its own claims, and those of others on its behalf, concerning the issue of credibility. A document like The 9/11 Commission Report that fails to interview the FBI’s David Frasca, Mike Feghali, and M.F. “Spike” Bowman [all of whom seemed to play major roles in obstructing investigations into terrorist activity by other FBI agents both before and after 9/11], or a document which fails to interview Kevin Delaney of the Federal Aviation Administration who destroyed taped interviews concerning the events of 9/11 by five flight controllers who were on duty that day fundamentally undermines its own claims, along with those of others, to possessing credibility. A document like The 9/11 Commission Report that fails to investigate why thousands of tons of evidence in Manhattan pertinent to a criminal investigation had been destroyed undermines its own claims to, or the claims of others on its behalf, concerning credibility. A document like The 9/11 Commission Report which bases many of its pages on the testimony of captured individuals who endured torture such as water-boarding before giving ‘testimony’ concerning 9/11 and who were not made available for questioning by the 9/11 Commission researchers does not deserve to be thought of with any sense of credibility concerning its findings. A document like The 9/11 Commission Report which completely fails to investigate what was behind the message received by the Secret Service on 9/11 which not only said that ‘Angel was next’ [“Angel” being the code word for the President on 9/11] but gave substantial indication, as well, of having hacked into many of the top security codes of the government/military does not deserve to be considered a credible account of 9/11.

A document like NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers which consumes some 10,000 pages and still cannot provide a plausible, coherent, consistent, rigorous explanation for why basic laws of physics – such as the law of conservation of momentum or the law of conservation of angular momentum – can be violated and permit three supposedly pancaking buildings [namely World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2, and World Trade Center 7) to collapse in nearly free-fall time is not deserving of any sense of credibility. Quantity is no substitute for quality, accuracy, or evidence.

A document like NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers that throws out experimental results because such data constitute problems for the specific theory that the scientists at NIST wish to support -- due to political and not scientific considerations -- is not deserving of any sense of credibility. A report like NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers which fails to pursue, rigorously investigate, and report on the more than 118 witnesses (fire fighters, police officers, journalists, WTC employees, and medical personal) who claim to have been witnesses to explosions within the twin tower complex on 9/11 does not deserve to be considered as a credible document. A report like NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers which claims that the perimeter columns in WTC Buildings 1 and 2 were pulled in toward the center of the buildings and this led to a progressive collapse of the buildings due to a failure in the floor assemblies in the buildings, despite the fact that Underwriters Laboratory proved that such floor assemblies would not have failed under the conditions existing on September 11, 2001, is not deserving of any sense of credibility. A document like NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers which has no plausible, evidence-based, explanation for why, or how, Building 7 collapsed in nearly free-fall time -- despite the fact that the building had not been hit by an airplane, and despite the fact there is no empirical evidence of substantial fires having spread throughout the building, and despite the fact that no steel-framed building anywhere in the world had ever collapsed due to fire, notwithstanding evidence in a number of these cases that some buildings burned for as long as 17 hours without causing the structures to collapse – is not deserving of being considered credible. A document like NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers which has no explanation for why so much symmetry was present in the way the three World Trade Center buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001– that is, pretty much straight down into its own ‘footprint’ -- rather than in the sort of asymmetric manner one would have anticipated if the three buildings actually had collapsed as a result of the pancaking of floors whose assemblies, bolts and rivets are not likely to simultaneously have come apart … such a report is not deserving of being considered credible. A document like NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Towers that completely ignores the obvious video data showing that World Trade Buildings 1 and 2 did not just collapse but, rather, exploded and disintegrated is not deserving of being considered credible.

