Marlon Brando In Dallas

July 23, 2009

Truebeleaguer, one of the posters at Truth Action I have quite a bit of time for, has responded to me on the forum. Sadly I was inexplicably banned from the forum the day before so will respond here.

The basic premise of his post is that, OK, the witnesses do prove a north of Citgo approach, but it’s illogical to say that this demonstrates that the plane did not hit the building.

Look at the issue this way: Suppose Marlon Brando claims he was in Los Angeles on November 22, 1963. Suppose I have 13 witnesses placing him in Dallas that morning. Can I claim that lying about his whereabouts proves he was involved in the Kennedy assassination? No! Perhaps the issue merits further investigation, but it’s premature to accuse Brando of killing JFK.

I appreciate the imagination and use of metaphor, but it does not fit these circumstances. The killing of JFK is a completely different topic to Brando’s position, whereas the position of the plane is fundamentally linked with whether or not it caused the damage to the light poles and building, which can only be caused by a plane on the official flight path.

A more fitting metaphor to describe true’s position would be this:

A person was run over in a hit and run in Los Angeles and Marlon Brando was accused of the crime. However 13 witnesses place him in Dallas at the time and none can be found to contradict them. OK, this does show he was not in LA, but it is illogical to say this means he still didn’t run over that person there.

Just as it would be impossible for Marlon Brando to be in Dallas and to have run someone over in LA at the same time, it is impossible for the plane to be on the north of Citgo and to have hit the light poles on the south of it, or to have cause the “punch out” hole which lines up perfectly with a straight line from the first light pole to the last.

As though this had not been made clear enough I will reiterate: There is 0% margin for error with the official south of Citgo flight path. If the plane came in on anything but the exact straight line between the first light pole and the “punch out” hole it could not have caused the damage.

Could, as true has suggested before, the damage have been faked and the plane still hit? Well then where is the damage from a plane coming in from the north side of the station, and why on earth would they take these risks and go to this trouble anyway. This question is clearly one borne of cognitive dissonance, a mind which does not want to believe something at any costs will do some impressively limber acrobatics to avoid having to. The suggestion that the damage was faked AND the plane hit the Pentagon is a text book example of this.

Had I not been banned from the forum true may well have come around to realising this. As it is, now all posters who are not anti-CIT have been purged, the absurdity of this notion will not be challenged and he will continue to walk around with a completely illogical position on this subject in his mind.

Why does 9/11 Truth matter to us? It’s a question worth revisiting from time to time to ensure we remain motivated in our task. This is not a hobby or a topic of curiosity, there are very real reasons we dedicate so much of our precious free-time to spreading awareness of a topic which sees us branded as flakes and lunatics by so many. It’s not an easy thing to do, being a 9/11 Truth activist, but we labour on for some very good reasons.

Obviously the event itself was a massive and unthinkably horrific crime. Nearly 3000 people were murdered and our innate sense of justice as human beings informs every fibre of our being that those responsible must be discovered, exposed and held accountable. But for me, this would not be enough to dedicate these last 3 or so years of my life to. It was a tragedy, but there are many tragedies happening all over the world at this moment in time and we cannot logically dedicate our lives to each one.

Why 9/11 is so important, for me at least and I suspect for many, is what it led to; what it has been used to justify.

First and most strikingly is the launching of two illegal and brutal invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, taking a toll in excess of a million innocent souls. Many of these were not quick deaths. Many died from internal injuries through beating or from the effects of over-zealous torture in criminal facilities such as Guantanamo Bay and others like it. Many died in extreme pain with their flesh being seared from their body by immoral and arguably illegal munitions such as White Phosphorus. Many have and will continue to die from leukaemia and other cancers from the use Depleted Uranium, or will die in the womb or as a result of birth defects caused by the same. This will continue for as long as this stuff is active; with a 4.5 billion year half life it will be some time before I could take seriously any claim we can “move on” from this war.

But these wars are merely features of the broader ideological structure “The War on Terror”; as horrific and immoral as they may be they remain small pieces of a grotesque jigsaw puzzle. This umbrella concept (surely planned as a replacement for the blank cheque foreign and domestic policy pretext of the Cold War) could spawn many more wars, indeed we have been promised by some neo-cons a “hundred year war” and the Obama administration have done nothing to challenge this approximation. But this is not just a series of wars, it is a holistic sea change to our way of life, with domestic policy rapidly rolled out to curtail democracy, crack down on civil liberties and destroy free speech.

How ironic it is then that within this community fighting amongst other things for freedom of speech, the most elemental of liberties, that freedom is so ill-tolerated from within.

In the last few weeks I have been banned from Tony Gosling’s UK 9/11 forum, and by Siddhartha at the American Truth Action forum for expressing views or taking stances the moderator in question did not agree with. More interesting still is that in both cases my contributions were defensive: In the UK We Are Change London are being attacked by Daniel Adigwe, who claims we are MOD agents. When I defended myself against this claim, Tony Gosling said I had no right to attack Daniel and told me to stop. Daniel continued making the accusations and I continued to defend against them until Tony saw fit to ban me. In the US I was defending the work of CIT against the endless smearing and hit jobs that litter that forum. Arguments against CIT are encouraged. Counter points are good enough reason for a banning. Orwell rolls in his grave.

Despite the usefulness of debate in the forming and strengthening of ideas, forums are ultimately a waste of time, so there’s no use crying over spilt milk. Interesting though that it is silencing a view rather than expressing one which makes the loudest statement…

In Arabesque’s rush to respond to an article he still appears to be refusing to admit to recognising, it appears I missed an earlier response to something I had written. In this post Arabesque was claiming I had deceptively misinterpreted his argument and dishonestly erected a straw man. 

People who disagree with Arabesque don’t make mistakes; they lie.

Essentially the bone of contention was that I had interpreted this:

Of these eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT, William Lagasse falsely indicated where light poles were knocked down, while denying that others were knocked down. Amazingly, CIT implies that this does not affect the reliability of his flight path account—in fact, Ranke brazenly and disingenuously claims that it makes his testimony about the flight path even more credible:

“Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.”

How could Lagasse “not see the light poles” as Ranke suggests if he claimed that “there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”—a false statement? If Lagasse didn’t see or remember seeing these light poles on the ground on 9/11, he presumably would have replied “I don’t know”, instead of “none of these light poles… were knocked down”. Lagasse also misplaced the location of the taxi cab to the location where he thought the light poles were knocked down. This factual error strongly suggests that Lagasse witnessed the plane where the actual light poles were knocked down—not where he mistakenly thought they were knocked down. Along with incorrectly placing the location of the damaged Taxi Cab and light poles, at the very least this puts the accuracy of his “smoking gun” testimony in doubt.

To be an argument that Laggasse had seen the light poles hit and claimed the wrong ones were hit.

My apologies to Arabesque, as reading back I can see he is referencing them being on the ground, perhaps I was hindered in my reading by the comedic over-use of bold, italic, and coloured text he uses to make sure his readers focus on the bits of the quotes he finds most important?

But I can put my hands up and admit I was wrong.  I was certainly not deceptive – what would be the point in that as anyone could show me to be in error? A question I will soon be asking of Arabesque regarding this topic…

I wish I had not made this mistake, not because I have a problem owning up to a mistake, but because if I had read him correctly my argument against his point would have been so much simpler in the first place.

Where might I have got the idea that he was talking about Ranke referring to Lagasse seeing the light poles clipped rather than the light poles on the ground?

I will tell you now – the origin of my mistake was to actually click on the footnotes and links and check what they are saying in context when I read a blog or an article. Fact checking is obviously a bad habit of mine that can lead me to making all kinds of mistakes. When I got to that part of Arabesque’s article I clicked on the discussion he was quoting and read it before reading on.

The part of the conversation Arabesque has quoted is Craig Ranke repeating a point he had made and shortening it, which is pretty normal in forum posting. In his first post to someone claiming Lagasse had seen the poles clipped Ranke explains in a lot more detail:


In the email you posted Lagasse simply states that the light poles were clipped not that he SAW them get clipped.

If you had watched his testimony during our film you can see that he was quite clear about the fact that he did NOT see any light poles get clipped.

Sgt Brooks cleared this up for us as well. He had said in a past interview that he saw the light poles get clipped. However he clarified to us that he, like Lagasse, did NOT see any poles get clipped and merely deduced this after the fact from seeing the poles on the ground.

Then a few posts later he re-states the same thing again, in short hand:

Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES?

Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE!

That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.

The second quote is the one Arabesque uses. In the context of this thread (both posts are on the same page) it is obvious that when Ranke says he did not see the light poles that he means he did not see the light poles clipped. He has already stated on the same page that Lagasse saw them on the ground. If anything this deception is MORE dishonest than the last. He is taking a claim by Ranke that Lagasse did not see the plane hit the light poles and presenting it as a claim that Lagasse did not see them on the ground, when on the exact same page we have Ranke explicitly stating that Lagasse DID see the poles on the ground. And he has the gall to call me dishonest? Is it any wonder I misunderstood his statement, when you consider that I had read the source material for his claim and within its context what he was actually claiming, and what he claims I misrepresented, is a blatant lie?

So, Arabesque, I apologise unreservedly for mistaking your deception for quite a different deception. To be honest they do have a lot in common with each other – they both rely completely on the readers of his blog not being the sort of people who follow the footnotes and click on the links. If they do that the house of cards comes crashing down pretty quickly.

I will end on the key evidential point:

When Lagasse was asked about the light poles he stated the ones he thought were knocked down were the ones on the flight path he saw – which is completely natural and does speak to his certainty that the plane was on that path.

When asked whether he saw the light poles get clipped he said no but when he arrived on the scene they were down.

This could mean, as both Ranke and Arabesque assume, that he saw one on the ground. Or it could mean he was told they were down.

Either way it makes no difference to Lagasse’s reliability as an eye witness.

Just look at the map and note where the nearest light pole (the one he would have seen when he arrived at the scene) is compared to where the North of Citgo flight path is.

It would not be a “mistake” at all to consider a plane flying where he saw it fly would leave a light pole lying where it lay. If he did see a downed pole “at the scene” it would be the nearest one, which is so close to the North of Citgo flight path he would have to be some kind of a spatial awareness genius to conclude something didn’t line up right.

But when a witness says something that doesn’t conform with Arabesque’s preferred theory, that appears to be the criteria for dismissing them…

Without referencing my article (which he specifically requested I write) Arabesque appears to be responding to it.

My advice to him is to read it, as the answers to his questions are there, and have been expanded in on a discussion I am involved in at TruthAction forums, which he is known to frequent. I will answer using quotes from those two sources.

A Simple question for CIT and their supporters: When a witness says the plane hit the Pentagon, is that part of the “flight path” or is it not? How could the question of whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon not be relevant to the flight path?

Blog: Considering that in both CIT’s scenario and in his own the witnesses to the event would believe they saw the plane hit the building Arabesque’s conjuring of these hundred quotes is a non-event. It is completely baffling to me the number of people duped by this ridiculous line of “reasoning”. By a simple repositioning of testimony that the plane hit the building as a contradiction of the North of Citgo flight path he has managed to add another hundred to his list of “contradictory witnesses”.

