American Psychologists for Official Truth: 9/11 and the Murder of JFK

American psychologist and Harvard Professor, Steven Pinker, has suggested that those who question the official account of either the destruction of New York's Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, or the 1963 assassination of US President J.F. Kennedy are holders of "weird beliefs," or nutters as others might say. In this, Pinker is not alone in the Psych community. For example,  in his Psych. The Story of the Human Mind, University of Toronto Professor and Yale Emeritus Professor Paul Bloom writes:

If we're smart, why do we often seem so dumb? Take conspiracy theories. There are those who deny the existence of the Holocaust, who believe that the September 11 attacks were an inside job, who think that the COVID pandemic is a fraud.

How remarkable this is. First, note how it conflates a number of quite plausible beliefs with the discreditable denial of the Holocaust and the silly idea that the COVID pandemic never occurred (I know it did. I had Covid -- twice). Second, note how this statement is based on the implicit assumption that any rational person going to the trouble of learning what happened on 9/11 will unquestioningly accept the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission Report, notwithstanding that Thomas Kean, Chair of the 9/11 Commission, wrote a book expressing his personal doubts as to the published conclusions of the Commission that he had headed. 

So for those too young to remember the assassination of President Kennedy, and with better things to do than to research either the Kennedy assassination, or the attacks of 9/11, here are key tests of the validity of the official accounts of those events. 

First, the Kennedy assassination. The official story, as presented in the report of the Commission headed by Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was clear and simple: President Kennedy was killed by a head shot fired by Lee Harvey Oswald located at a sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository building, which stood directly behind the President's open car as it passed through Dallas's Dealey Plaza. 

The problem with this claim is that it is contrary to the facts.

First, there is the Zapruder film, an amateur video of the President's car at the time of the shooting. The video shows that immediately after the President received a shot to the head, Jacqueline Kennedy, who was seated beside the president in the open car in which they were riding, climbed onto the trunk of the car to retrieve a piece of the President's scull. The implication is clear: the fatal shot to the President's head was from the front, not from behind, which is where Oswald was located. That is true, whatever Oswald may have been doing, including, quite probably, shooting at the President. In fact, it is likely that a bullet from Oswald's gun accounted for Kennedy's neck wound, and also for a bullet wound suffered by Texas Governor Connally, who was riding in the front passenger seat of the car in which the Kennedys were riding. 

That the fatal shot to President Kennedy's head was from the front is confirmed by the testimony of all the doctors who examined Kennedy at the Parklands Hospital where he was taken immediately after the shooting. Here, for example, is  Doctor Robert MacClelland, a Parklands Hospital surgeon describing the President's wounds:

So what you gonna believe. The Official account according to which the fatal shot to the President's head was from behind, or Dr. MacClelland's lyin' eyes?

As for the theory that the Twin Towers were wired for demolition on 9/11, why not? New York Trade Center Building 7, the third building to collapse on 9/11, was certainty wired for controlled demolition. How do we know? Straight from the mouth of Larry Silverstein, the building's owner. 

Thing is, wiring a block-long building for controlled demolition involves placing dozens of explosive charges. That's not something that can be done in minutes, or in an afternoon.  So Building 7 had to have been wired for demolition prior to 9/11. That being so, why not also the Twin Towers?

What is the moral of this tale? One at least is that psychologists, in their professional capacity, should stick to pychology. Their expertise rarely has application in adjudicating the truth of the historical record. 

Steven Pinker's "(ir)Rationality" in Defence of the Official Narrative

Harvard University professor, Steven Pinker, has been named by Time magazine, a publication with a history of CIA collaboration, as among "The 100 Most Influential People in the World Today." Foreign Policy, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank founded to promote the Rhodes-Milner project for global empire, has named Professor Pinker a "100 Global Thinker." Pinker's new book, Rationality, which will be available in Canada next month, could be expected, therefore, to pack some punch. And pack a punch it does:  to the gut of any who would claim that the US Government has ever committed crimes to subvert democracy.

Notwithstanding its clear political objective, much of Rationality is taken up with puzzles and mind-benders. The Monty Hall prize-behind-one-of-three-doors problem.* for example, which distracted so many, even a famous mathematician, when first presented. And the Linda problem**, which, so it is implied, shows that most people are irrational, whereas, in fact, it merely shows that, in common speech, language is not used as those who devise SAT tests to identify candidates suitable for admission to Harvard University think it should be used.

