An Orwellian America By Gordon T. Long March

 

An Orwellian America By Gordon T. Long March 16, 2013

posted by Joe on sat, 03/16/2013 – 9:03pm

An Orwellian America

By Gordon T. Long

March 16, 2013 “Information Clearing House –Zero Hedge” – As a young man, I voraciously read George Orwell’s “1984”,  Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Alvin Toffler’s trilogy which included “Future Shock”‘, “The Third Wave” and “Power Shift”. During the era of the Vietnam War, I wondered seriously about the future and how it was destined to unfold. Now being considerably older, I have the vantage point to reflect back on my early ruminations and expectations. Unfortunately, I am too old to alter the lessons that are now so painfully obvious. Instead, I pass the gauntlet to those who can understand and take action on what I have unavoidably come to expect for America.

A FRAMEWORK OF UNDERSTANDING

THE ‘HUXLEY-ORWELL’ TRANSITION

I recently read a perceptive paper by Chris Hedges that would have made any English Professor envious, powerfully philosophical but not something an Economics department would pay much attention to. I found it both intriguing and enlightening.

I have borrowed so heavily from it, that I am unsure where the lines diverge. Therefore, below I give full credit to Chris Hedges and take full credit for all the bad ideas.

Chris Hedges of TruthDig.com wrote 2011: A Brave New Dystopia, from which the following evolved.

The two greatest visions of a future dystopia were George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World.” The debate, between those who watched our descent towards corporate totalitarianism, was who was right. Would we be, as Orwell wrote, dominated by a repressive surveillance and security state that used crude and violent forms of control? Or would we be, as Huxley envisioned, entranced by entertainment and spectacle, captivated by technology and seduced by profligate consumption to embrace our own oppression? It turns out Orwell and Huxley were both right. Huxley saw the first stage of our enslavementOrwell saw the second.

We have been gradually disempowered by a corporate state that, as Huxley foresaw, seduced and manipulated us through:

•    Sensual gratification,
•    Cheap mass-produced goods,
•    Boundless credit,
•    Political theater and
•    Amusement.

While we were entertained,

•    The regulations that once kept predatory corporate power in check were dismantled,
•    The laws that once protected us were rewritten and
•    We were impoverished.

Now that:

•    Credit is drying up,
•    Good jobs for the working class are gone forever and
•    Mass-produced goods are unaffordable,

            …. we find ourselves transported from “Brave New World” to “1984.”

The state, crippled by massive deficits, endless war and corporate malfeasance, is clearly sliding toward unavoidable bankruptcy.

It is time for Big Brother to take over from Huxley’s feelies, the orgy-porgy and the centrifugal bumble-puppy.

We are transitioning from a society where we are skillfully manipulated by lies and illusions to one where we are overtly controlled.

Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell.

Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless. We are beginning to understand, as Karl Marx knew:

Unfettered and unregulated capitalism is a brutal and revolutionary force that exploits human beings and the natural world until exhaustion or collapse.

UNSOUND MONEY LEADS TO STATISM

With this as a backdrop let’s explore how Unsound Money in concert with the Huxley-Orwell Transition leads to Statism, the path which I believe we are presently on.

THE CATALYSTS BEHIND THE “TRANSITION”

1- UNSOUND MONEY

•    Removal from Gold Standard and adoption of Fiat Currency regime (in August 1971 during the winding down of the Vietnam War; the first War ever fought without tax increases to pay for it; the beginning of endless ‘conflicts’ and the War on “Terror”).
•    Creation and Fostering of a $67 Trillion Shadow Banking Credit Growth,
•    Massive Securitization & Off Balance Sheet Contingent Liability Debt Growth.

2- POLICY FAILURES

•    Failed Monetary Policy & Monetary Malpractice,
•    Moral Malady,
•    Failed Fiscal Policy,
•    Failed Public Policy,
•    Growth of Political Polarization,
•    Entrenched ‘Left-Right’ Factions,
•    An Un-Governable Democracy.

3- CRISIS OF TRUST

•    Lost Respect & Confidence
•    A Doomed Middle Class
•    A Broken Social Contract

4- AUTHORITARIAN ACCEPTANCE

•    Central Planning
•    Growth in Regulations & Control
•    Crony Capitalism & Corporatocracy
•    Big Government
•    The Huxley – Orwell Transition

CRUMBLING BARRIERS

•    The Great Huxley-Orwell Transition
•    From Manipulative to Repressive

ROADBLOCKS
•    Financial Security through Sound Money            REMOVED
•    Reduced Personal Freedoms through a Crisis         PENDING
•    Reduced Personal Security through a Constitutional Crisis    FUTURE   

DRIVERS
•    Globalization & Complexity
o    Fragile versus Robust Systems
o    Interconnectivity and Counter Party Dependency

•    The Productivity Paradox
o    Creative Destruction & Job Creation

Let’s shift gears and consider what “greases the skids” in enabling this transition in our society to occur.  