A document like The Pentagon Performance Report that completely ignores the considerable evidence that explosions ripped through the Pentagon and were munitions-based, rather than jet-fuel based, is not deserving of being considered credible. A document like The Pentagon Performance Report which completely ignores the fact that many of the injured at the Pentagon suffered from the primary, secondary and tertiary effects of munitions-based explosions not jet-fuel explosions (which do not carry a shock wave that has concussive-properties) is not deserving of being considered credible. A document like The Pentagon Performance Report that completely ignores the testimony of April Gallop, an individual with top security clearance, who said that following the explosion, there were no fires and there was no plane wreckage despite the fact that she was 60 feet from where the plane supposedly entered the Pentagon is not deserving of being considered credible. A document like The Pentagon Performance Report which seeks to put forth an account that ignores the fact that -- due to aerodynamic properties such as ‘the ground effect’, wing-tip vortices, and so on -- a 2000-ton commercial jet flying at speeds in excess of 500 miles per hour could not possibly have struck the ground floor as The Pentagon Performance Report claims … such a report is not deserving of being considered a credible document. A document like The Pentagon Performance Report that cannot plausibly or adequately explain how the hole in the building’s C-Ring could have the characteristics and singe pattern it did is not deserving of being considered a credible document. A document like The Pentagon Performance Report that does not consider or discuss the fact that there are major contradictions among eye-witness testimonies concerning the flight path of the alleged jet which supposedly crashed into the Pentagon’s west façade – contradictions which carry major ramifications concerning the tenability of The Pentagon Performance Report – then, such a document is not deserving of being considered a credible report. A document like The Pentagon Performance Report which fails either to explore or provide an explanation as to why an array of battery-operated clocks in the west wing of the Pentagon stopped at 9:32-33 a.m. -- some five minutes prior to the time when the official time of a jet impact with the Pentagon allegedly took place – such a document is not deserving of being considered a credible report. A document like The Pentagon Performance Report that fails to investigate the reports of trained, experienced military personnel that they smelled cordite after the explosion at the Pentagon and not jet fuel is not deserving of being considered a credible report.


Casualties: The count begins at around 3,000 individuals. This encompasses the approximate number of people who died on, or about, 9/11 due to the events at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

However, many thousands more individuals will have to be added to the foregoing number. For example, there are an increasing number of people who are exhibiting symptoms from an array of debilitating, if not lethal, diseases that have arisen as a result of the numerous toxic substances released into the environment on 9/11 through the events at the World Trade Center. These substances include: asbestos, benzene, dioxins, cadmium, polycyclic aromatics, PCBs, lead from computers, mercury from florescent light bulbs, and Freon [which when vaporized becomes phosgene gas].

Many first responders – such as firefighters, police, medical personnel – as well as those involved in the cleanup of Ground Zero have already become seriously ill with diseases that can be linked to 9/11. An increasing number of individuals are dying from such diseases.

Some believe that in the not-to-distant future there will be epidemics in the greater New York area – such as mesothelial cancer (related to asbestos) -- due to, among other things, the numerous kinds of carcinogens that were spread all across Manhattan and other parts of New York City on September 11, 2001. In fact, some medical professionals believe that the number of deaths resulting from environmental contamination on 9/11 will exceed the number of immediate casualties of 9/11 by one, or more, orders of magnitude.

To the foregoing must be added the more than 4,000 soldiers who have, to date, died in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the roughly 15,000 seriously wounded soldiers whose lives will never again be the same. One must also add in to the total the increasing number of suicides that are being committed by soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the epidemic of cases involving posttraumatic stress disorder that may have adverse, destructive ramifications for the individuals, their families, and their communities in the near future.

One must also add in to this running total the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis [and estimates run anywhere from 80,000 to 600,000) who have perished as the result of conflicts which are said to be the advanced front of the ‘war on terror’. This is a war on terror that moved into high gear as a direct result of the way in which the events of 9/11 have been interpreted and propagandized by most of the media, government officials [both elected and unelected], and so-called educators.

There is, of course, terrorism in the world. For example, there are the amateur terrorists like al-Qaeda, and, then, there are the professional terrorists such as the United States government and all too many multi-national corporations.