All of this is perfectly harmless and pretty much useless except as a distraction for those with time to kill.  But then, in Chapter 10, "What's Wrong With People," the author announces the real point of his book. 

"This is the chapter most of you have been waiting for. I know this from conversations and correspondence. As soon as I mention the topic of rationality, people ask me why humanity appears to be losing its mind. 

At the time of this writing, a glorious milestone in the history of rationality is coming into view: vaccines likely to end a deadly plague are being administered less than a year after the plague emerged. Shortly before the announcement of the vaccines, a third of Americans said they would reject them." 

Which raises a question about the author's own rationality. The infection fatality rate of SARS-CoV-2, aka Covid19, the "deadly plague" of which Pinker speaks, has been known since 2020 to be around 0.25%, making it  little if any more "deadly" than the seasonal flu. Moreover, the development of Covid vaccines, this "glorious milestone in the history of rationality" did not, as it turns out, end a pandemic of what has proved to be much closer in severity to the common cold than to the Black Death. Rather it appears, Covid19 will be forever with us in ever more attenuated forms, its spread little impeded by vaccines, which as now emerges, have many severe side effects not excluding death***. And while the vaccines may be somewhat effective in reducing death from Covid19 (or not?), they have proved virtually useless in preventing Covid spread, as highlighted in the news this week that the twice vaccinated and double boosted President of the United States had just tested positive for Covid.

But let us not enter the quagmire of Covid debate, but proceed to Professor Pinker's more general task, which is to shred the credibility of any person impugning the integrity of government by, for example, questioning the official narrative about 9/11, or the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Thus, Professor Pinker writes of:

"the popularity of a miscellany of canards that the historian of science Michael Shermer calls "weird beliefs." Many people endorse conspiracy theories like Holocaust denial, Kennedy assassination plots, and the 911 "Truther" theory that the Twin Towers were felled by a controlled demolition to justify the American invasion of Iraq. ...

How can we explain this pandemic of poppycock?"

So did you ever question the official "pancake theory" that is supposed to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers into their own footprint at a speed close to the acceleration of gravity?

Did you ever wonder why New York Trade Center Building 7 collapsed into it's own footprint on 9-11 although it was not hit by an airplane?

Did you ever wonder how it was that a couple of guys looking remarkably like E. Howard Hunt and  Frank Sturgis (both members of Richard Nixon's infamous "Plumbers," who botched the Watergate burglary), happened to be photographed in Dealey Plaza immediately following the shooting of President John F. Kennedy? 

If so, then according to Pinker, you are a person who readily accepts as true what are merely unfounded rumours, which is to say "canards."

Furthermore, according to some Historian of Science that Pinker names, but of whom you have probably never heard, you are possessed of "weird beliefs" which is to say you are more or less a nut.

Even worse, you likely endorse Holocaust denial, in which case you are almost certainly an anti-Semite, which is to say the kind of person with no rightful place in decent society.

Indeed you are a carrier of an infectious mental disease in a "pandemic of poppycock," and should probably be put into isolation for life. Indeed, you are fit only for the loony bin. Unless, that is, you have been singled out for derision simply for declining to accept official narratives without question. For example, George W Bush's claim that:

"Nobody, certainly not in this administration, thought about people flying airplanes into buildings," 

although that is precisely what one FBI supervisor in Minneapolis feared, reporting to FBI Headquarters concerning the 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, that he was "trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center."

And as to Pinker's derision of those who adhere to the 911 "Truther" theory that the Twin Towers were felled by a controlled demolition, one would do well to consider the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed into its own footprint on 9/11 without being hit by a plane. And, in fact, we know for certain that World Trade Center Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition because the World Trade Center leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, publicly stated as much.

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department Commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said you know we have had such terrible loss of life maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

          

Thing is, you don't just "pull" a building on the spur of the moment. Explosive charges have to be placed at many critical points throughout the building and wired for simultaneous detonation so that all supporting structures are disrupted simultaneously and the building goes into free fall, the entire structure fragmenting on impact with the ground. Such an operation requires more than a few minutes to prepare: it requires days to plan and execute. 

The implication is clear: Building 7 was wired for a controlled demolition prior to 9/11. 

And if Building 7 was wired for a controlled demolition prior to 9/11, why not the Twin Towers also?

There are also questions that a reasonable person may ask about the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy, i.e., that there was no assassination "plot," an assumption that Professor Pinker treats as a self-evident truth. 