Forum: A key point of CIT’s claim is that the explosion itself would make people brace, duck, flinch, turn away, or even that the sight of the plane would make them run away before it hit. Except for the last reaction, you would expect the same to be true of the sound of the explosion as well as the sight of it and so would equally apply to both the people in the cars behind the building as well as in front of it. Such reactions turn up in many witness accounts and when I try and place myself in their shoes I know would do the same. I jump at the cinema in horror movies; a real life horror movie such as 9/11 would have an even greater knee-jerk reaction. The plane was moving fast as it approached the Pentagon, ducking for cover the moment before it hit and then looking up a moment later to see the fire ball – the plane would be gone. I also personally think (while I accept many will not want to accept this) that CIT’s more extreme “sleight of hand” argument does fit. I think this through imagining the scene in my mind and because of their computer simulation. With accurate representation you see the plane fly towards the pentagon and the explosion, and when I first saw it I did genuinely think this was an animation of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Then they move to a different camera angle and you see it flies over. I was fooled by the sleight of hand in a simulation so why shouldn’t I have been in real life?

The CIT flyover (what I correctly rename to the “mass hallucination theory”) largely depends on dismissing hundreds of witness accounts

Blog: Despite his claim that CIT are doing the same, Arabesque’s entire argument is a protracted and drawn-out appeal for his readers to apply (in Arabesque’s trade mark, bolded, italic and coloured text) special pleading. CIT are not telling you to ignore any testimony, indeed they are asking you to do what they have done and to look into these witnesses of Arabesque’s properly, to check they were there, to check the quotes are actually testimony, to check what they appear to be claiming in a cherry picked quote is what they were actually claiming. It is Arabesque whose argument is to try and create an illusion that CIT’s witnesses are such an extreme minority, and on the back of that illusion expecting you to ignore them, or more accurately to take his word on what they do and do not say.

and deceptively insinuating that the widespread and unanimous reports of the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as evidence of the “flight path”.

See Above

“The plane hit the Pentagon” is in fact the most important and significant claim regarding the “flight path”, although CIT and their supporters would have you believe that it is not relevant, even when many of the various witnesses that CIT cite as evidence themselves claim the plane hit the Pentagon

See above

…while completely hand waving away the fact that there are no credible reports of a flyover

Blog: 1) As verified by CIT in 2008, Roosevelt Roberts Jr. stated in 2001 that he saw a large commercial airliner at less than 100 feet above the ground flying away from the Pentagon seconds after the alleged impact. It is hard to listen to his testimony and come to any conclusion other than that he is a flyover witness, especially since he first gave this testimony just weeks after the event, and a large commercial jet liner is a hard thing to mistake.

2) In 2001 Erik Dihle stated that many witnesses around him said that the Pentagon was hit by a bomb attack and the plane kept on going showing that whatever perception ending up being reported, people on the scene did indeed report exactly the scenario that CIT have been forwarding.

Forum: If we go back to our initial premise (that it is perfectly plausible for someone to not see something which did happen, but far more problematic for someone to see something that didn’t happen) and add to this the fact that from appearances Dihle’s report had more people saying it flew away than saying it hit, and it is more compelling still. Further, when everyone on the scene had in their minds that the US was under attack by planes flying into buildings, it becomes even more untenable to consider that anyone would say the plane flew away unless they saw it do so. Let’s switch back to the official version of events and consider Dihle’s report in that context. Two planes have just flown into the world trade centre twin towers, one of them filmed at multiple angles and seen by millions across the world. The news is telling people there could be more targets hit by planes. Next a plane flies into the Pentagon. A dead hit. And yet more people on the scene are saying it flew away than it hit? This is a very odd scenario yet it is exactly what Victoria, Arabesque et al would like us to accept unquestionably.

“We have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.” In other words, according to CIT and those who support their work, the Pentagon attack was a “mass hallucination” event in which any witness who claims that the plane hit the Pentagon was either deceived by an illusion or a government operative.

Blog: The basic notion is that as the plane reached the building a large smoke heavy explosion came from the bottom floor, both the smoke and fireball of which would draw any witnesses attention for long enough for the plane to be long gone. CIT suggest that if you saw a plane fly low and fast towards a building then the next second the plane is gone and there’s a huge explosion – your mind tells you the one caused the other. Now there is a lot to discuss about that idea both for and against this, I am not immune to the serious problems this theory must contend with, but that will have to wait. What is immediately interesting is that Arabesque seems to make out that he does not recognise or understand the concept of sleight of hand at all; instead he claims that what CIT are proposing is Mass Hallucination: “To understand just how absurd the arguments of CIT are, you have to understand that the flyover theory is actually endorsing mass hallucination as a plausible explanation for 100’s of witnesses claiming to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon. Again, who believes in mass hallucination here? Please don’t raise your hands all at once. It is completely baffling to me the number of people duped by this ridiculous line of “reasoning”.” To believe that Arabesque is really baffled is to believe he is stupid and that is one thing I would never say about him. Or maybe I’m being unkind? Maybe he really doesn’t understand the concept of an illusion? Maybe when he sees a rabbit pulled from a hat he thinks someone has spiked his drink? Perhaps when he sees a lady get “sawn in half” and wiggle her toes he thinks he put the wrong kind of mushroom in his pasta sauce? Is it possible he really thinks magic tricks are hallucinations? No of course not. He is simply employing an argument to incredulity, one of the cheapest and most childish of all the logical fallacies.

I have a difficult time explaining why this claim is taken seriously at all.

Why do I have trouble believing that? Is it because Arabesque has confirmed he is deceptive when he continues to list people he has long known were not witnesses to the Pentagon event as though they were (see comment under my previous blog)?

Is it because he pretends to really not understand the difference between sleight of hand and hallucination in order to form a not-too-subtle argument to incredulity?

 Is it because while on one hand he seems a fairly intelligent bloke on the other hand he claims that if you take a handful of scraps of unconfirmed testimony it cancels out 13 independently verified eye witnesses full interviews?

A little bit of all those things, no doubt.

But most of all it is because he, like all of CITs detractors continue to pretend they don’t hear you when you ask them the simplest of all questions, and the one that is key to understanding this issue:

Regarding the 13 CIT witnesses, do you –

a) Agree with Adam Larson that they are all lying and part of an elaborate disinfo op?

b) Believe it is possible for them to have been not only drastically wrong about a simple left/right judgement, AND in such a way that 13 out of 13 corroborated each other, AND so utterly stupid that even when CIT suggested the official flight path to them they emphatically rejected it?

c) Have some third option that would not make you sound completely insane?

So long as Arabesque and others continue to pretend they don’t notice being asked that question over and over and over again, how can one conclude that they are in any way honest in the way they deal with this issue?

That is what I have a difficult time explaining…

NB: Since writing this article CIT have released the concise and comprehensive film which I recommend you watch after reading the article Its release, and the further research I have done somewhat changes my position. I have been very cautious in the past regarding the Pentagon but I do now feel that it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that CIT’s view is essentially correct (there are still a few details we disagree on) and with a single film to put across this point we should begin promoting it as some of the best evidence we have. The previous fault with CIT, that for someone to fully understand the evidence you had to ask them to watch dozens of videos clips has now been solved, and there is really no excuse to keep ignoring this. I am including this forward note as the tone of the general article is a lot more cautious, and I no longer feel we need to be.

This article is a response to Arabesque’s request that I explain in detail my counterpoints against his arguments in opposition to the research of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT). Arabesque is not by any means the only person who has been involved in attempting to debunk CIT, but his arguments are the most commonly repeated, reworded, regurgitated and linked to, so I am happy to meet his request and address them.

What I hope to achieve from writing this article is to explain why I do not personally reject the testimony of the 13 members of the public who have been documented by CIT. This is not about CIT; they are just the camera men, the editors and commentators. This is about real people, real eye witnesses, and whether or not they deserve their testimony to be run roughshod over in protection of a pre-decided position on the issue of the Pentagon. I am not demanding everyone agree with me and respect everyone’s right to their own opinion, but what I hope will come as a side effect is that some of the people who are not so tolerant might at least question their sense of certainty that these 13 witnesses deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

I still hold the same position I have for many years on the Pentagon – that there is far less ambiguous and easier to understand campaigning material and while research should be supported it should not be centre-stage of our evidence promotion efforts. Some seem to have taken an extremist position that the case is closed with the Pentagon, the official story is essentially correct and everyone should join them in denouncing any Pentagon researchers or expect to be defamed and attacked alongside them. I am writing this now as things seem to be getting out of hand. Genuine venom is being stirred up not just against CIT themselves but also against any other person who does not denounce them in lock-step. Terms such as “cult”, “disinfo”, “an operation” and “shilling” are being thrown around with abandon.

How did this happen? What is the argument for rejecting these witnesses and is the evidence that supports it really strong enough to justify making such incendiary accusations? These are questions I hope to explore in this article.

How Much Contradictory Testimony Equals VAST Amounts Of Contradictory Testimony?

It is best to get started with the key point, and the evidential issue on which CITs work is based: The North of Citgo approach. For the reader who has no foundation of knowledge regarding CITs work I will briefly explain:

The evidence CIT presents is largely in the shape of 13 eye witnesses they have tracked down from the areas around the Pentagon which would have had a clear view of where the plane flew and/or of the area of the alleged impact. These witnesses all corroborate each other very well within the reasonable margin of error that must be accepted due to the fallibility of memory. In most cases they describe an approach crossing from the south to the north side of Columbia Pike, directly over the Navy Annex and to the North of the Citgo Gas Station (as it was named then and as it will be referred to in this article). All of the 13 witnesses testify to a North of Citgo flight path with utter certainty and are rigorously questioned on every detail during the interview. When the interview is in person, rather than over the phone, they stand in the spot the person was on the day and ask them to draw an estimated line on a map of the area. They are told that others place the plane on the other side of Citgo and do not waver or show any uncertainty. From actually watching these witnesses and seeing the level of questioning and attention to detail that goes into each interview, a very compelling case is made for the plane having flown on the flight path that these witnesses collectively but independently indicate. After all, while it would be a super human memory which could recall to the exact metre where the plane flew, very few people’s memory would be so bad as to mistake left and right, especially not when standing in the exact place it happened.

From the people who demand that these witnesses be ignored and all those who mention them be castigated, you will not find a clear explanation as to why these people were all wrong in such a similar way. Instead you find an argument, which is the central pillar of Arabesques opposition to this research, that there is a VAST body of testimony that directly contradicts these witnesses. There is so much contradictory testimony, the claim goes, that whatever these other witnesses said is quite irrelevant. On the back of this claim he paints a picture of CIT simply ignoring or dismissing this huge body of testimony (often described as hundreds) in order to focus in on just the 13 witnesses they have. This is a commonly repeated claim in certain circles of the online 9/11 truth community, and is surely the source for much of the venom directed both at CIT and those who do not condemn them. But how much truth is there behind it?

In this article I will dissect this alleged tidal wave of dynamite contradictory testimony. I will ultimately argue that it does not exist; it is a carefully constructed illusion obscuring the very underwhelming body of admissible evidence in Arabesque’s possession.

When it comes to actual testimony regarding the flight path of the plane all he has actually presented in terms of directly contradictory descriptions are six snippets of testimony. These scraps of text appear to contradict the CIT witnesses by placing the plane going over the I-395. Of course this flight path does not perfectly match the official one either, but if they were on the portion of that road which is south of the official flight path then it is fair to say what they described is closer to the official story than not. Arabesque lists six unconfirmed media quotes from six individuals. However, two of them are categorised as “unidentified”; this does not meet my standard of evidence but it may meet yours, so I include all six and allow you to make your own mind up which ones to recognise:

1. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As we were driving into town on 395, there was an exit. We were trying to get off of the exit for the Memorial Bridge. On the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and was coming in too fast and the[n?] too low, and the next thing we saw was [it?] go-down below the side of the road… coming down towards the side of the—of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us” [Barbara]

2. I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. [PNAC signatory Gary Bauer)

3. “coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there—very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station…[note: this statement is ambiguous as to whether it was N. or S. of the gas station but…] then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.” [Penny Elgas]

4. “I was right underneath the plane, said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395.” [Kirk Milburn]

5. “I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down and came down right over 395 right into the Pentagon.” [Don Wright]

6. “The plane flew very low over his car and hit the building and blew his windows out of the vehicle and he’s on interstate 395.” [UNIDENTIFIED PENTAGON WORKER]

So how many witnesses to a South of Citgo approach did you count? Six or Four? Personally I counted three.

