9/11 Truth Finally Arrives at Daily Kos

[Author’s Note: I am working on a Psychohistory analysis of one of the most popular websites on the Internet, DailyKos (Alexa Traffic Rank 4,025).]

Mentioning DailyKos to outsiders will provoke a rant about a leftwing gatekeeper website populated by left wing ignorant kooks kept in line by a sexist man working for the CIA.

Daily Kos is blog where pinko retard basement dwellers highlight the moar deluded of the leftard section of the tinfoil hat crowd’s conspiracy theories about George W. Bush, conservatives, and the state of the nation. Articles on this shrill blog repeat how Bush stole the election ad infinitum, that Dick Cheney is a robot when he is actually just an eminence gris, and fantasize about Ann Coulter being a man. This last claim is particularly cruel in view of the Daily Kos viewpoint that shemales should always be identified as women.

The site is controlled by the CIA but not for the purpose of disinformation or gate keeping. The CIA run the site to manage the emotional band of the community just above apathy but below effective activism. A psychohistory case study explaining why it is important to keep the members of the Dailykos community engaged in the Democratic process is coming soon.

DailyKos is owned and operated by Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and in one of those coincidences that don’t happen very often, was born September 11, 1971.

And speaking of 9/11 and ‘Conspiracy Theories’ in general, they are forbidden at DailyKos.

The FAQ (rules and guidelines for posting diaries)

DailyKos accepts that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by agents of Al-Qaeda. It is forbidden to write diaries that:

  • refer to claims that American, British, Israeli, or any government assisted in the attacks
  • refer to claims that the airplanes that crashed into the WTC and Pentagon were not the cause of the damage to those buildings or their subsequent collapse. Yes, this does include ‘controlled demolition’ of WTC 7.

“911 Truthers are Dummies” published at Dailykos on August 4 (below) and was my successful attempt at getting around the rules and guidelines.

My position about the attacks on September 11:

I’ll get right to the point, I have read the books and watched the documentaries on September 11 for three years and the 9/11 official story:

Nineteen fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, crash airplanes into steel skyscrapers because they “hate our freedom to consume” and inexplicably on 9/11 jet fuel, which is basically kerosene that burns at about 400c, took on the qualities of an explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 70 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke and causing 110-story buildings to collapse into a pile of rubble. [1]

Is so stupid Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn’t expect you to believe it.

911 Truthers are Dummies (hyperlink provided in case you want to read the comments at DailyKos. The Kogs missed the subtle message. My guess is that you guys will figure it out.)

By Katherine Smith, PhD

[Author’s note about why conspiracy theorists are consistently wrong. All conspiracy theories (C/T) can be reduced to a supposed discrepancy or anomaly in one official record or another. To the conspiracy theorists the holes in an “official story” are some kind of truth that conspirators are trying to cover up. However, because theorists rarely if ever have any coherent beginning-to-end narrative of what they think happened, the perceived discrepancies constitute the entire basis of their arguments.

What the conspiracy theorists consistently ignore (and rarely does anyone point out) is how simple it would be for the criminals to change or falsify the alleged discrepancy or anomaly. The act of doing so would be trivial compared to the magnitude of other acts the theorists claim the conspirators committed.]

September 11, 2001

It’s getting harder these days to avoid gullible progressive Democrats telling ludicrous fairy tales about 9/11.

MoveOn, WeAreChange, WorldCan’tWait and the 9/11 Truth movements have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay about the events of 9/11 to the extent that a number of otherwise rational Democrats have actually fallen under their spell.
These theories come in every variety, but all reach essentially the same conclusion: that the U.S. government, or some shadowy group that controls it, organized the attacks as part of a master plan for global domination.

“Blaming some conspiracy within our government for the horrific attacks of September 11 mars the memories of all those lost on that day. There were errors and missteps in our government’s response, to be sure, but the performance of our public servants was, on the whole heroic, not destructive.

Any explanation for the tragedy of September 11 must start and end with the facts. Those of us who live in the real world use the methods of science, the protocols of investigation, and the dictates of logic [to reject any government New World Order conspiracy].” Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report James Meigs, Popular Mechanics

According to most paranoid theorists, the smoking gun of 9/11 can be found on the Project for a New America (PNAC) website:

A plan written in 2000, entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century,” The treatise clearly showed that members of the Bush administration had planned to take military control of the Gulf region one way or another, long before the attacks of 9/11.

The PNAC website openly calls for a “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination but goes on to note there was a problem: The American people would have to go along with the idea and so the “The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

The Truthers have adopted that phrase as their mantra: like a new Pearl Harbor…like a new Pearl Harbor….like 9/11.

To them, there is no question that 9/11 constituted a catastrophic and catalyzing event. Their leading spokesman David Ray Griffin with connections to the New World Order wrote a best selling book, The New Pearl Harbor.

It never occurred to them that the U.S. Government would NEVER publish their plans for worldwide military hegemony on the PNAC website.

What are these people smoking?

George W. Bush played the part of being stupid really well for eight years but no one in their right mind would actually believe Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle would announce their secret plans for 9/11 on a website with an Alexa traffic rank of 942,906 and 1631 sites linking in.

But wait, Bush and Cheney were not behind 9/11 after all: it was a Zionist Israeli plot.