Oswald, so the Commission concluded, was located in a "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, as the President's party was driven by in an open car. At a range of more than 240 feet, Oswald, so the Commission inferred, fired multiple shots with his World War I vintage, Italian army-surplus rifle, hitting the president first in the back of the neck, then fatally, in the head. 

Many questions have been raised about this conclusion, but its validity rests on the assumption that all shots fired that day were fired from behind the Presidential limousine, which is to say from the where, according to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald fired the fatal bullet.

But the surgeons who operated on the President in an attempt to save his life, Dr. Malcolm Perry, assisted by Dr. Robert McClelland, believed, based on their observation of the President's wounds, that the President had been hit, not from the back, but from the front. 

Thus at a press conference at Parklands hospital later that day, Assistant Press Secretary, Malcolm Kilduff, after announcing the President's death, stated that the fatal head shot had been from the front. This was also the belief of a third Parklands Hospital surgeon, Dr. Charles Crenshaw who helped place the deceased President in a coffin:

"... he was wrapped in a sheet and we placed him in a coffin, but before we did, I looked at the wound again. I wanted to know and remember this the rest of my life, and the rest of my life I will always know he was shot from the front. 

I never talked to the Warren Commission ... the bullet struck here (pointing to his forehead) taking out a piece of the occipital bone (which is at the back of the skull) the size of the palm of your hand."

Asked his reaction to seeing sketches  taken from the Kennedy autopsy conducted at the Naval Hospital at Bethesda, MD, along with an official explanation that the wounds were from bullets fired only from behind the Presidential limousine, Dr. Crenshaw said:

"It was beyond disbelief. I could not believe that a real pathologist would put out something this poorly." 

Asked if the autopsy report was fraudulent, Dr. Crenshaw responded: 

"I say that it was wrongly done ... maybe they were directed to do it that way." 

          

And beside the judgement of the surgeons attending on the stricken president, there is acoustic evidence that negates the Warren Commission's lone gunman hypothesis:

"In 1978, at the request of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., studied recordings of police radio and traffic during the assassination, and Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, Queens College, City University of New York, conducted an independent analysis of the alleged third gunshot recorded on the Dallas Police Department radio system. Based primarily on the acoustical analyses performed by BBN and Weiss and Aschkenasy indicating that there were gunshots in Dealey Plaza from both the Texas School Book Depository building (where Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly fired three gunshots) and the grassy knoll area (one gunshot) during Kennedy's assassination, the HSCA found, in part, that 'scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F Kennedy."

But according to Professor Pinker, members of the House Select Committee on Assassinations were merely holders of "weird beliefs," victims of a pandemic mental disease whose opinion should be disregarded.

But such a contention, far from being rational, is obviously absurd. So what underlies such irrationality and what are its implications?

One possible explanation of Pinker's attempt to paint rational scepticism as irrational, is that education at a top American private university is expensive. Including the prior cost of 12 years at a private prep school, a Harvard degree must cost one or several million dollars. For that, parents expect their progeny to gain a firm footing on ladders of social and career success. But those who control the upper rungs of social and career ladders have no inclination to give a leg up to those who question the intentions of the ruling elite. That being so, there is a certain logic to Professor Pinker's view that learning to accept the official narrative, however, improbably or inconsistent with the evidence, is essential to a "good" education.

There is, however, a massive downside to this concept of education. The readiness to question authority is essential to the scientific spirit. The acceptance, and even enforcement, of conformism at the modern Western university thus heralds a new dark age in the world of learning. 

Notes

* The Monty Hall challenge

The challenge for the contestant is to win a prize by guessing behind which of three doors the prize, a new car or some such thing, lies. After the contestant picks a door, the show host opens one of the two remaining doors to reveal no prize there concealed. Then the host asks the contestant whether they would like to abandon their initial choice and go for the other unopened door. 

To decide how the contestant should respond so as to maximize their chance of winning the prize, one must note that initially, the chance of the prize being behind any door is exactly one third. That means that, having chosen one of three doors,  there is a two-thirds probability that the prize is behind one of the unchosen doors. But then the show host opens one of the unchosen doors, taking care not to open the door behind which the prize is hidden if it is not hidden by the contestant's initial door of choice.

But the show host's opening of one of the unchosen doors does not alter the two-thirds probability of the prize being behind one of the unchosen doors. Therefore, since the prize is not behind the door opened by the show host, the odds of it being behind the other unchosen door must be two-thirds, which is twice the odds of it being behind the door initially chosen by the contestant. That means the contestant can double their chance of winning the prize by accepting the show host's invitation to change their choice to the other unopened door, an option show contestants were generally reluctant to accept. 