In the testimony of Penny Elgas it is perfectly plausible that she is describing the same flight path that the witnesses interviewed by CIT attested to. In that testimony it crosses over the Navy Annex (which Columbia Pike runs next to) then to the North of Citgo before banking and powering towards the Pentagon. If Penny was on the part of I-395 south of the official flight path then from her side-on and restricted view, it would be difficult to tell if it was over the Navy Annex, or just clear of it to her side, and it is far from clear which side of the Citgo it flies on, as even Arabesque notes. “Coming straight at us” could support the South side claim certainly, just as the bank of the plane as it approaches the building that so many witnesses mention is not compatible with the South side claim but a key feature of the North. There is no proof that this testimony is one thing or the other, yet this is one sixth of Arabesque’s claim of VAST contradictory evidence?

It is a true demonstration of Arabesque’s desperation that he includes two unnamed witnesses and one who can scarcely be described as a definite South side witness to amass a grand total of six scraps of testimony, which when interrogated quickly deflates to a potential three. The CIT evidence is more impressive both in numbers of witnesses and in the nature of the testimony itself.

I should not have to explain why I do not consider these accounts to be sufficient evidence to make a claim for any flight path. With the exception of Milburn we don’t know where they were exactly (I-395 is a very long road), where they were facing, and there is no way for us to verify any of it. In the case of the unconfirmed ‘Barbara’ we see a reference to the Memorial Bridge, which is on 110 and not I-395 so we cannot even be sure she is even generally where she is claimed to be. We cannot ask a cherry-picked snippet of a quote from Penny Elgas to draw a line on a map showing where she feels the plane went, we can’t ask her if it was on the far side or near side of the gas station. While to a rational researcher interested in finding the facts these offerings are next to useless, they are very useful to Arabesque himself, who can simply claim they show what he wants them to show.

To attempt to position these sound bites, mostly media-mined, as being equal in quality to CIT’s interviews is laughable, and Arabesque knows it. This is why Arabesques entire tactic of argument in this issue is one of quantity over quality. He knows he cannot beat the quality of CIT’s witnesses, he also knows if people actually watch these witnesses for themselves, they will get the picture pretty quickly. Instead he contrives to throw every scrap of a quote which could remotely be described as contradicting CIT at his readers to create an illusion that these 13 witnesses are a tiny minority, and not even worth paying attention to.

But in reality, when we look for testimony directly contradicting the North of Citgo approach we have three snippets from media reports on Arabesque’s side, which in fact raise more questions than they answer, against 13 confirmed and verified witnesses on CIT’s. Yet many avid readers of Arabesque’s work claim with uniformity and the utter certainty that comes from only hearing one side of the story, that it is the complete other way around: that CIT have a tiny number of witnesses while “over a hundred” witnesses support the South side flight path. This is largely because, as I have demonstrated above and will demonstrate further, Arabesque does not like to play fair.

Abara Kadabara!

Arabesque’s Magic Trick Turns 3 In To 103 Before Our Very Eyes!

There is something that should be noted right away: many of the CIT witnesses who were in a position to see both the plane and the area of the Pentagon which was physically damaged believe that the plane hit the building. What CIT are proposing, metaphorically speaking, is “sleight of hand”.

The basic notion is that as the plane reached the building a large smoke heavy explosion came from the bottom floor, both the smoke and fireball of which would draw any witnesses attention for long enough for the plane to be long gone. CIT suggest that if you saw a plane fly low and fast towards a building then the next second the plane is gone and there’s a huge explosion – your mind tells you the one caused the other. Now there is a lot to discuss about that idea both for and against this, I am not immune to the serious problems this theory must contend with, but that will have to wait. What is immediately interesting is that Arabesque seems to make out that he does not recognise or understand the concept of sleight of hand at all; instead he claims that what CIT are proposing is Mass Hallucination:

“To understand just how absurd the arguments of CIT are, you have to understand that the flyover theory is actually endorsing mass hallucination as a plausible explanation for 100’s of witnesses claiming to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon.

Again, who believes in mass hallucination here? Please don’t raise your hands all at once. It is completely baffling to me the number of people duped by this ridiculous line of “reasoning”.”

To believe that Arabesque is really baffled is to believe he is stupid and that is one thing I would never say about him.

Or maybe I’m being unkind? Maybe he really doesn’t understand the concept of an illusion? Maybe when he sees a rabbit pulled from a hat he thinks someone has spiked his drink? Perhaps when he sees a lady get “sawn in half” and wiggle her toes he thinks he put the wrong kind of mushroom in his pasta sauce? Is it possible he really thinks magic tricks are hallucinations? No of course not. He is simply employing an argument to incredulity, one of the cheapest and most childish of all the logical fallacies. It is clear he knows what sleight of hand is; indeed he clearly has a trick or two up his own sleeve:

Watch the hands, watch the hands:

It’s a claim I can show a hundred witnesses contradicting the North of Citgo flight path…

It’s a claim I can show a hundred witnesses contradicting the North of Citgo flight path…

It’s a claim I can show a hundred witnesses contradicting the North of Citgo flight path…

It’s a claim I can show a hundred witnesses saying the plane hit the building…

WOW! Did you see that? How did he do that? He must have been hiding that completely different claim in his big top hat along with his white rabbit and a bunch of paper flowers…

Considering that in both CIT’s scenario and in his own the witnesses to the event would believe they saw the plane hit the building Arabesque’s conjuring of these hundred quotes is a non-event. It is completely baffling to me the number of people duped by this ridiculous line of “reasoning”. By a simple repositioning of testimony that the plane hit the building as a contradiction of the North of Citgo flight path he has managed to add another hundred to his list of “contradictory witnesses”. Talk about sleight of hand; 3 witnesses to 103 witnesses in the blink of an eye.

Or should I say 102? Because while these supposed contradicting witnesses were a non-event, one of them was actually a non-witness. What I will demonstrate here is sadly the first signs of something of a trend throughout Arabesque’s writing on CIT:

One of his witnesses Rev. Henry Ticknor was simply not there. You will notice that this is not testimony at all but is in third person, much like the unidentified Pentagon worker who supposedly witnessed a south side approach:

“[the plane flew] fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon.”

But it is simply not true, as he explains in a sermon:

“I never said the plane came in fast and low over my car, as I was five miles from the point of impact.”

I could go on, I could talk about how just like Henry’s “quote” many on the list of a hundred Arabesque presents are written in the third person and therefore not eye witness testimony at all. I could even go in to a lengthy explanation of how due to obstacles and topology many of the people quoted would not have seen the point of “impact” at all from their positions. But what’s the point? A belief that the plane hit the Pentagon does not contradict a north of Citgo flight path and therefore all Arabesque has to his name are the three unconfirmed reports he started with. Certainly not enough for me to ignore the CIT witnesses as many seem to expect me to.

What would influence me? Well those people seeing the light poles hit certainly lend credence to the South side theory, since it is on that flight path that the light poles were.

Illuminating The Muddy Waters Of Arabesque’s Light Pole Claims

Regarding the light poles Arabesque has again employed his philosophy of quantity over quality and dazzled the reader with 20 different apparent quotes from eyewitnesses saying they saw the planes hit the light poles. Now unconfirmed, unquestioned and unverified they may be but I cannot just reject 20 different people claiming the same thing can I? Of course not, but based a commitment to a standard of evidence somewhat lacking in those who buy Arabesque’s CIT arguments what I will do is look properly into this list. Because as we have seen, with Arabesque things aren’t always as they seem.

From looking closely at each of the quotes in Arabesque’s list, problems immediately appear, for a start 5 of them are not eyewitness testimony quotes but written in the third person. My research into what these witnesses actually claimed failed to find any mention from Penny Elgas of light poles, let alone them being knocked over by the plane:

The quote Arabesque uses is not even from her testimony, it’s a flowery write up from the web page for a collection of 9/11 artefacts for a collection at the National Museum of American History, and is clearly a case of describing her experience within the context of the sanctioned official story:

While this is some particularly lazy research on Arabesque’s behalf, when we dip a little deeper into the pool, how murky the waters are becomes immediately apparent:

Lee Evey was not even a Pentagon witness. The quote is from the Detroit News although the webpage is now down; he was the manager of the Pentagon’s renovation (both before and after 9/11) and was describing what was supposed to have happened at the Pentagon to a journalist as part of a report on the construction.

Don Fortunato was not there either; he simply came across the scene of Lloyde’s cab after the event, as he explained pretty clearly on the mainstream news:

Also not there was Tom Hovis

So of the twenty unconfirmed media reports Arabesque presents us five are not even quotes and three of them are verifiably not even witnesses and the following two could only be taken as light pole witnesses by a mind utterly desperate to see them as such:

“I saw debris flying. I guess it was hitting light poles.” is hardly convincing from Kirk Milburn especially since he would have heard that the plane hit light poles.

To count Terry Morin as a light pole witness on the strength of “As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110.” is weak even by Arabesque’s standards. And that is without taking into account the fact that CIT have interviewed Morin and confirmed he was at the Navy Annex and could not possibly have seen the light poles.

In fact of all of these accounts only two actually refer directly to having seen the plane hit a light pole and one of them is unnamed:

“I saw it clip a light pole.” – Unnamed Navy Admiral

“I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant.” – Wanda Ramey

So really we just have Wanda Ramey. Contrary to claims that they ignore testimony which does not fit their theory, CIT did to contact her to try and confirm or deny this. It’s a difficult interview to listen to as she is clearly not in a right state of mind and while she says she thinks the plane did hit the light pole she does say there is nothing she is certain of regarding that day.

Of the others, two do not appear to be describing light poles hit at all, but other objects with Bruce Elliot saying it hit a guide wire, and Kat Gaines saying it hit a telegraph pole. None of them say they saw it hit a light pole, but simply refer to it having hit a light pole, meaning it is entirely plausible they are adding what they heard happened to what they saw happened, which is known as deduction and very common in eye witness statements.

You may not believe this, but there is evidence for it in this very list:

“The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. – Steven McGraw

That sounds like he definitely saw a light pole clipped right? Who would doubt that?

Anyone who has actually seen CIT’s films, that’s who. They have interviewed him, and here is what a little light questioning actually reveals:

“I didn’t actually see the light pole go over or anything, no, I later saw the evidence of the pole having been knocked over”

In fact every single witness who has in the past been accredited with a claim to have seen the plane striking light poles down who were later interviewed at length by CIT admitted they did not. Sgt. Chadwick Brooks is another example of this, and Sgt Lagasse’s mention of light poles I will come to the latter shortly as there is much to be said about Arabesque’s arguments against his testimony.

This is why the CIT method of confirmation, verification and questioning is so important. Little scraps of media-mined testimony such as the evidence presented against CIT by Arabesque cannot be considered a match for a proper on-site interview; especially when so much of it is not even a quote but a description in third person of what that person saw written by someone else; especially when just a little research can demonstrate many of those on Arabesque’s lists were not even witnesses to the event, in some cases being miles away.

Once again, we are essentially where we started with three snippets potentially supporting a South of Citgo approach, and now one potentially supporting a light pole strike. This is what Arabesque’s VAST body of contradictory testimony actually looks like when you apply a little critical thinking and fact-checking.