COLLECTIVISM

In The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek showed how governments, supported by a collectivist mindset, always tend towards totalitarianism. Even the most libertarian government thus far created, the government of the United States, has slipped incrementally towards totalitarianism over the past two centuries. This is because it is an inherent trait of a government.

The degree of socialism in the United States increased substantially after the establishment of the Federal Reserve System (1913) and the measures taken during the Great Depression (1929-46) which it created. Ever since the early 1900’s the United States has had a two-party system dominated by ‘socialists’. The Republican Party has always advocated conservative socialism. The Democratic Party, which in the 19th century favored libertarianism, advocates social-democratic socialism. So long as people are divided by Left and Right, Democratic and Republican, the US is prone to being influenced by factions who transcend party politics and from behind the scenes could possible exert strong control over the United States. They could do this by maintaining power over public opinion and hence over the course of government. Steadily, the United States has been travelling down the road to totalitarianism, and many people have not noticed, possibly because they are only looking at the position on the Left-Right paradigm.

Upon further analysis, it is clear that Left, Right and Centre, are all forms of socialism. In particular, we may call them “social-democratic socialism” (the Left) and “conservative socialism” (the Right). They are both socialism because they both share the principle that the government should “run” and “mold” society, by using legal force and intervention to transfer property and personal wealth as part of the political scientists’ process of ‘redistribution of wealth’.

The differences are only in the particular ways the government should run society – the methods it should use, and who, exactly, should be the recipients of government wealth transfers and who should pay. In particular:
•    Social democrats tend to prefer heavy taxation, large wealth transfers to the poor, and nationalized industries, and oppose price controls, regulations and behavioral controls.
•    Conservatives tend to prefer lower taxation, a smaller welfare state, regulated (cartelized) industries, price controls, product  and behavioral controls.

Nolan Charts: Personal Freedom versus Economic Freedom

The modern Republican Party is Center-Right on the Left-Right paradigm. As with the Democratic Party, this obscures the huge range of views Republicans hold on how powerful and how much control the State should be allowed. Their 2008 presidential nominee John McCain, like Barack Obama, strongly favored socialism, though with a Right-wing flavor. Barack Obama (blue circle) and John McCain (red circle) are positioned in the accompanying graphic. Thus, the two main candidates at the 2008 Presidential election represented a false choice – really no choice at all. One candidate, Ron Paul (yellow circle), stood in stark contrast to the candidates, favored by the mainstream media and political establishment. As would be expected, he was neutralized by the mainstream media outlets as a zealot with an unsound political view of America.

THE POLITICAL CONTINUUM

THE EMERGING ROADMAP TO STATISM

Let me now develop and explore the roadmap that outlines the path leading from Policy Failures and Monetary Malpractice, stemming from Unsound Money, to STATISM.
First we will build the outline for the basis of a roadmap on a number of observable continuums.

The more complex that issues become, the more collectivism will dominate and individual needs will be repressed. In turn governments will be forced to be more repressive to maintain control over increasing polarization and diverse views and opinions.

EVOLVING STAGES
When we arrange our various continuums we arrive at the representative grid model shown below.

We will quickly acknowledge it is not ideal, but it allows many concepts currently at play to be shown in relationship to others.

This grid is best described as the social forces at play within Globalization – Financial, Economic and Political.

DRIVER$ – VISIBLE & INVISIBLE
There are both visible and less visible forces at play that are forcing ‘greasing’ the skids in the movement towards Statism.

The roadmap integrates well into our roadmap from our THESIS 2011: Beggar-Thy-Neighbor / Currency Wars and 2012 Thesis: Financial Repression papers. ()

ORWELL’S 1984 IS HAPPENING

We are one crisis away from a police state. All the powers are in place. Someone will flip the switch. Whether a Cyber Attack, escalating Currency War tensions or a ‘terrorist’ attack by indebted college youth, it is only a matter of time and circumstance.