** The Linda Problem

Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Which is more probable?

    (1) Linda is a bank teller.
    (2) Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.

Most people, more than 80 percent, choose Option (2), which means, so Professor Pinker informs us, that they have fallen for the "disjunction fallacy." The reality, however, is simply that most people, even qualified statisticians, do not see the Linda Problem as a problem in combining probabilities. Rather, they see it as a question about Linda. And if they think that Linda is a feminist, the only way they can indicate that is by checking Option (2). But according to Pinker, that commits them to the belief that "Linda is a bank teller." But they almost certainly don't believe that, which is why they didn't check Option (1). So now, according to Pinker, they have contradicted themselves. But in reality, they've just done the best they can in response to a dumb question, a view Ludwig Wittgenstein would surely have endorsed.

Other, more elaborate and less probable justifications for the most common response to the Linda problem are provided by Berit Brogaard D.M.Sci., Ph.D.: Linda the Bank Teller' Case Revisited, and W. S. Messer and R. A. Griggs: Another look at Linda.

*** Vaccine effectiveness

The novel mRNA vaccines have proved effective in reducing mortality of those infected with Covid19. However, in the judgement of many medical practitioners, the risk posed by the vaccine to children far exceeds any benefit. Furthermore, there is now evidence that repeated Covid vaccination shots lead to reduced immune system function. 

 And this just in from Iceland: 

Eleven Children Report Serious Injury From the Vaccines Versus Zero Serious Cases of Covid, Official Data From Iceland Show 

And from the Netherlands:

A Positive Link Between Vaccination Rate and All-Cause Mortality

Related:

UN Declares Conspiracy Theorists "Public Enemy no.1"

The World's Most Annoying Man

Pinker, Epstein, Soldier, Spy

Hundreds of articles dismissing ‘conspiracy theories’ read like they follow a single script (Books too)

Operation “Lipstick on a Pig”: Was the “Violent Insurrection” at the Capitol a 9/11 Retread?

 Global Research, January 18, 2021: The media could not move faster to support the impeachment of Donald Trump and to place the responsibility for inciting a “violent insurrection” at his feet.  

Whether it was the progressive magazine The Nation, the conservative newspaper the Wall Street Journal, or the revolutionary socialist website WSWS, the conclusion about Trump was the same: he had organized and led an armed group of dangerous extremists to seize control of the Congress with the intention of subverting the Constitution, overturning the election and attacking liberal politicians.

The view being promoted in the media is that Trump and his ignorant followers, claiming a stolen election without any evidence, spouting conspiracy theories about COVID19, are universally assumed to pose an immediate threat to the security of the United States.

CNN announced that Trump was “ isolated and wallowing in self-pity in the White House” as he awaited trial, and even possible imprisonment. The possibility that some part of the claims of fraud in the election might have grounds in fact, that some conspiracies about COVID19 are real, did not cross anyone’s mind.

It is true that hostile forces have taken control of Washington D.C.

But they were not wearing MAGA red hats or waving Confederate flags. No, the takeover was at a much higher level.

Read more

Related:

THE PURGE OF THE DEPLORABLES

The Corona Crisis: The Conspiracy Is Obvious. Here Are Facts to Construct a Theory

There is credible evidence that this [Covid-19] virus has been lab-modified from SARS 1. If so, this likely originated from collaborations including US and Chinese bioweapons laboratories at the University of North Carolina BSL3 lab, the Wuhan BSL4 lab, and Harvard. Dr. Charles Lieber, a nanotechnology expert and ex-chair of the Harvard Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, was arrested and indicted in 2020 for lying to federal investigators about unreported $50,000 monthly income from China. These collaborations are documented in joint authorship of scientific articles by University of North Carolina, Harvard and Wuhan scientists, and by two $3.7 million grants to Wuhan from the NIAID in 2014 and 2019 through EcoHealth Alliance, an NIAID pass-through organization. Their collaboration apparently moved from UNC to Wuhan in 2014 following Congressional disapproval of our thinly veiled bioweapons research and a 2013 SCOTUS judgment confirming a previous decision that genetic material cannot be patented.

Sheesh, You-Tube sure flushed that Tucker Carlson video round the U-tube fast. They really should be paying the literary estate of George Orwell a royalty on the Memory Hole concept. 