Thanks to the unmitigated stupidity of the five Israelis caught on tape dancing on 9/11 and Chris Bollyn’s recent discovery of “Israel’s Super-Termite” (nanothermite), we now know the September 11 attacks were to change the military equation in the Middle East.

And Chris Bollyn has the answer as to “how the Israeli government could possibly think they would get away with such an audacious and heinous crime of false-flag terrorism:”

“What they didn’t expect is that a few Americans would dig into the evidence and uncover every stone to find the real culprits.  They certainly didn’t expect that a careful and independent scientific analysis of the dust would reveal that a nano-composite form of super-thermite was used to pulverize the World Trade Center.”
“What they didn’t expect is that a few Americans would dig…” I can hardly stop laughing!
But when I did stop laughing, I contacted Andrew Johnson at Check The Evidence and asked him the following questions:

Q) What is thermite anyway? Answer: Aluminum Powder and Iron Oxide (rust).

Fact: The exterior of WTC towers contained aluminum and there were some rusty beams inside the buildings. Therefore, we can dismiss any smoking gun theory of super-thermite because you would expect to find aluminum powder and iron oxide in the remains of the World Trade Center.

Q) What does thermite do to metal? Answer: It melts through it.
Q) What happened to the towers? Answer: They turned largely to dust.
Thermite cannot have been responsible for turning towers to dust.  Let’s see this nanothermite in action please!

The Unsupported And Frankly Embarrassing Conspiracy Theory of WTC 7

No essay on 9/11 would be complete without the dishonorable mention of the huge case of insurance fraud on the part of Larry Silverstein.

Was he planning to use the leftover money from the dumbest insurance scam in history to finance the New World Order?

Larry, as just about any of these lunatics with a tinfoil hat will tell you, is guilty because he admitted that he and the FDNY decided, jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11.

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

This statement is taken as an admission by just about every conspiracy theorist that Silverstein wanted to demolish the building so he could make a profit when he collected the insurance money.

Huh? Did I miss something?

This story has so many holes it is hard to know where to start.

First of all, conspiracy theorists should get a dictionary before they put their foot in their mouth claiming he was using a demolition term when he said, “pull” the firemen from the building.

The only people who would believe his statement proves anything are those who would be stupid enough to go on national television during a 2002 PBS documentary and admit to demolishing their 47-story skyscraper. That wouldn’t be Larry Silverstein, click here to read his biography.

Other problems with a Controlled Demolition theory of WTC 7:

  1. According to literally thousands of engineers and architects (who were smart enough not to sign a petition demanding Congress re-investigate 9/11), it would take weeks to engineer the collapse of WTC 7.
  2. A claim that he “made a profit of about $500 million.” Again these crackpots don’t do their homework because the policy from Industrial Risk Insurers (IRI) required he rebuild the 2-million square foot, 47-story tower structure. Construction was completed in 2006 at a cost of $700 million. Though Silverstein received $861 million from IRI he had to pay off a $400 million mortgage.  Without the $475 million from the Liberty Bonds he could not have rebuilt the structure, a requirement in the insurance policy that paid the claim based on an unforeseen accidental event.
  3. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released its report on the collapse of World Trade 7 in 2005. Investigators looked specifically at the possibility of explosives and wrote:

“Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7 and investigators “found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile. Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.”

  1. Conspiracy theorists have a profound misunderstanding of the insurance business in general and insurance fraud specifically.

Let me explain: Insurance companies take on the risks associated with their lines of coverage in exchange for premium payments. Actuaries and underwriters come up with mathematical formulas and calculations that determine premiums.  Claims adjusters, examiners and investigators look for fraudulent or suspicious claims to ensure the company doesn’t lose money.

Are we to assume Industrial Risk Insurers (IRI) forked over $861 million because their claims adjustors, investigators, personnel and board of directors all missed hearing Silverstein admit he “pulled it” on national television? Maybe no one at IRI ever read or listened to endless replays and reprints of Larry’s admission of guilt.

  1. The implosion (not explosion) of WTC 7 was different from the twin towers.

WTC 7 had a small debris field as.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 showered debris in a wide radius as their frames essentially “peeled” outward. FEMA: WTC Study, Ch. 5 (05/02)

Were there two different types of thermite used on 9/11, one that showers inward and the other outward?

Controlled demolition (explosion) could never explain the implosion of any of the towers that collapsed on 9/11.

The Single Stupidest Insurance Fraud In History

Silverstein’s best-case scenario was an insurance payout of $6.8 billion for the twin towers. Putting aside that the insurance companies refused to pay and settled for $4.55 billion and that he had a mortgage on the twin towers, the $10-12 billion to rebuild the towers would leave him with at least $4 billion deficit. And contrary to what you heard, the twin towers were quite profitable and had fairly high occupancy rates.

To recap, Larry Silverstein wanted the moneymaking towers destroyed so he could collect a net loss from insurance funds, not to mention the loss of rental income during the 10+ years it will take to re-build the Freedom Tower.

The Top 40 Reasons to Doubt  “911 Truth”

The mother of 9/11 conspiracy sites, http://911truth.org/ allegedly started by Janice Mathews lists the Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story of September 11th, 2001 and makes you believe it was an Inside Job.

Below is an analysis and commentary of 23 of the “Top 40 Reasons.”