It is a well-established fact that elements of the United States government established, funded, and supported the individuals who now are collectively referred to as al-Qaeda [even though, in reality there are a disparate set of independent individuals and groups which are included under this umbrella term]. In the beginning, what is now known as al-Qaeda was used against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and, now, what is referred to as al-Qaeda is being used as the raison d'être for being in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as being in other geographical locations around the world.

Again and again the American public has been, and is being, told by the media, as well as government officials, that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Yet, the white paper which Colin Powel promised to make available to the United Nations which would prove such claims has never been released, and when the Taliban indicated that it was prepared to hand over Usama bin-Laden to the U.S. if the latter would provide the Taliban with the evidence demonstrating bin-Laden’s involvement with 9/11, the United States had nothing to show them, and even Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, and Robert Mueller, Director of the FBI, both have said that there is no evidence to link Usama bin-Laden with 9/11.

While there may (or may not) have been individuals who were linked, in some way, with al-Qaeda and who had roles to play with respect to 9/11, what also is becoming increasingly clear – at least to all but the self-serving obtuseness of various dimensions of the media, government officials, and educators -- is that to whatever extent individuals associated with al-Qaeda may have been part of the tragedy of 9/11, those individuals received considerable financial, tactical, and strategic assistance from treasonous elements within the United States power elite. Former FBI agent Robert Hanssen, and former CIA agent Aldrich Ames, and former United States Naval civilian intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard all constitute recent exemplars indicating that some U.S. citizens are quite willing to betray their country and fellow citizens in order to serve their own treasonous agenda, Consequently, and most unfortunately, one is not broaching an unthinkable and impossible topic to argue that when the total body of available evidence concerning 9/11 is taken into consideration, there is an overwhelming portion of that evidence which strongly suggests there are traitors – as of yet, unidentified in any definitive manner – that are in our midst and who are responsible, in part or in whole, for the events of 9/11.

If such individuals are permitted to get away with 9/11, one can be sure of one thing. There will be more 9/11-like events, and these subsequent 9/11s will bring with them an unknown number of individuals – both in the United States as well as in other parts of the world (for example, possibly in Iran and Pakistan) who will have to be added to the casualty list which began to be tabulated on September 11, 2001.

One might also want to add a few other items to the casualty list. For example, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, democracy, and America’s moral compass all have been casualties because of the way in which the events of 9/11 have been propagandized, and out of such institutional casualties much collateral damage to human beings is likely to ensue.


Corporatism: There can be little doubt that many corporations are complicit in helping to maintain the ascendant dominance of convenient fictions concerning the events of 9/11. These corporations range from: the media conglomerates which seek to ensure that disconcerting facts about 9/11 do not reach the ears, eyes, minds, hearts and souls of the American public, to: the defense contractors, oil companies, and private military contractors which are earning record profits all stemming from the fabrications, distortions, and untruths that have been promulgated concerning the actual facts surrounding 9/11. Such corporations also include many educational institutions of higher (and lower) learning that either fire individuals who wish to speak out on the issues surrounding 9/11 or that seek to muzzle/censor those who would speak out about such matters by failing to grant tenure to them or by trying to deride such individuals -- as Robert Gates sought to do in relation to Professor Emeritus Morgan Reynolds when the former individual was the President of Texas A & M prior to becoming Secretary of Defense.

All of the foregoing sorts of corporation have a vested interest in preventing representatives of the media, government officials (both elected and unelected), as well as professors and other educators from exploring the complex terrain of 9/11. All of the foregoing sorts of corporation seek to intimidate, bully, marginalize , isolate, contain, and/or penalize any threat to the status quo vis-à-vis the “officially sanctioned” narrative concerning 9/11.

Corporations like the foregoing have polluted the landscape of American democracy. They have been permitted to do this by politicians, both elected and unelected, as well as a judiciary at all levels that has illegitimately conferred a legally enforceable status of ‘personhood’ upon corporations.

The precedent for entitling corporations to be treated as persons allegedly stems from an 1886 Supreme Court decision between Santa Clara County and the Southern Pacific Railway. However, in point of fact, the Supreme Court decision in relation to that case did not confer ‘personhood’ on corporations but explicitly excluded such matters from consideration despite the attempts of lawyers for the railroad to argue that corporations should be considered as people who had rights under, for example, the 14th Amendment.