Sunday’s Riot Narrative Having Failed, FBI Creates Convenient New Anti-Trump Narrative

Clinical insanity: Dems now claim that when Trump calls for PEACE, he secretly means VIOLENCE

America’s Demise Is Near At Hand

If the election was not stolen, why is it impermissible to raise the question? Explanations that are off limits to investigation and public discussion are unlikely to be true. The reason they are off limits is because they cannot withstand examination. You don’t have to go back far in time to get a long list: Assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, Waco, Oklahoma City Bombing, 9/11, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assayd’s use of chemical weapons, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russiagate, 2020 electoral fraud, January 6 Trump Insurrection. And, yes, I left out some, but the point stands without them. A country in which explanations are controlled is a country in which people live in lies. In America and Western civilization generally, the concept of objective truth has essentially been destroyed, especially in educational and communication institutions. Throughout the Western World the basis of truth has been shifted from evidence to emotion. Emotion has become the important evidence. Objective truth is dismissed as a construct that serves white males. https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/12/23/on-truth/ In America today everything is aligned against the white heterosexual population. The Democrat left, universities, and media are aligned with race and gender victims of alleged white racism and transphobia. Kristen Clarke has been appointed to the Justice (sic) Department to ensure that employment and promotion policies are aligned with race and gender victims. https://www.rt.com/usa/512341-civil-rights-pick-racism/

New York Fire Commissioners Call Bullshit on Official 9/11 Report

New York's Fire District Commissioners now confirm what any scientifically literate or mechanically competent person has been saying for eighteen years: The media-promoted official story on 9/11 is crap.

Zero Hedge, September 11, 2019: On July 24, the Franklin Square and Munson Fire Districts voted unanimously for a new investigation, citing “overwhelming evidence” that “pre-planted explosives . . . caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings.” The resolution was written by Commissioner Christopher Gioia, and received overwhelming support from Commissioner Dennis Lyons. “We have a memorial — a piece of steel from the World Trade Center with 28 holes where the nuts and bolts used to go. Every year on the 11th, we put a rose in each hole for the 24 Nassau County firefighters and four Franklin Square residents who died on 9/11,” Commissioner Lyons said. When the vote was passed, the families of 9/11 victims showed up in the audience to express their support for the cause and their gratitude to the departments for making this issue a priority. Commissioner Gioia said that he expects support from other districts throughout the city, and hopes that they will be passing similar resolutions in solidarity. “We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won’t be the last,” Gioia said. Source: Zero Hedge

Nothing will come of this, however. Too many of the perps are still alive and well and running the country still.

Related: 
Pepe Escobar: We are all hostages of 9/11

Year after year, 9/11 is essentially a You Have The Right to Accept Only The Official Version ritual ceremony, even as widespread evidence suggests the US government knew 9/11 would happen and did not stop it. Three days after 9/11, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported that in June 2001, German intelligence warned the CIA that Middle East terrorists were “planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture.” In August 2001, President Putin ordered Russian intel to tell the US government “in the strongest possible terms” of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings, MSNBC revealed in an interview with Putin that was broadcast on September 15 that year.

And for the definitive five-minute account of 9/11:

James Corbett:

Britain Threatened By an Outbreak of Democracy

Mass democracy is, and always has been, a charade. It emerged, first, in Britain during the 19th century when, to appease a rapidly growing population of sometimes mutinous workers, the governing elite, both Whig and Tory factions, extended the franchise to an ever increasing proportion of the population.

Initially, with the Reform Act of 1832, the vote was extended to householders who paid a yearly rental of £10. The franchise was then repeatedly further expanded and in 1918, under the Representation of the People Act, it was granted to all adult males, and finally, in 1928, to all women.

During the 19th Century, the extension of the franchise had little impact on the composition of the government, as those newly enfranchised mostly voted deferentially for the aristocrats and their nominees who, in office, ran the country in accordance with the interests of the aristocratic and business elite. Reforms such as those limiting working hours and the employment of children, and providing for universal state-funded elementary education (1870)  were seen as beneficial both by the working masses and the more liberal elements among the elite.

Trouble arose, however, from the legalization of trades unions in 1871, as became apparent in the run-up to World War 1 when unions in rail transport and coal mining created an effective labor monopoly that threatened to plunge Britain into civil war. The conflict was postponed, however, by the outbreak of war with Germany, only to be resumed with the inconclusive General Strike of 1926. Thereafter, the conflict continued to undermine British industrial productivity until resolved decisively in favor of the employers by Margaret Thatcher in her war on striking coal miners (1984/85).