(7, 24, 25) Controlled Demolition Theory Debunked

The “Melted” Steel Claim

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, that is not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.

The Puffs Of Dust Claim

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy.

Demolition expert Van Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. “I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building,” he tells PM. “I only said that that’s what it looked like.”

Romero demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed on Sept. 22, 2001. “I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line.” But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: “The paymaster of Romero’s research institute is the Pentagon. “Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years.”

The Seismic Spikes Claim

Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. “The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth,” reports the web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a website run by radio talk show host Alex Jones and known disinformation agent, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are “indisputable proof that bombs brought down” the towers. The website reports that two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam, support its findings when they said “each sharp spike of short duration consistent with a demolition-style implosion.”

FACT: “There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers,” Lerner-Lam tells Popular Mechanics. “That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.”

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings.

WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8 and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty’s 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: the seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs. Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report James Meigs, Popular Mechanics

(3) Pentagon Strike

The Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the terrorist attacks. Andrews Air Force Base was not involved in a response.  What more proof do you need that 9/11 was an Inside Job.

Pilots for truth knew immediately 9/11 was an Inside Job because a pilot who could barely fly a Cessna would never be able to execute the difficult aerobatic maneuver in a Jumbo Jet required to strike the Pentagon on the just-renovated side opposite Rumsfeld’s offices. Why else was Hani Honjour chosen to hijack Flight 77?

(6) The Day And Possible Smoking Guns

Since everyone knows cell phones didn’t work at high altitudes in 2001, the faked calls made at 30,000 feet were intended to convince you it was an Inside Job. And when was the last time you called your mother during the stress of a hijacking and gave your first and last name?

Obstruction of high profile FBI Investigations appeared to the conspiracy theorist that high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks was going on in the FBI That is: Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the “Phoenix Memo,” David Schippers, the Bin Laden family, the “Bojinka” plot, and John O’Neil.

However, when considered in sum these “cover ups” don’t prove anything except they were an ingenious way to convince 9/11 Truthers it was an Inside Job.

(11) Insider Trading

Of all the stupid moves these dunderheads made on 9/11, the unknown speculators using foreknowledge of the events to profit on financial markets takes the cake.

“Put options” placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London all dutifully leaked in the media are a hoot.

(17) Anthrax

Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax – which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations – were traced back to US military stock.

Now that was pretty stupid. You would think they could find some anthrax somewhere other than at a U.S. military facility.

And those dummies at the FBI, what were they thinking when they dumped the evidence instead of substituting some anthrax from Iraq? Then they could really link Saddam to 9/11.

And speaking of mailings, a fourth grader would have sent the letters out randomly, not just to media figures raising objections to the USA Patriot Act.

(29, 30) The Bush Connections

You can hardly swing a cat without hitting a bush connection:

  1. George Bush was POTUS on 9/11.
  2. Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. [Utne]
  3. The Bush family has long-standing business ties to the Bin Laden family fortune.
  4. The Carlyle Group (A company in which both families held interests) was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George H.W. Bush, James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Laden in attendance.
  5. Jim Pierce, President Bush’s cousin managing director of AON Corporations, had arranged a business conference on the 105th floor of the South Tower where its New York offices were based. But his group was too large so they decided to move across the street to the Millennium Hotel. [Annova]

That’s a total of 5 Bush connections on 9/11. There are 4 letters in the name Bush, 5+4 = 9. There are 7 letters in the name George W., 7+4 =11. Proves 9/11…was an Inside Job.

(13) Who Is Osama Bin Laden and Why Can’t all of the Doubles get their Story Straight?

He did it, he didn’t do it. Bush wants him dead or alive but later doesn’t think much about him. The FBI says they don’t have any hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, what is that about?

There is so much misinformation surrounding this poor dupe it’s hard to know where to start.

Let’s just say that if you were planning 9/11 and wanted to blame it on a dialysis patient you might want to tell Dan Rather to keep it quiet that Osama had been admitted to a Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 2001. (CBS)

There are more commentaries in Appendix A.

The “Top 40” should be renamed the Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the 9/11 Truth Story.

Katherine Smith, PhD mandrell2010@gmail.com


[1] Professor Steven Jones
Given Professor Jones’ enormous popularity in the 9/11 arena, we must undertake the unpleasant task of social analysis. Jones “evokes” the persona of a choirboy and he plays to the gallery. Here is evidence: over half of his slides have no connection with physical science, and instead are political. In effect, they proclaim, “Elect Steve, I wanna be your physicist, I’m a NICE guy.” The clutter in Jones’ presentation ranges all over the map: Jones proudly points to “growing investigative support at BYU” [pdf (7/19/06) p. 44], a sympathy-soliciting but phony-sounding email threatening negative consequences and promising bribes (I’m a victim, I’m courageous), crowd—pleasing calls for investigation/impeachment, paeans to phony peak oil crises and fragile infrastructure, denunciation of corporate profits (he is a conservative [pdf (7/19/06)] and corporate profits are bad? Corporate losses are good?), solar cookers, shared values, the Prophet Nephi and other irrelevancies.