If I can discover this with just a little research, what does it say about the standards of evidence of the man who presents these as though they are a stone cold reason we should outright ignore the 13 CIT witnesses? And what does it say of the critical faculties of people who run around the internet claiming that the CIT witnesses are a tiny minority among “hundreds” of contradictory testimony?

UPDATE: The following section has been retracted and replaced by the following: the purposes of transparency I leave the original in it’s entirity:


The Lagasse Deception

I have given this small piece of analysis a section of it’s own as I believe it displays quite clearly the kind of arguments Arabesque commonly makes to protect a view point he believes the “9/11 truth movement” should hold. It is an argument that only works on people who have not seen Lagasse’s testimony for themselves as I will demonstrate after the quote:

“Of these eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT, William Lagasse falsely indicated where light poles were knocked down, while denying that others were knocked down. Amazingly, CIT implies that this does not affect the reliability of his flight path account—in fact, Ranke brazenly and disingenuously claims that it makes his testimony about the flight path even more credible:

“Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.”

How could Lagasse “not see the light poles” as Ranke suggests if he claimed that “there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”—a false statement? If Lagasse didn’t see or remember seeing these light poles on the ground on 9/11, he presumably would have replied “I don’t know”, instead of “none of these light poles… were knocked down”. Lagasse also misplaced the location of the taxi cab to the location where he thought the light poles were knocked down. This factual error strongly suggests that Lagasse witnessed the plane where the actual light poles were knocked down—not where he mistakenly thought they were knocked down. Along with incorrectly placing the location of the damaged Taxi Cab and light poles, at the very least this puts the accuracy of his “smoking gun” testimony in doubt.

In summary, CIT has made these misleading claims about Lagasse:

They claim that he “did not see the light poles” when Lagasse specifically claims that light poles were “not knocked down” and others were “knocked down” in an incorrect location.

They claim that because he misplaced the location of the light poles it makes his testimony of the flight path more reliable, despite giving factually incorrect information”

Sound convincing?

Only if you have never watched the actual film he is quoting or if you watched it without paying attention to it, so you could say you had, having already made up your mind.

As this is from his review of the film and he has transcribed many quotes from it into this article, we know for a fact Arabesque has seen it and that he was paying attention. If he wasn’t, he would hardly be qualified to write a scathing denouncement of it.

So he would have heard this:

49:00 :

CIT: Did you see it hit any lightpoles?

Lagasse: Did not see them hit any light poles, but obviously when I got to the scene the lightpoles were down.

This most important piece of testimony Arabesque first omits, then denies, then accuses the people who refer to it of making misleading statements.

The implications of Lagasse’s testimony is self-evident to anyone who has heard what he actually says in context, rather than just the cherry picked quotes Arabesque feeds his readers. When watching the source material film “The Pentacon” you will see there are several things that are apparent about what Lagasse knows and what he believes:

1) The plane flew to the North of Citgo;

2) The official story is true;

3) The light poles were down and one had hit a cab.

Since he believes the official story to be true, then in his mind he is not guessing or speculating when he incorrectly states that the light poles were in the same place as where he knew the plane was. It’s just logical deduction and all it does is speak to Laggasse’s unshakable certainty that the plane flew where he said it did. If he had actually seen it where it was supposed to be and made a mistake saying it flew North, wouldn’t Craig Ranke telling him that the official story has the light poles on the South side jog his memory? Instead he is adamant the plane was on the North and therefore believe he is right when he says the light poles were on the North as well.

Arabesque deliberately omitted Lagasse’s explicit statement that he didn’t the see light poles hit. Then in the next breath he writes:

“How could Lagasse “not see the light poles” as Ranke suggests…”

Ranke is suggesting nothing; Lagasse did not see the plane hit the light poles, and Arabesque knows this.

If Arabesque thought it was fair to call CIT “brazen” and “disingenuous” regarding Lagasse’s testimony, then what would it be fair to call Arabesque now that we know it was he who was doing the distorting?

The Flyover

This is the controversial part and I was tempted not to cover it, but within the context of this article it would be expected that I do. I would like to say that I am not 100% behind the flyover, but the truth is I simply find it very hard to see any other explanation. When you realise there is in fact next to nothing in the way of reliable eye witness confirmation of a South of Citgo flight path (once the chaff is stripped away amounting essentially to four unconfirmed scraps of testimony), and the testimony in support of a North of Citgo path continues to mount, the issue of the physical evidence becomes a serious problem. Needless to say, if the plane flew to the North of Citgo then it cannot have hit the light poles, and equally problematic its landing gear or anything else cannot have made that almost perfectly round hole in the C-ring.

Perhaps there is an explanation other than the flyover, and if those who opposed the (admittedly counter-intuitive) flyover theory actually engaged honestly with the evidence and provided some ideas then I would be all ears. Believe me, even for me, in possession of all the evidence not just the edited evidence Arabesque has decided to share with his readers, it still sounds ridiculous. If it is true then perhaps this was the point of it?

There are obviously some serious questions about the flyover, which I accept are rational, but I would rather people asked in an honest fashion (i.e. with an indication that they were interested in finding the answers), rather than as a part of an argument to incredulity.

Why would they not just fly the plane into the building?

What possible motive for such a complicated and high risk deception?

Why are there not hundreds of explicit witnesses to the event?

There is a highway on the far side of the building; surely they would all see this?

Yes, I’ve thought all these questions myself and I do not think they have been fully answered. But a priori objections such as these are not a rational basis on which to reject confirmed, verified and interrogated eye witness testimony. We need to look further into this testimony, not ignore it. Is there some way the testimony is compatible with any theory other than the flyover? Are there any eye witnesses we can verify and confirm to contradict that testimony? Are there answers to these questions which would explain how a flyover might be possible? These are the questions we should be asking, not avoiding.

What you will not have heard if your sole source of information on CIT is Arabesque is that there is a modest but growing body of evidence which would support the notion of a flyover, which I will disseminate here:

1) As verified by CIT in 2008, Roosevelt Roberts Jr. stated in 2001 that he saw a large commercial airliner at less than 100 feet above the ground flying away from the Pentagon seconds after the alleged impact. It is hard to listen to his testimony and come to any conclusion other than that he is a flyover witness, especially since he first gave this testimony just weeks after the event, and a large commercial jet liner is a hard thing to mistake.

2) In 2001 Erik Dihle stated that many witnesses around him said that the Pentagon was hit by a bomb attack and the plane kept on going showing that whatever perception ending up being reported, people on the scene did indeed report exactly the scenario that CIT have been forwarding.

3) More of an interesting note: the 911 calls and transcripts of what people reported immediately have been confiscated and permanently sequestered by the FBI. In New York they were released. Why the reticence to show what the public were actually saying about what they saw happened before they were told what had happened? Erik Dihle’s above testimony could shed some light on the reasons for this.

3) While there have been reports in the media that the C-130 pilot witnessed the attack, there is video, photographic, and eyewitness evidence as well as the word of the actual pilot Lt Col Steve O’Brien to demonstrate beyond a doubt that the C-130 was not in the area until about 3 minutes after the attack. Could the C-130 which was witnessed by many around the time of the Pentagon event have been used as a cover story to convince witnesses who thought the plane continued that they were seeing this second plane instead? Could this explain the false claims that the C-130 was “shadowing” the attack jet when we know it was not?

4) In a very similar vein could people seeing the plane over Washington have had the plane they witnessed “explained away” by the later appearance of the “Doomsday Plane” which was verified and photographed circling Washington (staying for so long in such sensitive airspace that it seemed to be begging people to photograph and confirm it)? The first reports of a white plane over Washington were in fact immediately after the Pentagon attack. The Doomsday Plane was actually reported some time later although the two different sightings and two different times were later clumsily merged in the official narrative.

However cynical you may be of the fly-over theory, I hope that you at least accept that these facts are food for thought, and go some way towards answering the awkward questions that come to our minds when considering the flyover theory.

In Closing…

Having promised Arabesque this response within “a few days”, and having only found small pockets of spare time to work on this article over a busy two weeks, I will close up for now. I may not have responded to every single erroneous claim of Arabesque’s but have shown clearly the principle reasons for my position on CIT: The supposed “hundreds” of witnesses contradicting a North of Citgo flight path do not exist, while the 13 independently verified CIT witnesses clearly do. I hope an open and honest debate can begin and this can be discussed maturely and we can cover every topic in detail. I also hope that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis will be allowed to return to forums to present their own counterarguments to criticisms of their work.

I want to remind the reader of my aims here. I am not aiming to prove that CIT’s flyover theory is correct, or even that the North of Citgo flight path is correct. I am not saying that just because McGraw and Brooks both sounded like witnesses to the plane hitting the light poles and turned out with a little investigation to be nothing of the sort, that the same can be assumed of the others. What I would expect is for people who claim these witnesses definitely did see light poles struck by a plane to be putting similar efforts to CIT in to confirm and verify this. I accept the remote possibility that all 13 CIT witnesses could be so drastically wrong in the same way; while it is extremely unlikely it is technically possible, but it is certainly not a claim that can be made flippantly. Such a fantastical claim is so against the odds that I would expect at the very least for those who forward it to apply the same rigour CIT have in confirming it.

Instead we have been presented with an extremely small body of extremely weak evidence dressed up as an extremely large body of extremely weak evidence. Neither would cut it for me.

Despite his claim that CIT are doing the same, Arabesque’s entire argument is a protracted and drawn-out appeal for his readers to apply (in Arabesque’s trade mark, bolded, italic and coloured text) special pleading. CIT are not telling you to ignore any testimony, indeed they are asking you to do what they have done and to look into these witnesses of Arabesque’s properly, to check they were there, to check the quotes are actually testimony, to check what they appear to be claiming in a cherry picked quote is what they were actually claiming. It is Arabesque whose argument is to try and create an illusion that CIT’s witnesses are such an extreme minority, and on the back of that illusion expecting you to ignore them, or more accurately to take his word on what they do and do not say. As I have shown the second you actually watch CIT’s videos Arabesque’s distortions and dishonesty are immediately apparent.

Those who have allowed themselves to be convinced of a position whereby the meat and bones of the official story at the Pentagon (i.e. that the plane did fly on the official flight path and did hit the light poles and the building, albeit with different perpetrators behind the crime) should consider that the CIT gathered testimony is not by a long shot the only problem with the official story in this area, to name just a few:

1) There are the big questions posed by the various sets of data released by the government and the contradictions they show both between each other and with eye witness testimony. British researcher Calum Douglas received an animated allegedly created from the flight data via FOIA request that contradicted the official flight path, after giving it to Pilots for 9/11Truth they received a spreadsheet of the full flight data which again contradicted the official flight path and also contained contradictions with the animation. Both sets of data end when the plane is way short of the Pentagon. The RADES data showed the C-130 flying a flight path no witness ascribed to it, and is a contradiction with the pilot’s own testimony about where he flew. The flight data and radar is an inconclusive and contradictory mess. Why would this be if the official story is essentially correct?

2) Referring to the flight data Pilots for 9/11 Truth has claimed that from the last position of the plane, even taking a debunkers view of the lowest possible altitude, the G-force exerted on the plane in order for it to level out to match the CCTV footage of it flying low and level would make the official scenario impossible.

3) Steve Chaconas, another key CIT witness has the plane flying a completely different path, over the river from Washington. This not only confirms early reports of the plane’s flight path, and recorded communications between air traffic controllers regarding the plane, it was even a flight path shown for the plane in an early National Geographic documentary on 9/11, and was described in an early statement to the press by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

4) There are both multiple reports and recorded audio and visual evidence of more than one explosion after the initial event at the Pentagon.