Unfortunately, subsequent jurists have failed to differentiate – conveniently so it would appear – that there is a difference between the head notes that are written by the court reporter transcribing the proceedings (in this case, J. C. Bancroft Davis) which have absolutely no legal weight and may not even be true (and in this case the head notes were incorrect), and the actual body and content of the Supreme Court decision. It was the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, a former railroad executive, who added, entirely on his own, unrequested (??) initiative, that the case in question involved the fact that “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [see Volume 118 of the United States Reports: Cases Adjudged in The Supreme Court at October Term 1885 and October term 1886, published in New York in 1886 by Banks and Brothers Publishers and written by J.C. Bancroft Davis).

The Supreme Court did not rule in 1886 that Corporations are persons. Since that time however an egregious legal fiction has been established which has continued to permit corporations to be treated as if they were the equivalent of human beings and should have all rights attendant thereto … which has led, in turn, to the undermining of a great many facets of democracy.
The events of 9/11 are like the 1886 case between Santa Clara County and the Southern Pacific Railroad. The truths of these respective matters have been replaced by fictions that serve vested and well-entrenched interests.


There are a lot of other c-words that come to mind with respect to the events of 9/11 and especially in relation to the manner in which the power elite is complicit in helping to perpetuate myths, fictions and false narratives concerning those events. For example, criminal, cynical, comatose, corrosive, churlish, conceited, childish, closed-minded, callous, craven, crude, cold-hearted, careless, cavalier, confused, creepy, crazy, controlling, catastrophic, cruel, catatonic, cancerous, connivance, counterfeit, cupidity, and callow are all appropriate terms to apply to what the power elite among the media, government officials (both elected and unelected) and educational institutions is, and has been doing, in relation to 9/11.

However, based on what already has been said in the previous pages with respect to the more lengthy c-entries, readers will, I believe, be able to intuit the drift of where my commentary might go in conjunction with such additional c-entries. Consequently, I will leave you with one final unelaborated c-entry with respect to my feelings about whatever the power elite may have to say in response to the foregoing material: caveat emptor … let the buyer beware … a term which should have guided the thoughts of many individuals before, during, and after the events of 9/11.

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Kashf (Unveiling) - A Sufi Perspective

There are two kinds of unveiling (kashf) which occur on the Sufi path. One of these is potentially detrimental to the mystical wayfarer. The other can be a source of great blessings for, and help to, the individual.

The first mode of kashf or unveiling concerns the nature and events of the world. The second form of unveiling gives expression to spiritual realities which transcend the realm of the world.

When, by God's command, an individual is provided with a method for: accessing foreknowledge of worldly events; or, being a witness to events going on elsewhere in the world, without leaving one's residence and without any modern technological assistance; or, becoming privy to the details of the past, present and future of whomever one likes, then such a mystical wayfarer is confronted with a very substantial trial and risk.

There are two options for dealing with this situation. The individual can use her or his discretion for determining whether or not to utilize the abilities which God has made available. The person can wait for instructions from Divinity concerning the use of those abilities.

Whenever the mystical wayfarer uses his or her discretion with respect to whether or not to access hidden knowledge concerning the world, two contingencies come into play. First, this individual will have to answer to God on the Day of Judgement for each and every discretionary use of worldly kashf. Secondly, every time one makes discretionary use of worldly kashf, one runs a risk that one's spiritual progress will come to a standstill.

An individual may believe she or he is using worldly kashf only to help others. This may or may not be so. However, one thing is certain. The intentions, motivations, attitudes, understandings, goals, and purposes of a person who makes discretionary use of worldly kashf will come under the closest of Divine scrutiny and cross-examination.

The individual cannot presume she or he will come through the rigors of this investigation in unscathed fashion. The ordeal of being subjected to the intensity of the aforementioned scrutiny is, in and of itself, likely to raise the question of just how necessary was such discretionary use of worldly kashf.