Does anyone really care what a physicist says about Nephi, the U.S. Constitution, pre-9/11 intelligence warnings, Able Danger, or an alleged insider sell-off of Raytheon pre-9/11? He even gets his economics wrong here because a pre-9/11 “buy-off” of Raytheon would profit insiders as defense contractors’ share prices would soar with the forthcoming “war on terror.” Excusable error for a physicist perhaps but bad physics and use of his authority to pronounce in fields where he has no expertise are not excusable. All would be forgiven if he offered insights or revealed hidden truths, but he does not. As 911eyewitness creator Rick Siegel said in mocking Jones and his thermite diversion to explain missing towers, “Of course it was WMD, why else [call in] an educated nuclear physicist promoting solar cookers?”

Steven E. Jones, BYU physicist, rocketed to the top of the 9/11 research ladder based on position and credentials. But nearly a year later, his contributions range from irrelevant to redundant to misleading to wrong. He has not turned up a single item of value. The majority of what Jones says is political and his physics is egregiously wrong (SJ: aluminum “cannot” glow yellow in daylight), deceptive (SJ: WTC demolitions can be treated alike), nonexistent (SJ: jet liners crashed into WTC, a jet liner might have crashed into the Pentagon) and shallow (SJ: thermite is key to WTC demolitions).

Appendix A

(7) The Demolition Hypothesis

Hypothesis according to The American Heritage Dictionary:

1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.

“The collapse of both World Trade Center towers—and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later—initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC’s structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn’t swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.” Popular Mechanics

By far and without a doubt the most compelling reason to reject the tentative explanation for the collapse of the twin towers is because everyone, and I mean everyone, but a tiny majority of people in the world is convinced the twin towers collapsed from controlled demolition.

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth accept the conspiracy theory of controlled demolition because of two men: Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin.

Steven Jones, a professor in physics with no expertise whatsoever in material science was asked to leave the university when he embarrassed the physics department at Brigham Young University by going public with his “best hypothesis” about the collapse of the twin towers. [1]

Jones’ research, never peer reviewed, does not prove the building collapsed from controlled demolition. A peer-review of Steven E. Jones’  9/11 Research (The Trouble with Jones)

David Ray Griffin, retired professor at the Claremont School of Theology and spokesman for the 9/11 Truth Movement, has written numerous books questioning the 9/11 “Official Story” based on the research paper from Steven Jones.

His books, that some would call treason, are readily available at mainstream booksellers like Barnes and Noble.

He lectures frequently at universities and public places explaining in nauseating, repetitive detail that September 11 was not the result of 19 Arab terrorist and insists, without any proof other than Steven Jones’ inconclusive un-reviewed paper, that controlled demolition can explain the collapse of World Trade center towers.

Ponder this: If the twin towers were demolished by the Bush Administration to bring on the New World Order (which never happened), then the 19 Arab terrorists are innocent of murdering, in cold blood, 3,000 American citizens.

If that, dummies for 9/11Truth, isn’t giving aid and comfort to the enemy Al Qaeda terrorists, I will eat my Patriot Act Hat. [9]

Steven and David should be thanking Dubya for not torturing them in Guantanamo.

(1) AWOL Chain of Command

The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights on 9/11 and the various responsible agencies – NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF all gave radically different explanations for the air defense stand down.

I don’t know what this proves except that the agencies involved did not anticipate and were unable to handle the extraordinary events of 9/11.

(4) War Games

The multiple military war games (Vigilant Guardian) held on the morning of September 11th including scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York is an impossible series of coincidences that no one would believe were a chance occurrence.

Therefore the war games were staged to convince the Truthers that the air defense sabotage was an Inside Job.

(8) Foreknowledge & The Alleged Hijackers

What did officials know? How did they know it?

Would anyone really believe that multiple allied foreign agencies would come forward after the attacks and embarrass the US government with the details of the attack?

Answer: No. This must be part of the Inside Job plan to make you believe the Bush administration was in on it.

(9) Able Danger Plus Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers

The US military’s “Able Danger” program was keeping the 9/11 ringleaders under surveillance.

Huh? What else could you conclude except that it was an Inside Job?

(12) Who were the perpetrators?

Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the “magic passport” of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.

This is so ridiculous it needs no commentary.

(14) Cover UP?

  1. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were “disappeared” and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
  2. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
  3. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
  4. Officials who “failed” (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

Yep a-d, they are all true, all the signs of a systematic 9/11 cover-up executed to convince you it was an Inside Job.

(16) Disposing of the Crime Scene

The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero where they disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics made it look like to even Joe Six pack they had something to hide. Therefore Joe would come to the inescapable conclusion it was … you guessed it, an Inside Job.

(19) A Record of Official Lies

  1. “No one could have imagined planes into buildings” – a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
  2. “Iraq was connected to 9/11” – The most “outrageous conspiracy theory” of all, with the most disastrous impact.

These two are so obvious I will not waste my time with a commentary.

(21) Unanswered Questions and the “Final Fraud” of the 9/11 Commission:

  1. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
  2. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of “star witness” Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a “scam” and “whitewash.”
  3. The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods – ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being “of little practical significance.”

I can’t add much to this one. What else could it be except an Inside Job.

(34) Plundered Trillions?

On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a “war on waste” after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was “missing” 2.3 trillion dollars. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

I love to watch the look of amazement on a Truthers face when you point out that no one would have known the money was missing unless Rumsfeld let the 2.3 trillion out of the bag… right before the attacks.