5) The classic problem with the Pentagon is the fact that the CCTV footage has never been fully disclosed. We know that there were out-facing CCTV cameras on the walls of the Pentagon, including the face which was attacked which would surely clear the controversy up for once and for all? So why not just release it if the official story is essentially correct?

Whatever Arabesque and others may contrive to convince you of, the Pentagon is not a closed book; it is not true that there is “nothing to see here”. I am not proposing that people start going out campaigning on a topic which is still as inconclusive as the Pentagon, but neither do I think we should throw in the towel. Research must continue on every area and every point of 9/11 in the hope that one day we amass so much evidence that the truth is undeniable to even the most irrational official conspiracy theorist. I don’t need to remind anyone that regardless of claims that we have enough evidence already, 9/11 truth is still a minority position.

Regardless, the bigger question to ask is where we are going if we submit to the policy of PR before honesty, and image before truth? I believe that Arabesque is acting from a misguided good intention; he seems to have convinced himself that he is some kind of protector of the truth movement and will attack without provocation anything he thinks could be bad PR. And every dishonest, manipulative and misleading trick in the debating book is fair game because supposedly the ends justify the means.

Have we forgotten that the truth has its own value, and that the people have a right to know? Are we becoming everything we got behind the cause of 9/11 truth to fight? When we start closing down on areas of research we feel we damage our credibility are we really so different to Noam Chomsky and all of the other left wing commentators who have closed down on 9/11 Truth wholesale for the exact same reasons?

Attempting to protect the credibility of the left-wing mainstream peace movement, Chomsky famously said “who cares if 9/11 was an inside job?” Do we really want to join him in a misguided attempt to protect the credibility of 9/11 Truth by saying “who cares what happened at the Pentagon?” And do we need to be reminded that many of the families of the innocent people who died there most definitely do?

I end this with a call for people who publicly oppose CIT to be honest with themselves, even if they can’t be honest publicly, and admit they have not watched all of their videos, read their articles or looked properly at their own (far more detailed than mine) responses to Arabesque and others. Several of the most vocal “debunkers” of CIT have admitted to me that they have not reviewed their work for themselves but “trust” Arabesque based on his past record, essentially letting someone else do their thinking for them. Others have admitted to only having seen the first film, which is now several years old and represents a third of their evidence.

Einstein once said:

“Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance”

If everyone followed this philosophy then there would be no one in the world who rejected the notion that 9/11 was a false flag operation. 9/11 activists should know better.

Deja Vu

May 20, 2009

I was on a political forum just now (mostly American with a small transnational representation) and a couple of the loyal Democrats on the board were licking their fingers with glee at the demise of the Republican party. They virtual-high-fived each other at the news that the GOP had lost the most ground for a period of the past eight years. Despite this not actually being that cataclysmic a statistic, they agreed that the GOP was over. It was curtains.

Now don’t get me wrong I consider the vision of a US run by McCain and the neocons as more frightening that far than the prospect of an Obama America, but I’ve been here before.

We saw the same thing in the UK when Blair and New Labour came into power. Back then gleeful leftists said the same of the Tories and the case for it seemed compelling. But a week is a long time in politics and a term is an eternity and at this point it is looking increasingly likely the conservatives could win the next election.

When Blair came to power it was a very comparable set of circumstances to Obama’s recent victory in the present day. What happened to this country under New Labour is something I will never forget, especially since it was with my first vote that I and most of the rest of Britain voted Blair in the first time.

The similarities of Blair and Obama are striking:

A long time under a conservative government which the vast majority of people had utterly lost faith in.

An exciting young politician comes on the scene promising serious progress. For Blair the key word was “New” for Obama it was “Change”. Both share a remarkable talent for public speaking, inspire people with catchy scripted sound bites while saying a bare minimum about policy.

Both came in to power by taking the votes of the centre, and even a bit of the centre right as well, on top of their parties traditional left-leaning and left wing following.

When Blair came to power he rode on a massive surge of popularity and he was given a political blank cheque for what I now see as an amount of time that was frankly irresponsible on the behalf of me and the British people in general. As he subtly brushed away election promise after election promise no one seemed to mind that much. Give him time. Wait and see. Have a little faith. It’s better than it would be if the other guy won. Then suddenly he was up for a war, but he told us to trust him because he was “a straight kind of a guy” and a majority did. And then we woke up one day and realised we were a pigeon step away from a police state and engaged in an illegal war and occupation. And this man we had put so much faith and trust in was responsible for millions of deaths abroad and the wholesale dismantlement of most of our civil liberties. And he just did not give a fuck.

I would really urge Americans to not focus on how they feel about Obama, but on what he actually does, as that is all that is relevant in a matter as serious as the direction and nature of their nation.

A large problem with the left-right paradyme (especially with a two party system as there is in the US and here in the UK) is it provides a huge opportunity for a lazy mind to view the world in a binary world. Zero and One. Black and White. Right and Wrong. Just pick the side that closest suits their own views and write off the others as the baddies.

So when Obama replaced Bush, Good replaced Bad. No consideration that it could have been Bad replacing Even Worse, or even Even Worse replaceing Bad but I hope not. I truly hope in fact that Obama proves me wrong, but I do not have a very positive outlook on how these next 4, or likely 8 years will pan out. I would direct you to the blog of a friend of mine, Mohsin, and his superb blog article on this issue for an indication as to why:

The truth people need to realise is that the people who run the agenda are not elected. Whichever party is in control of the UK the international bankers will still run the Bank of England, the same corporations will be dictating politics with our economy as hostage, the E.U. will still write 70% of our new laws each year and the same corporate interests will own the media. The power a civilian politician has, even in the case of the Prime Minister or President has is extremely limited. Considering the sway the media has on an election it is fair to say that no politcian could even become a nation’s leader unless the corporate and banking powers thought it prudent to their own agenda.

The late great Bill Hicks put it best:

“I’ll show you politics in America:

‘I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.’

‘I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.’

‘Hey, wait a minute, there’s one guy holding out both puppets!’”

Ockham’s Big Bushy Beard

November 3, 2008

We all have a world view through which we judge events, we all have assumptions, and it can be an uncomfortable process having them questioned, worse still disproved, as it requires that we step out of our comfort zone and reappraise everything we thought we knew.
I was recently speaking to someone about 9/11 and they responded quite defensively saying “What’s wrong with Ockham’s Razor?” I responded to him that it is the Truth Movement position which better fits Ockham’s Razor and the official story which abuses it. The below is how I would like to think I phrased my argument, although in reality I’m sure I was far less articulate.

Ockham’s Razor, of course, is the notion that the best form of investigation is to fist shave away all assumptions and needless concepts, and then, taking just the verefiable evidence which remains, look for a single and simple solution.

So what is wrong with Ockham’s Razor? Well as an aside I would note that it’s a 14th century philosophical concept and not a golden rule of science. We know that sometimes the correct scientific solution is sometimes complex and not simple and we never would have achieved a tenth of the advancements we have today if we had stuck rigidly to only considering the simplest and most all encompassing explanation to a phenomenon or event. Didn’t the theory of evolution seem a little complex, for example, when compared to the “god snapped his fingers” official story we were given by the authority of Darwin’s time – the Church.

However, there is a lot of merit in the basic principle of Ockham’s Razor, namely that the shaving away of assumptions until all we are left with is naked evidence is the correct way to approach every issue. Because as comforting as our assumptions are and as precious as our pre-conceptions and presiding world view may be, they will always be a hinderance to finding the truth in that they limit the scope of possibilities and restrict the freedom of our thinking.

Looking at the official narrative in its most simplified form, which thanks to an irresponsible main stream media which is essentially servile to power is the extent of most people’s knowledge of it, it would seem at first glance to fit with the concept of Ockham’s Razor. Planes are flown into buildings, the buildings collapse – simple – case closed. With closer investigation though, that simple sentence expands out into volumes of tens of thousands of pages and is unfeasibly complex. You will find many extrodinary and unusual things happening within the official story. You will find aluminium glowing orange in daylight, when it is mixed with organic materials, this has never been seen before and people who have tried to recreate this effect with tests have failed. You will find the sulphur in gypsum boards magically fusing with other trace materials in the rubble to form a natural incendiary capable of turning heavy duty steel beams into swiss cheese, much like the idea of throwing some eggs and flour into an oven, heating them, and opening the oven door to find a cake. Entirely new rules of science which worked for just one day. As you start to actually attend to the evidence rather than taking the simplified form you have been fed you will see some of the most ludicrous abuses of science ever perpertrated. Worse still you will find it is based entireley on assumptions.

The 9/11 Commission Report did not set out to find out who committed 9/11 – that’s apparent in the introduction when they explain that their task was to find out how al-Qaeda carried out 9/11 – the whole affair began with an unproven assumption and considered no alternatives.

The NIST report did not set out to find out why the buildings exploded to mangled steel and a huge cloud of powdered concrete in seconds, they explain that their task was to show how the plane impacts and fire caused the buildings to collapse – the whole shebang started with an assumption and actually failed quite spectacularly to support that assumption in any way as they never even attempted to explain the collapse of the towers themselves.

The reports which deal with 9/11 did nothing to discover what happened, instead selecting the evidence which they could contrive to make fit with the assumptions they started with. But what is most damning is that it does not even attend to all the evidence – rather than shaving away assumptions and then looking at the evidence they shaved away the evidence itself to maintain and protect the huge assumption they began with!

Numerous and corroborated reports of explosions, heard seen and felt inside the towers and world trade centre 7? Don’t fit the assumptions – shave it away.

Numerous and corroborated reports of molten metal at ground zero – impossible from a jet fuel or office fire? Threatens the assumptions – shave it away.

The speed of the collapses – violating the very laws of physics? Destroys the assumptions – shave it away.

The pulverisation of concrete to a fine powder? Blasphemes against the holy assumptions – shave it away.

Those are just four examples of hundreds of pieces of important evidence you will find entirely ignored in the official story, if you are willing to look for them. They were ignored by the official story in defence of frankly un-defendable assumptions which are only in place to protect and distract from the true perpetrators of this crime. The official story is an example of Ockham’s Razor being turned on it’s head, indeed, we are witnessing Ockham’s Big Bushy Beard.

So what does fit Ockham’s Razor? Who has done away with assumptions and looked at the evidence with an open mind? Who has a simple solution which encompasses all of the evidence?

The millions of concerned citizens around the world who compirse what is known as the 9/11 Truth Movement has. And we have a single explanation which covers all the evidence. And when the evidence is viewed, shorn of all assumptions and preconceptions it is clear that the twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. This theory not only covers every piece of evidence the official story admits to in a simple and single theory, it also encompasses all of the censored evidence you are not being told about.

Many of us will find it hard to accept this and allow our own assumptions get in the way. And we all have them. We assume “that sort of thing doesn’t happen these days” that “the government would never do that” that “they’re too incompetent” that “they couldn’t keep a secret like that” that “conspiracy theories are always incorrect” we assume that we do not live in a world where “things like this happen” and it is frankly scary to even consider that they might. But however much these assumptions have been drummed into us as though they were fact, they remain assumptions and they need to be done away with because the stakes now are a little too high to approach such an important issue in such an irrational manner.

Nearly 3000 innocents died that day, over a million in Iraq and Afghanistan have died since and the tally continues gruesomely, the Magna Carta lies in tatters while a police state grows up all around us. If we are wrong about this, and all of the architects and engineers and scientists and pilots and academics and concerned citizens alike all over the world are wrong about this then you have lost nothing back taking a proper objective look at the evidence. But if we are right… and we do nothing… then we risk losing everything.

Why The Reptoids?