Generally, however, throughout the 20th century, the people remained deferential to the ruling class, a class that could claim to be vastly better educated that the common folk and therefore the only class fit to rule. Moreover, the mass media, controlled by millionaire press barons, or in the case of the BBC, the government, provided the public with political narratives that were generally in keeping with the policies of the establishment parties.

But by the end of the 20th Century, something like half of all school leavers were entering post-secondary education, mostly graduating with at least a bachelor's degree, and often a master's or doctoral degree too. This combined with the ease with which the Internet has made it possible for anyone to disseminate their political opinions widely and to challenge the political narratives of the mainstream media has resulted in the emergence of a threat of genuinely popular democracy.

For the first time, the people have opinions on, and interests in, almost every aspect of public policy and loudly demand that their voices be heard and their interests be served. Democratically elected rulers are thus confronted at last by the expectation that they act in accordance with the will of the people. This unprecedented situation has driven the elite to the manipulation, distortion, suppression and outright manufacture of news on a wholly unprecedented scale. Hence 9/11, Saddam's WMD's, "I'll build a wall," and all manner of other lies and hoaxes many of which are incorporated into school books, university texts and Hollywood blockbusters.

How this struggle will work out remains to be seen. But one angle that the elites are evidently determined to pursue is the genocide of the Western nations by a combination of reproductive suppression and mass replacement immigration. In this way, any silly notions about freedom, the rights of man, the rule of law and all that old fashioned crap that brought us to the present pass will be wiped from the minds of men. In their place will be the acceptance of tyranny, corruption and extremes of wealth and poverty such as is the normal experience of those migrating from the Third World to the First.

In the meantime, UK Prime Minister, Thereason May, continues the brave struggle on behalf of the globalist plutocracy to strangle the will of the people on Brexit while what has at least the appearance of  left–right collusion among supposed anti-Brexiteers keeps hope alive among those yearning to be free of the EU's globalist clutches.

9/11 Myths Exposed By Firefighters, Architects & Engineers

Nine-Eleven, the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and the attack on the Pentagon, which occurred on September 11, 2001, changed the course of world history.

It gave rise directly to US-led wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, which together, resulted in 370,000 battlefield deaths, 6,800 of the victims being US soldiers. Including all disability claims, US forces suffered almost one million casualties.

The war on Iraq led directly to the emergence of ISIS that, with its war-spawned jihadi predecessors, has killed or expelled virtually the whole of Iraq's 1.5 million Christians.

Why?

In 2001, someone (nobody, including members of the 9/11 Commission, knows for sure who), knocked down New York's World Trade Center Towers One and Two with airliners. Later the same day, World Trade Center Tower Seven collapsed into its own footprint though not struck by an airliner — the only steel-frame high-rise (other than WTC 1 and 2) ever to do so except as the result of a controlled demolition. Very strange. But nobody to think about it: OK? Just blame it on the Muzzies.

Then the West embarked on a multi-trillion-dollar campaign (very profitable to some, e.g., the Bush-connected Carlyle Group: "we provide the gear to bomb places to Hell, then we get the contract to rebuild") to poke sticks into Muslim bees' nest in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. At the same time the gates of Vienna, Paris, London, Berlin, and Miami were flung open to a flood of Muslims, many of whom are intent on the conquest of the West. This they say, is to be achieved by the womb not the sword, which shows the gentleness of Islam, which is so much admired by the Western Cuckservative who never tire of assuring us that Islam is "a religion of love." Still, as the Miami night club massacre among other recent events shows, a bit of sword-, or in this case gun-play, to clear some space in the decadent West is apparently* considered a good thing by some members of the Islamic settler advance party.

These developments raise the question, why is the Western elite conniving at the West's racial and cultural destruction? The answer, has two parts.

First, there are the liberal-lefties in government, including thousands upon thousands of them within the great bureaucracies, plus the Commies in academia who want to destroy Western capitalist civilization and impose the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under this hoped for Wesstern incarnation of the Soviet system, they see themselves as members of the privileged nomenclatura. They are the ones, they imagine, who will decide who goes to the gulag, and who is to be shot on the spot, Lenin's remedy for any opposition.

Lord  Kinnock of Bedwellty and wife. Unelected
former ruler of the European Union. Source.