Via Gordon T Long (pdf)

Advertisements

Bridging the Psychological Gap

by jay howard 

Skeptics and Conspiracies

There is no consensus among skeptics, except by accident. And typically for different reasons. Skeptics are my people. I understand them. A real skeptic is not afraid to question authority, nor does a skeptic oppose an idea because it originates from an authority. Skeptics are professional doubters–not inclined to a supposition until reasons can substantiate it. It is the analysis of these reasons that sets critical thinkers apart from the advertising-prone masses.

Which is why it pains me to see skeptics defending the official narrative of the WTC collapses without turning a critical eye on the details at its core. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of “truther” theories concerning the various aspects, and let me be clear: several non-official theories are far more outlandish than the official story. For instance:

  1. The “No Planes” theory
  2. The Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) theory
  3. Any theory that denies the existence of Islamic terrorists hijacking planes
  4. Any theory invoking “remote controlled” airplanes

There are more nonsense “truther” theories as well, but the point is clear: all theories must be judged on their merits against objective standards. The problem is that once a single “truther” theory is demonstrated to be false, that becomes ammunition to shoot down all “truther” theories, thus vindicating the official theory by default. This is called “ground clearing” and it does little to buoy the official theory, only to distract from actual analysis of the official theory.

The WTC7 collapse is, by far, the most powerful prima facie evidence against the official theory–pointing not to any particular conclusion, but most poignantly to the fact that something about the dynamics of the collapse of building 7 is not being understood or explained correctly by the experts commissioned to do so. For many skeptics of the official theory, the video of WTC7 collapsing at around 5:20 pm that day was the wake-up call to investigate further. Yes, WTC1 and 2 looked strangely energetic and not simply a “collapse,” but we could always chalk that up our collective lack of context of the scale of the destruction. WTC7, however, was never hit by a plane. It suffered falling debris from the north tower and fires on several floors, but as yet, there has been no good explanation for why the internal structure gave way–nor especially how it failed in the particular way it did: as if it had all supporting structures severed simultaneously. (That’s 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns failing on several floors at precise intervals such that the building fell at free fall speed for some amount of time greater than 0 seconds.) There is simply not a clear explanation of how even a multi-story fire, even over several hours could induce that type of failure.

And yet, there are skeptics who in good faith, attempt to dismantle any suspicion surrounding the WTC7 collapse. The article published in Skeptic Magazine (9/11/2006) by author Phil Mole (the conspiracist in me laughs) attempts to close the door on any doubts surrounding any government involvement of any aspect of the attacks that day.

Initially, Mole asks us to doubt the similarities between conventional controlled demolition (CD) and the collapses of WTC 1 & 2. He makes a case for structural damage as root cause of the collapses based on the disparity between CD and the WTC collapses and anticipates the response to his argument:

A conspiracy theorist may counter that the buildings were rigged to begin falling from the top down, but what are the chances that those planning such a complicated demolition would be able to predict the exact location the planes would impact the towers, and prepare the towers to begin falling precisely there?

The chances of predicting which floor the planes would hit is without argument so unlikely as to be impossible. Even if someone went through the trouble to wire the buildings, hope the aircraft get hijacked without incident, etc. how could they know which floor the planes would hit? But this is a lazy case for dismissal. It’s lazy because it assumes two things which aren’t very likely:

  1. The planners were unable to predict that issue and plan for it, and
  2. Technology does not exist to easily overcome this:

Remote control: A remote control detonator is much like a wire command detonator except without the wire. Its done by radio signal. The range of the transmitter and the number of frequencies it is capable of working on varies according to price. The receivers can be set to any frequency the owner wishes.

Radio detonation devices have been around for decades. Combined with emulation software, in the hands of a professional, they can play Beethoven on a structure. The ability to detonate from any given floor would be a requirement of this operation. What fool would leave that to chance? One thing can be postulated with confidence: if there was an actual plot to facilitate the destruction of the towers we can be sure it would be perpetrated by professionals. Mole’s case for dismissal is hardly serious.

But Mole’s just warming up.

The first plane struck the North Tower (Building 1) between the 94th to 98th floors and hit it head on, burrowing almost directly toward the core of the building. The second airplane struck the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building.4 Compared with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building’s frame, requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the corresponding crash site on the North Tower. This explains both the tilt of the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was struck.

Here Mole speaks anecdotally to explain the 58 minute collapse of WTC 2–the last hit but the first to fall. And admittedly, 58 minutes seems a short amount of time. But so is the 102 minutes it took for Building 1 to fall. And even the 8 hours it took for WTC 7 to fall seems exceedingly fast and violent compared to the damage done. But this is just a feeling. The point remains: comparing the fall times of these buildings as “slow,” “medium” and “fast” does little to clarify the official explanation, nor, more importantly, does it help to clarify the mechanisms that actually caused the collapses.