June 2, 2008

On Saturday the 24th May 2008, through a mixture of curiosity and the immature appeal of the inherent comedy value, I went with a friend to Brixton Academy for a marathon 6 hour lecture on the world and everything by a certain Mr David Icke.

The past decade has been tempestual for Icke. He has metamorphosed from professional goalie to BBC broadcaster to messiah to new age philosopher; he has gone from well liked public figure to national punch line and then, in recent years, seen an astounding turn around in his once rock bottom public image. Ten years ago he was the most ridiculed man in the UK yet today he is commanding sell-out lecture tours at gargantuan venues like the Academy, where his every pronouncement is cheered and applauded and his every one-liner brings a chorus of knowing laughter from his following. It has been a bizarre and chameleonic journey for Icke, and those familiar with Icke’s philosophy and teachings will have picked up the relevance of the adjective. Just as in the early ‘90s Icke was forever associated with his claim to be the son of God, today he is best known for his theory that the world is in fact ruled and our lives under attack from an inter-dimensional race of humanoid reptiles (or Reptoids in the Ickean dictionary). If you weren’t familiar with Icke before reading this blog, take a moment to wipe the coffee you just spilt on your keyboard away, yes I did say Reptoids.

One particular pleasure of the afternoon for me was in just how normal I felt amongst this crowd. While it seems a decent chunk of the audience, like me, were there ‘for the craic’, huge numbers of patrons clearly swallowed it all. They came from every extreme out-post of human belief systems: Outside the gig a man yelled, speakers corner style, at how paedophilia is a construct of the government to turn women against men in a global gender war; leafleteers swarmed around bystanders to tell them all about the space beams that destroyed the twin towers, the plan for a fake alien invasion in 2012 and so on. It was a human pick and mix of the weird and the wonderful. As a card carrying critic of the official narrative of 9/11 I have become so used to people dismissing me for being “out there”, yet floating like a crouton on this pungent human soup I was actually rebuked for being closed-minded more than once when I confessed that I could not swallow the reptoids side of Icke’s beliefs. The thing about Icke is that he says so much that is clearly true – he details how compartmentalisation through a pyramidal structure makes a global agenda possible, he details the problems with 9/11 and 7/7 with clarity and skill and he delivered a section on the erosion of our civil liberties which was so spot-on and passionately delivered that I clapped long and hard in response. He is articulate, lucid, passionate and also pretty funny, but then he throws it all down the drain by proclaiming that at the top of the pyramid we find not power hungry humans, but alien reptile men hungry to drink our life force. He clearly believes it, but why?

Why reptoids?

A large part of the argument consists of a slide show of artefacts from past cultures and religions spanning the world which show images of dragons, serpents, reptiles and apparent reptile human hybrids. This doesn’t convince me at all. They may exist but to use them as evidence let alone proof of humanoid reptile creatures actually existing is flimsy. For a start the dragon, the serpent, and the reptoid mythical creatures seen on statues and engravings through history do not resemble each other convincingly and are tied together for convenience of the theory. At one point Icke even shows an African artefact that looks nothing like a reptile humanoid, but explains that this is because people in that culture were forbidden from making representations which resembled their reptoid masters (!). While it is true that by cherry-picking reptilian symbolism and imagery from past cultures and religions you can find a collection suitable enough to support this claim, the same process could just as easily feature any other type of creature.

Let’s say birds, for the sake of argument.

In popular depictions of Abrahamic mythology angels are bird-human hybrids; In Greek mythology Aello is a bird-human hybrid employed by the Gods to make peace and carry out punishments for crimes while in the tragic myth of lovers Ceyx and Alcyone, Alcyone in her grief over Alcyone’s death was transformed into a kingfisher; as she tried to drag the lifeless body of Ceyx to shore, he too changed into a bird.; In Egyptian mythology we have bird men and women at every turn – the soul of a person, or their ‘Ba’ was represented as a soul and Theba was a man-headed hawk, for example; In Persian mythology The bird Camros perches in the top of the tree of life; a recurring mythological creature through several religions and cultures is the Griffin – a bird with the body of a lion, as was the Hyppogryth – a bird with the body of a horse; then there’s the Pheonix in Arabic and Egyptian myth, who self combusts and then resurrects on an endless cycle; Note the Thunder Bird of Native American mythology and beware the giant man eating Poukai bird-god from Polynesian mythology, and while you’re at it keep an eye out for the dastardly Sirens, the enormous elephant eating Roc of Arabian lore, Bagucks in Chippewa mythology, Bar Juchne in Talmud, Camulatz in Maya mythology, Chamrosh in Persian mythology, The Cu Bird in Mexican folklore, Feng-huang the Chinese Phoenix and Quetzalcoatl in Aztec mythology [1].

I could go on and I could have picked almost any animal and done a quick Google search to the same effect. Mythical creatures which are a hybrid of man and beast are rife throughout the litany of cultures which have spanned the globe over the centuries. Take your pick of reptiles, birds, elephants or monkeys and you’ll be able to find enough engravings, stories and statues to equal the reptoid count.

So why does Icke believe so firmly that a reptoid species and not a birdoid species is pulling the strings at the top of the pyramid? A central component of his argument is how many people across the world have independently attested to seeing people “shape shift” into reptilian humanoids. Does this make a case for the visions being genuine? Why not take the most logical answer and sum up the people were hallucinating? A person does not have to have a problem with drug use or schizophrenia in order to experience visual hallucinations – 93% of Dementia with Lewy Bodies patients and 27% of Alzheimer’s Disease patients experience hallucinations [2] and even people with no cognitive problems whatsoever but visual impairments can suffer complex visual hallucinations, although they will tend to understand they are not real [3]. In fact many mental and visual impairments lead to people hallucinating detailed imagery, and many people may not realise they are even ill. A counter argument might be to ask what the chances of all these people seeing reptile like figures in their hallucinations are, but once you start to look into the phenomena it starts to seem like less remarkable, as hallucinations fall into noticeable trends. In studies on hallucinations, visual hallucinations are most often indistinct or distinct figures, frequently humanoid in nature [4], grotesque faces, cartoon like faces, and faces with prominent eyes and/or teeth are all found to be common. At one point in his lecture Icke notes that the exact details of the reptoids seen differs greatly (differing sub-species he supposes) but the prominent reptile eyes and sharp teeth are always there. I found one interesting comment of a patient who attested to hallucinating faces which resembled the gargoyles at Oxford [5] – which Icke himself credits as being based on our reptoid overlords. But regardless of this there is no doubt that the people Icke has met must total a tiny percentage of the people who experience hallucinations each year, making the “reptile man” hallucination less common that mainstream religious hallucinations which are by far the most commonly experienced theme. Icke himself dismisses Christianity (alongside all other mainstream religion) in the first section of his lecture, but by his rationale don’t the many hallucinations of the Mother Mary or Jesus appearing to people which litter the internet and media every month of the year make the truth of that religion a certainty? Of course not… people have religious hallucinations because the idea is in their head to start with, and the more the reptoid myth is circulated and the greater Icke’s popularity becomes, the more people will start seeing reptoids as well.

But the argument that bothers me the most is the notion that some other-worldly force must be behind the global agenda because human beings don’t do that sort of thing. Well I beg to differ. Icke shows us the well-known and horrific images of dead and maimed Iraqi children, and challenges the audience to agree that none of us would ever do such things. Of course none of us would but the problem is that the people who actually did do those things would say the same. They were mostly just pressing buttons in planes miles above and far removed from the carnage on the ground. In their minds they were not invading an occupying a nation but heroically bringing democracy to Iraq and liberating the people from tyranny. Perhaps they realise innocents die but this is categorised under the sanitised term “collateral damage” and after all – they’re just following orders right? This ability of human beings to employ abstractions to remove the responsibility of their actions from their thought process is well documented. A good reference for this is the now infamous ‘Milgram Experiment’. Stanley Milgram was a psychologist who ran a scenario on randomly picked average residents of New Haven. He found that 65% of his subjects would administer electric shocks-up to 450 volts-to a pitifully protesting victim, simply because they were told to do as part of an experiment. The shocks started low and got progressively worse as the shockee (I’m allowed to make up words; it’s my blog) protested and cried out ever more intensely. At one point the subject would stop and refuse, at which point the experimenter would assure them it was not their responsibility if the man was seriously injured – a majority continued [6]. Of course this was just a scenario; unknown to the subject the shockee was an actor and never received a single genuine shock. It does however give an indication of how, in a system far more based around following orders from authority and diminished individual responsibility like the army, truly horrible acts can be carried out by otherwise normal people. Another useful abstraction which aides the ability of usual people to do unusually horrible things is the notion of doing something bad for ‘the greater good’, or choosing the lesser of two evils. For instance – if you knew it would save three thousand people would you kill one person? What about ten people to save three thousand, where do you draw the line? What if you had to torture them horrifically? These are the sorts of questions most of us will luckily never be faced with but soldiers working in Guantanamo Bay, indoctrinated to the lie that their actions are preventing new 9/11s happening every day, may well be mentally excusing their inhuman actions as being necessary for the greater good, or the lesser of two evils.

So what about the men behind the curtain, or the shadow players as Icke terms them? While I agree whole heartedly with Icke that there is a global agenda run through a pyramid structure with a tiny elite at the top; while I agree that this handful of figures must have clarity about the true nature of the murderous effects of their agenda; I do not agree that such malevolence is necessarily an indication of another species. First off the same rules of abstraction and striving for the greater good still apply. From a position perched at the top of society lives are abstracted so far that they simply become numbers, and the chances are that these people genuinely believe the world will be a better place if it is ordered and controlled by them. There is every indication that they consider the masses to be unable to govern their own lives and believe that only they can create world order where ultimately people will be happier. I’m not saying it’s true, I’m saying it may well be that some of these people have convinced themselves it is. But even if they are truly wicked people, I do not accept the idea that wicked people do not exist. If humans are not capable of senseless aggression then how do you explain the millions of frays, assaults, fights, murders, muggings child abuse cases and rapes which happen around the world every year? We all know and have witnessed the school bully, who makes others feel bad so that they can feel big, the person who aims to control the lives of those around them and manipulate and lie simply for social positioning. All of these traits are simply expanded through abstraction and lie behind the dark agenda we witness unfolding in front of us. It is very human and not at all alien to be a rotten bastard; we all know them, we’ve all met them. It is not an argument which has any wings and furthermore it is one which is dangerous.

It seems to me to be a re-mix of the old Abrahamic myth that all good comes from God and all bad comes from Satan; an abandoning of human responsibility for our actions which seeks to convince people that they have no stake in the balance of positive and negative in the world. In Icke’s updated version human beings are perfect and morally unblemished creatures and all ill effects in the world emanate from the evil reptiles and their manipulations of us. This only acts to distract from the real challenge facing the people at this moment in time: To recognise the tension between altruism and selfishness; between forgiveness and revenge; between action and apathy; between love and hate; peace and war; right and wrong. The only chance this world has is if the people refuse to shrug away and externalise the problems of the world and realise that the power is ours, and if we are willing to sacrifice the comforts of blissful ignorance we have been seduced with then we can and we will halt this agenda before it is too late. We will not do this by creating a science fiction scenario in our minds where we are the plucky human heroes fighting an evil reptile empire because the key battle field is within us – between our own negative impulses and the positive impulses which, if harnessed, will unite the world in permanent positive change.