Second, there is the Money Power, which through control of the media, Hollywood, FaceBook, etc., supports the lib-left effort to make political correctness the religion of the West. They do so in the knowledge that the loony PC multiculti agenda will destroy the sovereign, democratic nation state, and make way for global governance, i.e., government by:

(1) Trade deals negotiated by the largest capitalist entities (about 150 firms control most international business). These are the deals that Treason Party leaders including Obama, Cameron, Merkel, etc., are seeking to adopt right now, deals that transfer large powers from the nation state to international corporations; and

(2) International organizations such as the EU, WTO and the UN, which are easily manipulated by the money power by the usual mundane forms of bribery and corruption  (for example, wasn't UN Sec. Gen Kofi Annan on the take in the Iraq oil for food deal?).

———
* I say apparently, because there never seems to be a competent investigation following any incident of so-called Islamic terrorism, whether it be 9/11, the London Tube bombings, or the recent Paris nightclub shootings. So whether it's Muslims taking the initiative, or a revived Gladio, or similar organization, that should take the credit, is unclear.

Related: 

Edward Teague: Bush's Gang of Mad Bee Keepers

Trump: Trade Center Towers Came Down because Bush Ignored CIA's Warning; Iraq War Based on WMD Lies

February 13, 2016: The following is a transcript of exchanges between Donald Trump, JEB Bush and Marko Rubio during last night's Republican presidential candidates' debate in Greenville, S. Carolina. It may explain why Trump says he always carries a gun.

Founders of the New World Order, or the Banality of Evil

G.H.W. Bush (left) declared the New World Order. John Ellis 

Bush (right) signed the Statement of Principles of the Project

for a New American Century (PNAC) , which declared the 
necessity of a "new Pearl Harbor." G.W. Bush (center) ignored
CIA warning of Bin Laden's determination to strike the US and
used the 9/11 attacks, which he described as the Pearl Harbor
of the 21st Century, to justify the wars for American global 
empire that PNAC called for. Image source. 

Trump:

The war in Iraq was a big fat mistake. It took JEB Bush .... five days before his people told him what to say, and he ultimately said "It was a mistake."

The war in Iraq, we spent two trillion dollars, lost thousands of lives, we don't even have it, Iran is taking over Iraq with the second largest oil reserves in the World. Obviously it was a mistake. George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes, but that one is a beauty. We should never have been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle-East.

Moderator:

So yo still think he [George W. Bush] should be impeached?

Trump:

You do whatever you want. You call it whatever you want. I want to tell you, they lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction, but there were none and they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

John Ellis Bush (JEB):

... I could care less about the insults that Donald Trump gives to me ... but I'm sick and tired of him going after my family. My dad is the greatest man alive, in my mind. While Donald Trump was building a reality TV show, my brother was building a security apparatus to keep us safe, and I'm proud of what he did. And he's had the gall to go after ...

Trump:

The World Trade Center came down during his brother's reign.

Bush:

He's had the gall to go after my mother.

Trump:

That's not keeping us safe.

Bush:

I won the lottery when I was born 63 years ago, looked up and saw my Mom. My Mom is the strongest woman I know.

Trump:

She should be running.

Rubio:

I thank God, all the time, that it was George W. Bush who was in the White House on 9/11 ... He kept us safe. No matter what you say about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions, in open violation, and the World wouldn't do anything about it. And George W. Bush ... kept us safe, and I am forever grateful ...

Trump:

How did he keep us safe, when the World Trade Center ... [interruption by crowd]. The World, excuse me, I lost hundreds of friends, the World Trade Center came down during the reign of George Bush.

He kept us safe?

That's not safe. That is not safe.

Rubio:

The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn't kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him.

Trump:

...  George Bush had the chance also, and he didn't listen to the advice of his CIA.

Related: 

Pat Buchanan: Donald Trump’s Rise Is Rejection of a Quarter Century of Bush Republicanism

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, Pat Buchanan declared that Trump’s rise represents a rejection of 25 years of Bush Republicanism— an ideology which Buchanan says has destroyed America’s once-great manufacturing core, flooded the country with low-skilled workers, and drained the treasury with ill-advised foreign adventures in the Middle East.

Trump is Right About Iraq, and That Should Stick to Clinton

Has the Sandy Hook investigator, Prof James Tracy, been targeted for total disruption of credibility by a drone named Jim Fetzer?

The best way to discredit those who point to evidence of a conspiracy against the public is to associate them with advocates of the wackiest conspiracy theories going. For instance the belief that on 9/11 the Twin Towers were brought down by space-based beam weapons, or that JFK was murdered by the Mafia or Fidel Castro, or both working in collaboration, or that Sandy Hook was the work of a Mossad assassination squad.