Nevertheless, on the Day of Judgement, second thoughts don't count. One must be prepared to accept the consequences of the choices one makes in the present life. So, as is sometimes said in the military: "Be advised!".

Having access to hidden knowledge concerning the world and its people, can be very seductive and tempting. One may start out in a seemingly innocuous manner, only to discover, if one is fortunate, one is getting caught up in the world in, yet, another way.

Whether one is entangled in the world through "normal" means or through non-ordinary channels, is a moot point. In either case, entanglement means one has lost one's spiritual purpose.

If one loses one's spiritual way on a "lower" level or on a "higher" level, one remains lost in both cases. In fact, one's predicament may be much worse in the latter case since more is expected of the individual. This individual should have known better than to get seduced by the allurements of hidden knowledge concerning the world.

The foregoing comments notwithstanding, there are occasions when use of worldly kashf or unveiling may be required in the service of others. This especially may be true with respect to the kinds of thing a shaykh may do, from time to time, to help an initiate at certain stages of the mystical journey.

Nevertheless, one is better off when directives in these matters come from Divinity. Waiting, with patience, for Divine assistance is, spiritually, far superior to trying, with impatience, to take matters into one's own hands. The former approach is the best form of spiritual etiquette in these matters.

Some people may wonder why individuals should be given access to hidden knowledge while, simultaneously, being told to refrain from taking advantage of this kind of knowledge. One reason for juxtaposing such extraordinary possibilities next to the challenge of restraint is to test the individual concerning whether he or she prefers lordship over servanthood.

Ultimately, the Sufi path is a journey toward perfect servanthood. Those who become attracted to, if not addicted by, the discretionary use of worldly kashf, are indicating a preference for lordship. This inclination or preference becomes an obstacle to making further progress on the Sufi path.

In a sense, one becomes all dressed up with the powers of worldly kashf but with no spiritual place to go. At best, wherever one may be spiritually, on whatever level, one becomes stuck there and unable to fully realize the spiritual purpose of one's life.

At worst, things begin to deteriorate spiritually. One falls further and further away from the mystical path. Yet, the tragedy of this is one may not be aware this is happening because one still has use of the "toys" of worldly kashf.

The other kind of kashf, mentioned previously, concerns spiritual unveilings. These are transcendent to the sort of hidden knowledge about the affairs of the world which is the focus of the worldly mode of kashf.

Spiritual kashf involves unveilings in the form of experiences involving states and stations of the mystical path. Through Divine "flashes", intuitions, visions and so on, one receives knowledge, wisdom and insights about various spiritual realities.

The understanding gained from this form of kashf can be extremely useful to wayfarers of the Sufi path. Such understanding serves to guide, support, strengthen, protect, purify, perfect and illumine the individual's mystical travels.

Worldly kashf, for the most part, cannot assist the individual in any of the above mentioned ways. In other words, with certain exceptions, worldly kashf really has no useful role to play on the mystical journey.

There is only one cautionary proviso which needs to be stated in relation to spiritual kashf. This mode of mystical unveiling is not the goal of the Sufi path. Spiritual kashf is a means, not an end.

The goal of the Sufi path is to become a perfect servant of God through realizing one's essential identity and capacity. Spiritual kashf assists one in the pursuit of this primary objective of the mystical journey.

If one should become preoccupied with spiritual kashf, in and of itself, and, therefore, somewhat divorced from the proper focus of the Sufi path, one becomes spiritually at risk. These risks may not be quite the same as those which are associated with discretionary use of worldly kashf, but the risks to further spiritual progress are, nonetheless, still there.

More specifically, if one wishes to reach a particular destination, one cannot permit the beauty and majesty of the landscape to distract one from the original goal. This is especially the case if one is under a time constraint concerning how long one has to complete the journey to the intended destination.

If one spends too much time by the roadside smelling the flowers, one may never reach one's destination in time. As with everything else in life, one must keep things in a balance of proper moderation.