Walking away from the lecture though I had to conclude that Icke comes across as a good man and a nice guy and a very entertaining public speaker who is doing what he thinks is right and telling what he thinks is the truth. There are as many truths as there are people and he is willing to speak his with a display of bravery few can claim to be able to muster. While it will be clear to the reader that there is much that Icke and I disagree on, I am not one of these people who cannot tolerate differences of opinions and feel the world would get on much smoother if people accepted a multitude of views instead of fighting for the dominance of their own. I don’t believe David Icke is any madder than anyone else on this planet. If you took two people, one of whom says that there is a place which is on fire called hell where you go after you die if you’ve been bad and a place in the sky called heaven where you go if you’re good – and the world works essentially as the mainstream media presents it to us, and then you took David Icke who believes there are energy drinking reptoids who live between dimensions – and the world is run by a tiny elite for their own gain, our civil liberties are being destroyed, 9/11 was a false flag operation and the main stream media is there to feed us propaganda and dumb us down – it would seem to be that in the sanity stakes – David Icke wins 1- 0.






[5] Download PDF at



In New Scientist 2641 published in February this year I read an article which suggested that whether we are right-wing or left-wing, like so many other things, may well be decided by our genes and not by choice. John Alford, a political scientist hailing from Houston in Texas posits that our political views are deep seated and built into our brains. According to Alford it would be quite as useless trying to turn a right-winger left-wing as it would be offering a Caucasian a pamphlet urging her to consider the virtues of being Asian.

Of course there is no gene which tells people to favour tax cuts for the super-rich, but Alford believes there is sufficient evidence to say that key personality traits are genetic, and that these personality traits will have a large role to play in which political ideals appeal to us and which repulse us. He focuses, for example, on the fact that identical twins brought up together are shown through tests to be far more likely to share personality traits and political views than non-identical twins who were also brought up together. Regardless of whether or not he is right about personality traits being genetic, most would agree that we have little conscious choice over our personality, even if we opt for the nurture rather than nature solution.

It won’t surprise many readers to find that in the mentioned studies high levels of dogmatism were an indicator of a likely right-winger, although far more interesting is that those who featured high levels of fear, especially mortal fear, also tended to turn out to be right-wing.

This links in very nicely with an excellent free online book I have just finished called “The Authoritarians” by Bob Altemeyer (essential reading – Altemeyer’s focus when it comes to explaining the cause of personality type is on upbringing, but they both agree that heightened levels of fear are a key factor. For Altemeyer it is put upon them by controlling or over-protective parents and religion, and for Alford wrapped around a double helix, but both agree that to be right wing is to be afraid, to be very afraid.

In the first chapter of the book Altemeyer writes:

We shall probably always have individuals lurking among us who yearn to play tyrant. Some of them will be dumber than two bags of broken hammers, and some will be very bright. Many will start so far down in society that they have little chance of amassing power; others will have easy access to money and influence all their lives. On the national scene some will be frustrated by prosperity, internal tranquillity, and international peace–all of which significantly dim the prospects for a demagogue -in-waiting. Others will benefit from historical crises that automatically drop increased power into a leader’s lap. But ultimately, in a democracy, a wannabe tyrant is just a comical figure on a soapbox unless a huge wave of supporters lifts him to high office.

So if the tyrant is a pathetic figure until a wave carries him to power, shouldn’t we worry more about the wave itself, than the tyrant? This is Altemeyer’s focus; he exposes and analyses the Right Wing Authoritarian Follower (high-RWA). The high-RWA is essentially an inert but potentially dangerous segment of society which favours above all other things to conform and for everyone else to conform to what they conform to; to oppose any changes to what they are used to; to stay within their safe in-groups (often ethnic and/or religious); and to submit to authorities who know best and can protect them. This, so asserts Altemeyer, is driven by a fear instilled at an early age that the world is dangerous and on a slippery slope downwards; that they must be wary of all those who wish to harm and corrupt them, obey laws and stay clean in a dirty world.

But high-RWAs are by themselves not malevolent; they do not form their own ideas, but are given them by Authorities. In the studies (taken out mostly in super-religious America) the chief source of views is Religious Authority, but the biggest dangers are when those ideas are fed by individuals who by rare personality type are Authoritarians (or Social Dominators) – particularly when they happen to be politicians who have an agenda to pursue.

A geopolitics simulation game is described which was played several times. In one case the players entirely consist of low-RWAs (anti-authoritarians – which I am happy to say that according to a test at the beginning of the book I am an extreme version of) and the world deals very well with its problems. No wars are started, an environmental crisis is averted through international cooperation, death rates through poverty are kept low; all in all a model of a well run world. Later he tries one with just high-RWAs, and almost nothing happens. No wars are started but no problems are dealt with. The environmental crisis looms and is not dealt with, taking a massive death toll. Poverty soars and deaths increase while the different states fail to communicate with each other and the world slowly chokes. But throw in seven Authoritarians, a couple into each ‘nation’ in the otherwise high-RWA filled game, and fire works go off. The Authoritarians instantly take the role of leaders and the stage quickly becomes violent. The environmental crisis is acknowledged and ignored and the millions still die, poverty is still ignored but through heartlessness rather than indecision and wars flash across the world continually. Just before the game ends, the nations are on the brink of all out global nuclear holocaust. The high-RWAs, who without leadership are bumbling and indecisive, suddenly become willing servants and hard working foot soldiers of the Authoritarians. For the most part they whole-heartedly agree with the direction they are being led and it seems they simply want to be led; to have their decisions taken care of by a strong and mighty leader. The various tests throughout the book show how painfully easily the high-RWA will happily march behind their leader into some of the most appallingly amoral dead-ends. And under every circumstance they believe they are not just moral in doing so, but that they are the only truly moral people in the world.

The above example is simplified, but not exaggerated, please read the book yourself and see how test after test after test bears out this result. There is much more complexity described than I have detailed here. The chapters on the two types of Authoritarians (especially the Double Highs) are downright chilling, although I won’t detail that here as I doubt any of my readers need a detailed explanation of what a rotten bastard is.

The high-RWA is essentially the right-winger and of course it is nothing new for left-wingers to berate right-wingers and vice versa, therefore the reader might suspect I’m just using a book about a series of tests and studies to take another in a long series of digs which has been going back and forth between left and right for centuries. But no, that’s not my intention here. My intention is to point out that left-wingers need to break out of the meme that if we hammer our message hard enough and long enough the right wingers will “come around”. More importantly we need to recognise that we should stop seeing our political opposites as enemies as they are not inherently bad, only capable of doing bad things when deliberately led to do so by Authoritarians. Whether through genetics or through upbringing those people who will blindly follow Authoritarians are all around us. If they are this way through upbringing our only chance to change this is through the long-shot of a future society where no one is brought up instilled with deep fear of the world. If you go along with the more depressing genetic view, they always will be there full stop. Either way, they are here now so let’s stop pretending they aren’t. Socialist groups in the UK can meet in halls and discuss how good the world will be when “the revolution comes” but that bus stopped running years ago, and its getting cold and lonely at the bus stop. “But we’re right!” the irritated socialist might scream, but it doesn’t matter, because a chunk of the population will be terrified of the change you propose and there will be Authoritarians adept at using that fear to their nefarious ends. What we need is for a direction which welcomes the traits of both low-RWAs and high-RWA, uses the best traits of both to defeat the agenda of the Authoritarians, who of course are laughable figures without followers.

High-RWAs, or right-wingers, are not ‘the baddies’ and they are not without positive traits either. In the aforementioned New Scientist article the dominant traits of left and right wingers are laid out: Left-wingers are more open to change, and see unfamiliar events as opportunities rather than problems, they are more extroverted and communicate well with people from different backgrounds. The right-wingers lack these traits but are far more focussed on conscientiousness than left-wingers – they are organised, self disciplined, responsible, motivated and good at performing tasks with enthusiasm. How many members of left-wing groups would love to see a little more of that at play in their dynamic? How well could society run without it? If it is true they are mobilised by fear, surely all that is wrong with this picture is that they are afraid of the wrong things and the wrong people?

There is nothing scarier than an Authoritarian when the curtain is drawn back and their true agenda is revealed. The Authoritarian tells the right-winger exactly what they want to hear, in the US focussing mainly on the Religious Right’s fear that their religion is losing grip on society, in the UK focussing more on the fear of immigration, in both and in every other Western country the fear of terrorism has outstripped all other contenders as the Authoritarians favoured tool of fear. The right-winger hates change, but doesn’t realise the Authoritarian has plans for radical, dangerous, and most importantly SCARY change – all that is between the right-winger running for the hills away from the clutches of the Authoritarian is INFORMATION. That’s all. The Truth Will Set Them Free. Right-wingers may fear change almost as much as they fear death, but if they were to realise the entire system of authority they have been subservient to has planned an agenda of awful and permanent change for the world they will certainly be ready to work with all of their admirable discipline against them.

So the challenge then is to counter the propaganda put out by the Authoritarians (who will of course always strive to make the people as afraid as possible) with solid and verifiable information which will show right-wingers their fear is directed at the wrong target? Yes, but it doesn’t stop there. You see, according to Altemeyer, while the personality type you were instilled with through your development cannot be wiped clean and re-set, it is not set in stone either. High-RWAs through experience can become less extreme, but ominously all of us, at least temporarily, can flip to the high-RWA type, because the high-RWA is essentially a deep sense of fear. Authoritarians will always be able to rely on the segment of society that is high-RWA by upbringing to be as malleable as clay, but with the right prompting they can turn an entire society high-RWA (at least temporarily) over night. Just scare the shit out of them. Altemeyer writes:

People can end up with extreme scores on the RWA scale in other ways. Cataclysmic events, for example, can undo everything you have learned before

Has there been a cataclysmic event recently? A Catalysing, cataclysmic event like a New Pearl Harbour perhaps?

The effect 9/11 has had on Western society is to send the majority of society temporarily off the RWA scale and submit completely to madness. The stakes are as big as they could possibly be; at this time information is of paramount importance for all of us from every political persuasion. The main stream media, the source of information most relied on by the majority, is nothing but the Authoritarian’s mouth piece; the sheepdog of those dark shepards who seek to herd us back between our fearful little fences. And now, when so many people are starting to awaken blinking from that spell and the Authoritarians must surely be planning the next big scare to send them back into their nightmare, it is the responsibility of everyone in possession of the truth to spread it far and wide. Ignorance in the wrong hands will be the death of all we value most.

The charge thrown near continuously at 9/11Truth from left-wing and socialist groups is that it is a distraction from ‘genuine’ left-wing activism which would ‘really change the world’. Well the evidence, both in the fact that partisan protest has changed nothing in the past, and in the conclusions of these psychological and genetic studies, is that it is a welcome distraction. Left-wing groups, like right-wing groups, will never succeed in changing society because they both act only to amass huddles of the members of just one half of the political spectrum together and deepen the divide between the two leaving the door open for the Authoritarian to swoop.

The left-wing sees the right-wing as their enemy as so huddles, feeding into the right wing’s favoured meme of safe in-groups and scary out-groups. The right-wing turn to the Authoritarians for protection and the left-wing are marginalised and with few options but to walk up and down with placards. But as long as those placards espouse opinion and not information they will never act to unite the poles, only push them further apart. The marginalisation is completed by the fact that great effort has gone into distracting the majority from political thinking altogether through mass entertainment and celebrity replacing real news.

Divide and conquer.

The stakes are too high and the ramifications of inaction too great for us to continue playing into their hands like this. The political divides must become a thing of the past and INFORMATION and not opinion must become the focus of activism. We need to expose an Authoritarian lie big enough to wake the right-wingers up to the danger posed to their way of life by the very people they are following. And we have one. And it is working.

9/11 Truth does not espouse political views or solutions; it has no proposed society it wishes to usher in. Already among its ranks sit people of every political persuasion, every age, every race and religion and background. How could so many diverse people be united? Because it is simply about information – simply about the truth – and the truth is universally revered.