Professor James Tracy of Florida Atlantic University, who has raised important questions about the Sandy Hook Massacre, has now posted a letter from James Fetzer defending some of the most bizarre and factually unsupported theories about Sandy Hook, in particular, that a Mossad death squad was involved. In view of the, at present, complete absence of evidence of such involvement, such theories only bring discredit upon those who advance them and those who associate with those who advance them.

Perhaps Professor Tracy is playing a deep game,aiming ultimately to debunk those who promote nonsensical conspiracy theories to discredit plausible and probably theories. If so, we wish him luck. If not, we guess his credibility is permanently shot.

For information about the way in which credible conspiracy theories are discredited by association with ridiculous nonsense, see:

Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11

How Fetzer Aids Defenders of the Official Account

PostScript

Since writing the above, it has become clear from the comments on Prof Tracy's blog that Jim Fetzer, a veteran of extreme wacko conspiracy theories has, through his guest post, created rancor and dissension among Prof. Tracy's blog followers, leading to a vociferous debate about who, among the conspiracy theorists, is an anti-Semite.

My own last comments on Prof Tracy's blog, which though critical of Jim Fetzer were not irrational or hateful, have been censored. One has to conclude that the professor of Florida Atlantic University is either rather simple minded or that he has been hypnotized or blackmailed into making a travesty of his own inquiry into the Sandy Hook Massacre.

Post-Postscript

One of my comments on Prof. Tracy's MemoryHole blog post by James Fetzer has now been allowed. Specifically:

Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11.

While Professor Tracy, you may associate with whom you like, if you continually associate with those who propagate wacko conspiracy theories, many will draw the conclusion that your judgment about Sandy Hook and other matters is open to serious question.

This was followed by a trollish comment by a pontifical character posting under the name of Rev Dave, who states:

It sounds to me sir, like YOU have already made that decision – or maybe your employer made it and you’re just still here working that angle as well as you can? Seriously, if questions can somehow ‘hurt’ the story, then the story itself is shaky and won’t hold up, meaning there are genuine killers going free today, who need to be identified and prosecuted. If the ‘truth is out there’ already, then the questions can’t hurt, can they? So what is your real purpose or issue here?

A pretty feeble response for a vicar, it seemed to me, and thus prompted the following comment, which at this time of writing had yet to pass the censor.

The issue is not the questions being asked, the issue is the baggage that is being brought along with the questions. Also the wacky theories. For example:

"Most likely, Adam Lanza and his mother were killed the day before with Adam Lanza’s body picked up by police. He was attired in a SWAT outfit, including body armor, and stored in the school. "

"Most likely," indeed, except we ain't got one scrap of evidence.

LOL

Jim Fetzer has a history of crazy ideas advanced as "Most likely" (see the article I linked to above), which only discredits the intelligence of his adherents.

And, Rev. Dave, since you use the title Rev, would you mind telling us by which church you were ordained. I mean if the title is supposed to confer credibility, the name of the church is surely relevant.

And now Prof. Tracy has allowed another of my comments at the MemoryHole blog:

Jim Fetzer has done a great job, sewing rancor and dissension among the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists and tarring most of them with the anti-Semite brush. Good work, Jim. But I guess as with my earlier comment James Tracy will delete this one.

In fact, Prof. Tracy did allow that one, with the following comment:

[Your] previous comment was not deleted, yet it appeared inflammatory and unproductive, and thus was withheld. One does not have time to “background” every post and the assertion here that James Fetzer is a sower of discontent and the one previous (“wacky conspiracy theories”) do not in my view hold up to serious scrutiny.

Which prompted me to point out that Jim Fetzer was a veteran wrecker of independent inquiry into possible state crimes, having successfully ousted Prof. Steven Jones, a key 9/11 researcher, from Scholars for 9/11 Truth and organization that Fetzer then made his own.

I am strongly inclined to believe that Prof. Tracy is what he appears, a decent academic undertaking a risky investigation for the sake of truth. But I fear that he has been targeted for total disruption of credibility by a drone named Jim Fetzer.

But we will see.

The Latest

Happily, Prof. Tracy has now approved all my comments, which naturally confirms my view that he's a sound fellow. But I will not test his patience for a while with further comments. I hope, though, that others who think it proper to ask questions when state authorities and the media offer a highly questionable account of policy shaping events, will visit Prof. Tracy's blog and provide constructive support.

And more from Aangirfan about the mysterious invisibility of Adam Lanza during the years preceding Sandy Hook.

See also:

Hate Week in America: Targeting Sandy Hook Truthers