(37) The “Little Game”

Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?

Answer: Because it was. Insurance companies are not stupid and they don’t hand over billions of dollars to policy holders without an investigation. Twelve insurance companies and NIST concluded the buildings did not collapse from controlled demolition.

(32) Attacking the Constitution

  1. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the “Shadow Government” were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
  2. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an “enemy combatant” (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to “render” such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

But did they round up dissidents 9/11 Truthers and suppress any anti war or 9/11 Truth demonstrations?

No, on 9/12 we went back to shopping.

37 Comments on "9/11 Truth Finally Arrives at Daily Kos"

  1. Vox Cloaca | Aug 27, 2010 at 8:33 am |

    Is this a joke?

    How can someone earn a Ph.D.write so incoherently?

    Ah, yes: a Ph.D. in “cultural studies” or “critical theory” or other gibberish that masquerades as advanced thought in America's humanities departments.

    A Physicist Experiments With Cultural Studies

    Alan D. Sokal
    Department of Physics
    New York University
    4 Washington Place
    New York, NY 10003 USA
    Internet: SOKAL@NYU.EDU
    Telephone: (212) 998-7729
    Fax: (212) 995-4016

    The displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is — second only to American political campaigns — the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time.

    — Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism (1990)

    For some years I've been troubled by an apparent decline in the standards of intellectual rigor in certain precincts of the American academic humanities. But I'm a mere physicist: if I find myself unable to make head or tail of jouissance and différance, perhaps that just reflects my own inadequacy.

    So, to test the prevailing intellectual standards, I decided to try a modest (though admittedly uncontrolled) experiment: Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies — whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross — publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions?

    The answer, unfortunately, is yes. Interested readers can find my article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,'' in the Spring/Summer 1996 issue of Social Text. It appears in a special number of the magazine devoted to the “Science Wars.''

    What's going on here? Could the editors reallynot have realized that my article was written as a parody?

    In the first paragraph I deride “the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook'':

    that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in “eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the “objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

    Is it now dogma in Cultural Studies that there exists no external world? Or that there exists an external world but science obtains no knowledge of it?

    In the second paragraph I declare, without the slightest evidence or argument, that “physical `reality' [note the scare quotes] … is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.'' Not our theoriesof physical reality, mind you, but the reality itself. Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)

    Throughout the article, I employ scientific and mathematical concepts in ways that few scientists or mathematicians could possibly take seriously. For example, I suggest that the “morphogenetic field'' — a bizarre New Age idea due to Rupert Sheldrake — constitutes a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity. This connection is pure invention; even Sheldrake makes no such claim. I assert that Lacan's psychoanalytic speculations have been confirmed by recent work in quantum field theory. Even nonscientist readers might well wonder what in heavens' name quantum field theory has to do with psychoanalysis; certainly my article gives no reasoned argument to support such a link.

    Later in the article I propose that the axiom of equality in mathematical set theory is somehow analogous to the homonymous concept in feminist politics. In reality, all the axiom of equality states is that two sets are identical if and only if they have the same elements. Even readers without mathematical training might well be suspicious of the claim that the axiom of equality reflects set theory's “nineteenth-century liberal origins.''

    In sum, I intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or mathematician (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize that it is a spoof. Evidently the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.

    The fundamental silliness of my article lies, however, not in its numerous solecisms but in the dubiousness of its central thesis and of the “reasoning'' adduced to support it. Basically, I claim that quantum gravity — the still-speculative theory of space and time on scales of a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter — has profound politicalimplications (which, of course, are “progressive''). In support of this improbable proposition, I proceed as follows: First, I quote some controversial philosophical pronouncements of Heisenberg and Bohr, and assert (without argument) that quantum physics is profoundly consonant with “postmodernist epistemology.'' Next, I assemble a pastiche — Derrida and general relativity, Lacan and topology, Irigaray and quantum gravity — held together by vague rhetoric about “nonlinearity'', “flux'' and “interconnectedness.'' Finally, I jump (again without argument) to the assertion that “postmodern science'' has abolished the concept of objective reality. Nowhere in all of this is there anything resembling a logical sequence of thought; one finds only citations of authority, plays on words, strained analogies, and bald assertions.

    In its concluding passages, my article becomes especially egregious. Having abolished reality as a constraint on science, I go on to suggest (once again without argument) that science, in order to be “liberatory,'' must be subordinated to political strategies. I finish the article by observing that “a liberatory science cannot be complete without a profound revision of the canon of mathematics.'' We can see hints of an “emancipatory mathematics,'' I suggest, “in the multidimensional and nonlinear logic of fuzzy systems theory; but this approach is still heavily marked by its origins in the crisis of late-capitalist production relations.'' I add that “catastrophe theory, with its dialectical emphases on smoothness/discontinuity and metamorphosis/unfolding, will indubitably play a major role in the future mathematics; but much theoretical work remains to be done before this approach can become a concrete tool of progressive political praxis.'' It's understandable that the editors of Social Text were unable to evaluate critically the technical aspects of my article (which is exactly why they should have consulted a scientist). What's more surprising is how readily they accepted my implication that the search for truth in science must be subordinated to a political agenda, and how oblivious they were to the article's overall illogic.