After years, decades and centuries of this divide, so convenient as it has been to the Authoritarians, something has come along that has brought us together under a single banner as a world wide movement of every demographic. What we have here is very special and it works because everyone, even the apolitical, cares about the truth when they feel it affects them. There have been big lies and crimes of governments before and continue to be, those who care about politics know them well but to most people such issues are just boring. For someone who cares about politics that might make you angry (believe me I’ve been there and visit back often) but let’s be pragmatic, anger is not a solution. Even those people who think the news is ‘Heat Magazine’ and important issues are the next pair of shoes, or the next episode of their favourite soap opera, still believe they know what happened on 9/11. They feel it has changed their lives, they have noticed the climate is changing fast and they will stand up and be counted when they realise they have been lied to on such a massive scale and why. This is not rhetoric – I have seen it. And when the truth is known world-wide we will finally have our chance to start anew, together, in a world where the two political types work together and not endlessly bicker and fight.

The world needs the creativity, vision, compassion and openness of left-wingers but the world also needs the efficiency, conscientiousness and task-orientated focus of the right-wingers. The only danger in right-wingers is how easily they are led by Authoritarians. If through information we expose the Authoritarians for what they are the right-wingers will no longer turn to them to deliver them from fear, they will rightly fear them and work with us to send them back, mouths foaming and fists clenched, to the top of the soap boxes on the street corners where they came from. And then (and perhaps this is an optimistic fantasy too far but hey, it’s my blog, let me fantasise) perhaps the right-wingers will stop being scared for good and there will no longer be such a thing as right-wing or left-wing. We will be one people and reach our potential, united by love. But regardless of whether or not we can erode and eradicate this divide for good, if we are here on this planet today, left and right, we need to find a way to carve a society which seeks to slot the pieces of this human puzzle together. It could be that in our endless political squabbling we have been foolishly fighting to see which is better: the lock or the key.

Who controls the internet? The truth people do not want to hear is that it is none other than the US government, the root servers may technically be under control of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) – a private US company set up by the Department of Commerce, in truth the DoC have never let go of the reigns.

The United States can influence what country codes are permitted and who will run each, which continues to vex nations like Pakistan and Brazil who have been outspoken critics of the United States’ online influence [2]. There have recently been serious wrangling by the EU and the UN for shared state control [3] but one thing is absolutely certain: the myth that the internet is a free-speech playground beyond the control of the powers that be is just that: a myth.

Despite this, the internet certainly represents the greatest tool the people have to spread information and views internationally, it has been a thorn in the side of a political system previously secure in the knowledge that the main stream media would watch their back. But all the signs point to this being short lived. China, it has long been known, has existing and rapidly advancing forms of internet control and oppression of the free speech this medium does allow. They have blocked email and search engines, they have blocked foreign news and political sites, most recently they have started to filter “banned terms” with punishments ranging (according to Amnesty[4]) from imprisonment to death.

Burma is following suit rapidly, but in truth many countries considered to be free have some form of internet control- the full list being:

Cote d’Ivoire







 South Africa







 South Korea




 Czech Republic











 United Kingdom




Costa Rica






 Saudi Arabia

United Arab Emirates (Including Oman and Dubai)


United States of America

 That’s pretty much everyone! [5] While the controls apparent in many of these countries are a far cry from those seen practiced in China and Burma, many regulations relating to common-sense measures to combat child pornography and criminal activities otherwise, what is worrying is not so much the state we are in now, but the pliancy of internet companies to acquiesce to draconian state laws in search of a buck.

The number of “cyber-dissidents” currently imprisoned in China, officially (an important distinction to make when considering China’s track record with “official” figures), is 42. These human rights abuses could not have happened without the help and technical no how of companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. Yahoo! has  turned over information to the police that helped send journalist Shi Tao to prison for 10 years (Shi had posted a list of topics that Chinese newspapers were forbidden to cover, including the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre). Microsoft’s MSN portal blocks the words “democracy” and “freedom” from the sites it hosts, while Google omits all manner of “dangerous” websites from its search results.[6]

Are these companies “evil”? Only to the extent that the root of all evil is money and the Chinese market is too sweet to pass up on.

So how long would these profit-making giants hold off enforcing new EU or US internet laws if it was collectivley decided that internet freedom was a danger? The evidence in China says they would not even try. 

To be fair, at the time of writing Google has resisted Gonzales’ demands that they hand over information on everything their users search for and now the US are raking them over the coals in court. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion in federal court seeking a court order that would compel search engine company Google, Inc. to turn over “a multi-stage random sample of one million URL’s” from Google’s database, and a computer file with “the text of each search string entered onto Google’s search engine over a one-week period. [7] The demand does include the caveat that this be absent any information identifying the person who entered such query, but we cannot rule out that this could be the next step if they found people looking at “dangerous” words or topics. 

It is worrying enough, to me, that Google is known to keep permanent records of everything we search for on their engines, their track record in China shows that should the US or the EU follow suit – then Google and others would meekly hand over our human rights for a shiny piece of silver. 

But the people would never allow or accept China style internet control of the internet within the US or EU would they? Not yet. Before 9/11 no one would have allowed people to be held without trail, for 28 days in the UK or indefinitely in Guantanamo. No American would have accepted a “Patriot Act” which abused and tore to shreds their beloved constitution. No one would have accepted that torture was acceptable as long as it got results, that “pre-emptive war” could be anything but illegal. 9/11 changed all that in a day. What will they ask us to give up if another false flag attack occurs, and what chance will those who disagree have to argue against a back drop of hysteria and blind patriotism. I propose the first thing to go will be net-freedom. 

The Neo-Cons, through their wooden toy mouth piece Bush and other means have already begun the slow conflating of terrorism and “conspiracy theorists”, or terrorism and the internet. 

Bush stated a month after 9/11:  

“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.” 

This theme has been followed up more recently, in a National Security Council article on the white house website entitled “Strategy for Winning the War on Terror” [8] in understanding how the internet comes into the Neo-Con strategy for hegemony this article is essential reading. 

After a few scraps of nonsense propaganda telling us that terrorism has nothing to do with poverty, with foreign policy, with Palestine or with war they let us know what DOES cause terrorists to want to kill and maim- number three on the list? 

Conspiracy Theorists!

“Subcultures of conspiracy and misinformation. Terrorists recruit more effectively from populations whose information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories. The distortions keep alive grievances and filter out facts that would challenge popular prejudices and self-serving propaganda.” 

So “conspiracy theorists” cause terrorism? What about their most common conduit – the net. Later in the document we see more linking of terrorism and the internet specifically: 

“[Terrorists] use today’s technologies with increasing acumen and sophistication. This is especially true with the Internet, which they exploit to create and disseminate propaganda, recruit new members, raise funds and other material resources, provide instruction on weapons and tactics, and plan operations. Without a communications ability, terrorist groups cannot effectively organize operations, execute attacks, or spread their ideology. We and our partners will continue to target the communication nodes of our enemy.”(Emphasis mine). 


“The ability of terrorists to exploit the Internet and 24/7 worldwide media coverage allows them to bolster their prominence as well as feed a steady diet of radical ideology, twisted images, and conspiracy theories to potential recruits in all corners of the globe. Besides a global reach, these technologies allow terrorists to propagate their message quickly, often before an effective counter to terrorist messages can be coordinated and distributed. These are force multipliers for our enemy.” 

And more: 

“Cyber safe-havens. The Internet provides an inexpensive, anonymous, geographically unbounded, and largely unregulated virtual haven for terrorists. Our enemies use the Internet to develop and disseminate propaganda, recruit new members, raise and transfer funds, train members on weapons use and tactics, and plan operations… We will seek ultimately to deny the Internet to the terrorists as an effective safe-haven for their propaganda, proselytizing, recruitment, fund-raising, training, and operational planning.” (Emphasis mine). 

Let’s focus on that passage again – “We will seek ultimately to deny the Internet to the terrorists” since the identity of terrorists is unknown – isn’t the only way to deny the internet to terrorists to deny it to us all? 

Since the writing of the first draft of this article the signs have become more brazen and harder to miss: At the November 6, 2007 Hearing of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment (Committee on Homeland Security) two witnesses wedged the conflation of articulate dissent and terrorism into the public record. Bruce Hoffman (formerly of the RAND Corporation) gave his earnest opinion that: 

“The Internet, once seen as an engine of education and enlightenment, has instead become an immensely useful vehicle for terrorists with which to peddle their baseless propaganda and manifold conspiracy theories and summon their followers to violence.” 

The implication here being that “manifold conspiracy theories” were the product of terrorist masterminds, seeking to summon their followers to violence, and not the questions and observations of concerned citizens. 

Next up came Mr. Mark Weitzman (of the Simon Wiesenthal Center) who gave a PowerPoint presentation of websites which fuel terrorism, and among sites applauding the act as a victory for Islamism, he inserts Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth ( – a non-partisan coalition of licensed and degree holding professionals who use their expertise to refute the official story of 9/11 and call for a new investigation. [9] 

None of this should come as any surprise. Just like other PNAC objectives (written before 9/11) which the Bush admin began working towards in the immediate wake of 9/11 (such as the securing of the Central Asia gas pipeline and the invasion of Iraq), control of the internet was on the table as an objective from day one. Right there, in their defining document is a call for control over the “International Commons” of the internet. This is hardly surprising – how could they achieve “Total Spectrum Dominance” without it? 

It is my belief that the freedom we currently have to spread information globally, by-passing the main stream media, will be short lived; a lot of money and a lot of power play has been spent on shaping a main stream media that is compliant and obedient to the corporations, banks and governments who represent them, too much to expect they will sit there while the internet undoes all their hard work. Through the internet we can challenge the propaganda we are fed through newspapers and television news; the people have never had such power before and it is inconceivable it will be allowed to go on forever, especially after it has been so effective in spreading genuine information about the attacks of 9/11 and in mobilising a world wide push towards truth and justice.  

The document quoted above stretches desperately to paint a picture where the internet is a vital tool for terrorists; where “conspiracy theorists” (the derogatory term for people challenging the government’s version of events of a particular situation) are a primary cause of terrorism and it claims that a goal of the “War on Terror” must be to control the internet. 

Could it be that it is laying the groundwork for a future false flag attack which will be presented as having been reliant on terrorist access to the internet? That they could then justify new controls which will wrest net-freedom from the masses and send the world back to the day where the beginning and end of world events was how the main stream media told us it went?  

Call me a “conspiracy theorist” if you like, but I believe so. 

We have seen, from the public reaction to 9/11, that what the public will and won’t accept can be changed in the course of a day, if the events of that day cause significant fear and hysteria. All it would take would be to enact a terror attack which was reliant in its planning stage on the internet, perhaps throw in that the perpetrators were radicalised by conspiracy theorists – and bobs your uncle – perfect context in which to disarm and demonise those who are exposing their lies. Throw in Iranian nationality and a nuclear flavour to the proceedings and we have a whole line of birds arranged neatly for the stone to be thrown. 

To be sure, this conclusion is wholly hypothetical, but the facts preceding it are not – we are seeing a very real propaganda operation against conspiracy theories, against descent. While it may seem like a wild leap to make I don’t believe it is irrational to suggest this is going somewhere. They need the internet gone; it is hampering their ability to act with impunity. While in the past they could rely on a pliant media to tell their truth, with the internet people are starting to put the pieces together and they don’t like it. 

Let’s use this tool while we still have it. There has never been a more effective method of global campaigning, information sharing, activism and dissent. And it scares them. Our task is huge and our time is slipping away. In this war the keyboard is mightier than the white phosphorus. Let’s take to arms.