    Why did I do it? While my method was satirical, my motivation is utterly serious. What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking: one that denies the existence of objective realities, or (when challenged) admits their existence but downplays their practical relevance. At its best, a journal like Social Textraises important questions that no scientist should ignore — questions, for example, about how corporate and government funding influence scientific work. Unfortunately, epistemic relativism does little to further the discussion of these matters.

    In short, my concern over the spread of subjectivist thinking is both intellectual and political. Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is that they are false (when not simply meaningless). There isa real world; its properties are notmerely social constructions; facts and evidence domatter. What sane person would contend otherwise? And yet, much contemporary academic theorizing consists precisely of attempts to blur these obvious truths — the utter absurdity of it all being concealed through obscure and pretentious language.

    Social Text's acceptance of my article exemplifies the intellectual arrogance of Theory — meaning postmodernist literarytheory — carried to its logical extreme. No wonder they didn't bother to consult a physicist. If all is discourse and “text,'' then knowledge of the real world is superfluous; even physics becomes just another branch of Cultural Studies. If, moreover, all is rhetoric and “language games,'' then internal logical consistency is superfluous too: a patina of theoretical sophistication serves equally well. Incomprehensibility becomes a virtue; allusions, metaphors and puns substitute for evidence and logic. My own article is, if anything, an extremely modest example of this well-established genre.

    Politically, I'm angered because most (though not all) of this silliness is emanating from the self-proclaimed Left. We're witnessing here a profound historical volte-face. For most of the past two centuries, the Left has been identified with science and against obscurantism; we have believed that rational thought and the fearless analysis of objective reality (both natural and social) are incisive tools for combating the mystifications promoted by the powerful — not to mention being desirable human ends in their own right. The recent turn of many “progressive'' or “leftist'' academic humanists and social scientists toward one or another form of epistemic relativism betrays this worthy heritage and undermines the already fragile prospects for progressive social critique. Theorizing about “the social construction of reality'' won't help us find an effective treatment for AIDS or devise strategies for preventing global warming. Nor can we combat false ideas in history, sociology, economics and politics if we reject the notions of truth and falsity.

    The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting intellectually lazy. The editors of Social Textliked my article because they liked its conclusion: that “the content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project.'' They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion.

    Of course, I'm not oblivious to the ethical issues involved in my rather unorthodox experiment. Professional communities operate largely on trust; deception undercuts that trust. But it is important to understand exactly what I did. My article is a theoretical essay based entirely on publicly available sources, all of which I have meticulously footnoted. All works cited are real, and all quotations are rigorously accurate; none are invented. Now, it's true that the author doesn't believe his own argument. But why should that matter? The editors' duty as scholars is to judge the validity and interest of ideas, without regard for their provenance. (That is why many scholarly journals practice blind refereeing.) If the Social Texteditors find my arguments convincing, then why should they be disconcerted simply because I don't? Or are they more deferent to the so-called “cultural authority of technoscience'' than they would care to admit?

    In the end, I resorted to parody for a simple pragmatic reason. The targets of my critique have by now become a self-perpetuating academic subculture that typically ignores (or disdains) reasoned criticism from the outside. In such a situation, a more direct demonstration of the subculture's intellectual standards was required. But how can one show that the emperor has no clothes? Satire is by far the best weapon; and the blow that can't be brushed off is the one that's self-inflicted. I offered the Social Texteditors an opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual rigor. Did they meet the test? I don't think so.

    I say this not in glee but in sadness. After all, I'm a leftist too (under the Sandinista government I taught mathematics at the National University of Nicaragua). On nearly all practical political issues — including many concerning science and technology — I'm on the same side as the Social Texteditors. But I'm a leftist (and feminist) becauseof evidence and logic, not in spite of it. Why should the right wing be allowed to monopolize the intellectual high ground?

    And why should self-indulgent nonsense — whatever its professed political orientation — be lauded as the height of scholarly achievement?

    Alan Sokal is a Professor of Physics at New York University. He is co-author with Roberto Fernández and Jürg Fröhlich of Random Walks, Critical Phenomena, and Triviality in Quantum Field Theory(Springer, 1992), and co-author with Jean Bricmont of the forthcoming Les impostures scientifiques des philosophes (post-)modernes.


    Thus, general relativity forces upon us radically new and counterintuitive notions of space, time and causality; so it is not surprising that it has had a profound impact not only on the natural sciences but also on philosophy, literary criticism, and the human sciences. For example, in a celebrated symposium three decades ago on Les Langages Critiques et les Sciences de l'Homme, Jean Hyppolite raised an incisive question about Jacques Derrida's theory of structure and sign in scientific discourse … Derrida's perceptive reply went to the heart of classical general relativity:

    The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability–it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something–of a center starting from which an observer could master the field–but the very concept of the game …

    In mathematical terms, Derrida's observation relates to the invariance of the Einstein field equation Gμν = 8πTμν tex2html_wrap_inline112 under nonlinear space-time diffeomorphisms (self-mappings of the space-time manifold which are infinitely differentiable but not necessarily analytic). The key point is that this invariance group “acts transitively'': this means that any space-time point, if it exists at all, can be transformed into any other. In this way the infinite-dimensional invariance group erodes the distinction between observer and observed; the tex2html_wrap_inline114 of Euclid and the G of Newton, formerly thought to be constant and universal, are now perceived in their ineluctable historicity; and the putative observer becomes fatally de-centered, disconnected from any epistemic link to a space-time point that can no longer be defined by geometry alone.

    • justagirl | Aug 27, 2010 at 8:44 am |

      LOL!!!! GROSS!! you are a clown.

    • may I make a suggestion….as a non physicist, and I think I can write for the majority of the readers of Disinformation who aren't physicists either, if you're going to try to make a point about the decline of intellectual integrity in a post, don't write it with such scientific speak and long drawn out explanations. Water it down please. You're not writing a post for the New England Journal of Physics or whatever scientific publications physicists publish in.

    • GoodDoktorBad | Aug 27, 2010 at 2:01 pm |

      Thankyou Rodney McKay….

  2. Wow, that rant is totally insane. Another numb nut giving “truthers” a bad name. Is the CIA paying you?

    • One might ask you the same question. Peddling and supporting conspiracy theories could help the C.I.A. weed out undesirable political ideologies. You have to admit, it's a good idea and one I'm sure is presently being exercised, unless I'm overestimating their intelligence. The “truthers,” as they have become known, may indeed all be disinformation agents for the government, letting the it know whom to monitor more closely, or maybe I've been watching too much “X-Files” again.

  3. “Mentioning DailyKos to outsiders will provoke a rant about a leftwing gatekeeper website populated by left wing ignorant kooks kept in line by a sexist man working for the CIA.”

    Actually, mentioning DailyKos generally provokes a shrug of indifference, because most of the Lefties I know haven't read that site for at least 5 years. DailyKos may be the “center of all things Liberal” for douchebags like Bill O'Reilly, but most Lefties could give a flying fuck about it, as it's not their primary source of info anyways.

  4. I wonder if the professionals who demolish buildings sit around and say “shit, why are we wasting our time carefully placing explosives and doing all the structural mechanics maths when all we need to do is fly a fucking plane into the thing”

  5. Well played.

  6. IhateIdiots | Aug 27, 2010 at 10:40 am |

    Wow, super disinfo, this guy is presenting more hearsay and half truths than a truther. We dont KNOW exactly what went down and who was involved and to what extent. Im sick of all of these fucking idiots on both sides claiming that they know exactly what took place… I think that we need a real investigation… Oh wait, the evidence is destroyed… hah. Maybe this fag should concentrate on something that is actually going to have an effect on us currently. Liiiiiike…. Cybersecurity. Or there will be no more shitty articles for you!!! But yeah, 911 was an inside job. Thats where REAL PHYSICAL evidence points anyways, but like i said, i dont know shit. I was not there.

  7. Other Mr T (dont pity fools) | Aug 27, 2010 at 10:43 am |

    Sorry to have read all this – look, this is ancient history. The real conspiracies are far more bizzare and improbable than any of the silly crap from the 'truthers'. I won't read diddlycuss,but if they are now pimping 9-11 internet conspiracy theories it can only mean one thing: It's getting close to election time and it's time to start slinging whatever crap is lying around at the republicans. Internet culture supplies whatever shit one may need to grab to fling at whoever your gang's political opposition happens to be. Why is this hard to figure out?

  8. Bush exploited 911 for poltical gain and he used it to con this nation into an unneccessary war. He hid the cost of the war from the budget and his master Darth Cheney enriched Halliburton via socialism.

    Will Katherine Smith who wrote the above article please explain to the dead soldier's the humor in Bush Jr's WMD joke, nope it's not under there, ha ha ha hee hee smirk smirk. And you thought his jokes were bad.

    By the way Bush Jr's fine clothes wasn't cheap, the tax payers ought to know it, he bankrupted the country.

  9. myth_slayer | Aug 27, 2010 at 12:19 pm |

    I normally don't read DailKos, nor that clownish HuffPost (both practise censorship).

    I can readily believe the author of this nonsensical drivel is working on psychohistory, as that truly befits a psycho.

    Anyone remotely curious about 9/11 need only look into the background of the passengers aboard those 4 airliners on that horrendous day.

    In over 80% of homicides, the victims know their murderers.

  10. Since when have sarcasm, derision, deflection, and downright ignorance been acceptable tools for scholars to employ in their arguments? She seems to think that the truther's main motivation is to pin the attack on Bush out of a political dislike. I can say I've never met a truther who didn't also abhor religious extremists, and as a Libertarian I don't have a desire to see Bush vilified, I only have a desire to see more transparency in government. She clearly started with an agenda and filled in the blanks with what she apparently thought were witticisms. There's nothing constructive here, only dismissive.

  11. If a Picture is worth a thousand words…. Feel free to do the math with this compressed video's frame count.
    I'd much rather watch this bit of Truth than your long drawn out state apologia.


    For everything you said. None of it begins to touch the truth of the matter.

    How do you explain a 47 story building that is one of the most secure buildings in the world crumbling in such a manner from superficial structural damage and random office fires??

  12. This post is puzzling. I can't tell if it's serious or not, and stopped taking it seriously after “pinko retards.”

  13. I have difficulty telling which parts of this are quotes and which are the author's commentary. Perhaps some formatting editing is in order?

  14. 16 comments so far and no one figured it out.

  15. “The site is controlled by the CIA…”

    Aaaand you immediately lost me.

    Disinfo is rapidly becoming the most embarrassing fucking website on the net. Can anyone just post anything here? Coz I got a theory about this monster that is TOTALLY REAL but it's always right behind my head so no matter how fast I turn to see it I can never quite catch it.

    GOT YO-… Tricky fucker got me again.

  16. I followed this from Live Journal because I was interested in what someone thought was so important that they didn't have to include a 'cut'. But I gave up reading the article on the third line. If Katherine Smith can not be bothered to run her piece through a spell corrector than I can not be bothered to read it.

  17. WoW! What a bunch of obsolete retarded wankers! This article is 100% snookie-stupid insulting and obviously written by morons beyond belief. So, I`ll just be insulting and therefore make this very simple so you disinfo sociopaths will all understand; I can`t believe only one douche “author” managed to write all this bs down. Everyone responsible for this utter garbage should be transported to Gitmo and had their reproductive organs removed and then be forced to eat them. You guys are actually that stupid and gullible (evil). It`s sad, but I`ll admit it does crack me up. PS Vote Palin for President 2012. That will make a great final season for Jersey Shore.

    Regards from Norway, yeah, the country that gave the leader of the free world the peace price…LMAO!

    Don`t bother responding, I can`t stomach more laughter.

    • So very true.

      There`s just one thing though, it`s peace priZe.

      ..Just so Katherine (typo) Smith or any of the other misfits won`t get to it first and bash you for that. I know how these rejects work.

      You`re welcome 🙂

  18. One might ask you the same question. Peddling and supporting conspiracy theories could help the C.I.A. weed out undesirable political ideologies. You have to admit, it’s a good idea and one I’m sure is presently being exercised, unless I’m overestimating their intelligence. The “truthers,” as they have become known, may indeed all be disinformation agents for the government, letting the it know whom to monitor more closely, or maybe I’ve been watching too much “X-Files” again.

  19. Ok…I’m sorry but your writing is very disorganized and unclear, which side of this debate are you supporting?(?)
    Which theory do you think actually holds water.

  20. Ok…I’m sorry but your writing is very disorganized and unclear, which side of this debate are you supporting?(?)
    Which theory do you think actually holds water.

  21. I cannot discern whether Katherine is supporting or shooting down the 9/11 truthers,although I do suspect she is 12 years old and loves her mommy 🙂

  22. I cannot discern whether Katherine is supporting or shooting down the 9/11 truthers,although I do suspect she is 12 years old and loves her mommy 🙂

  23. Quote…’Any explanation for the tragedy of September 11 must start and end with the facts. Those of us who live in the real world use the methods of science, the protocols of investigation’

    Yes, that is exactly what was supposed to happen. If the evidence is looked at, not just the evidence that was looked at, I mean all the credible and scientifically gathered evidence, then you will see many troublesome contradictions with the official account. Would you like to be convicted of a bank robbery say, when the police hadnt even bothered to find out you were in the bahamas at the time? no, a full investigation leaves very few contradictions, not very many.

    As for the protocols of investigation, the ‘rule book’ was supposidly thrown out while the rescue effort was underway and normal protocols of investigation were not undertaken because of the severity of the incident.

    So how it can be asserted that all the findings of an easily disprovable official account based on an unusually lax investigative protocol?

    I dont claim to know, I claim we dont know because we didnt look very well.

  24. Quote…’Any explanation for the tragedy of September 11 must start and end with the facts. Those of us who live in the real world use the methods of science, the protocols of investigation’

    Yes, that is exactly what was supposed to happen. If the evidence is looked at, not just the evidence that was looked at, I mean all the credible and scientifically gathered evidence, then you will see many troublesome contradictions with the official account. Would you like to be convicted of a bank robbery say, when the police hadnt even bothered to find out you were in the bahamas at the time? no, a full investigation leaves very few contradictions, not very many.

    As for the protocols of investigation, the ‘rule book’ was supposidly thrown out while the rescue effort was underway and normal protocols of investigation were not undertaken because of the severity of the incident.

    So how it can be asserted that all the findings of an easily disprovable official account based on an unusually lax investigative protocol?

    I dont claim to know, I claim we dont know because we didnt look very well.

  25. Katherine Smith’s article is basic balderdash!

  26. Katherine Smith’s article is basic balderdash!

  27. Anonymous | Dec 1, 2010 at 7:30 am |

    This “article” is the most retarded piece of shit I’ve ever seen. Did Ann Coulter write this under a phony name or someone from a US intel agency? Maybe this literary turd is the lovechild of a wild night of crazed, three-way butt sex between Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

  28. orwellsworstnightmare | Dec 1, 2010 at 3:30 am |

    This “article” is the most retarded piece of shit I’ve ever seen. Did Ann Coulter write this under a phony name or someone from a US intel agency? Maybe this literary turd is the lovechild of a wild night of crazed, three-way butt sex between Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

  29. You have to be a complete moron to believe that 911 was anything other than a military black-op. These are the same people that think Oswald shot Kennedy.

  30. You have to be a complete moron to believe that 911 was anything other than a military black-op. These are the same people that think Oswald shot Kennedy.

Comments are closed.