Secondly, Mole employs an “is-ought” argument for nature of the destruction witnessed. This is indicative of an uniquisitive thought process that essentially says “well, of course it happened that way!” Even though the South Tower was the second building hit and was hit at an incidental angle compared to the North Tower, Mole makes a perceptional argument, saying in essence, “intuition does not serve us well in this situation because the South Tower, although hit later and less directly than the North Tower, was a more catastrophic blow by virtue of the asymmetrical damage–not in spite of it as would seem more in line with basic physics.” As in much of the NIST literature regarding the collapses, the theoretical cart is put before the forensic horse.

After giving birth to that turd of a non-argument, Mole moves on to the issue of the fire temperatures upon which so much hinges:

… most agree that the temperature probably reached 1,000° Fahrenheit and possibly higher than 1,800° F. Flames of this temperature would be far short of the approximately 2800° F needed to melt steel, but they would have been sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal.

My emphasis. This central tenet of the official story acknowledges that the only fuel sources in the WTC complex at the time in any real volume were hydrocarbon sources, wood, paper and plastics ignited by kerosene. With this acknowledgment comes the additional requirement that the fires be hot enough to cause the massive and violent structural damage we all witnessed that day. To this end, supporters of the official theory have made much use of misunderstanding the difference between gas temperature and material temperature. Mole is no exception:

Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse.

Temperature of what? After reading this, I cannot help but picture Mole in a wide-collar, polyester suit and a fake-ass smile waving a brochure for a “once in a lifetime opportunity”. No thanks, Phil. First and foremost, what temperatures is Mole referring to? Gas? Surfaces? It is poor science to say the least, to conflate the maximum temperature of a heat source with the maximum temperature of a material that may or may not have been exposed to that source. This point is so basic, I feel like making it explicit will insult your intelligence. Yet, Mole writes his piece with authority, as if his word puts the issue to bed once and for all.

Office fire simulations conducted by Underwriters Laboratories under the direction of NIST found that temperatures went above 1000F for only a few of the tests, and when it did, it could not sustain it for much more than 8 or 10 minutes. They used a variety of materials but through the course of testing found that the surrogate material combinations of wood, paper, plastic and hydrocarbon fuels were irrelevant to the outcome of the tests: a little over 1000F for about 10 minutes was simply as hot as they were going to get.

The one factor which affected the outcome most was material arrangement. Several simulations broke down the furniture and various surrogates into piles. Not surprisingly, the heat curve went higher, but for a shorter amount of time than the undisturbed, more fuel-scattered tests. The results support Eagar and Musso’s original estimates of a maximum gas temperature of about 1100F, but with the added knowledge that these temperatures could not have been sustained for more than about 10 or maybe 20 minutes at most.

Furthermore, NIST acknowledges early on that of all the steel they sampled (which amounted to approximately 1% of all the steel) the hottest exposure temperatures they could document were about 250C or just under 500F. Yet it seems Mole, as well as NIST, must presume the existence of higher temperature-exposed steel despite the fact that the only steel in the official record found to have gotten hotter was the mysteriously melted steel reported in the FEMA/BPAT Appendix C report:

Evidence of a high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near surface microstructure.

It is unclear why supporters of the official conspiracy theory are so incurious about these samples. Given that one sample is definitely from WTC 7 and the other sample is either from WTC 1 or 2, this cannot be dismissed as an isolated event. Given that there are first-hand account of molten steel, these samples seem to fall into the category of corroborative evidence for such. Unsurprisingly, Mole is neither willing to mention the FEMA/BPAT study nor take the accounts of eye witnesses seriously:

… the sources in question are informal observations of “steel” at Ground Zero, not laboratory results. To many people, any grayish metal looks sufficiently like steel to call it “steel” when speaking informally. To actually establish that the substance in question is steel, we need analytical laboratory results using atomic absorption (AA) or another suitable test. It seems far more likely that the metal seen by the contractors was aluminum, a component of the WTC structural material that melts at a much lower temperature than steel and can look superficially similar to it.

My emphasis. But we do NOT need to take anyone’s word for the melted steel recovered by the FEMA/BPAT team, yet there is not even an acknowledgment of its existence by Mole. Why not? And how “superficial” is the similarity of molten steel to molten aluminum? And so, with a couple of passing comments, Mole washes his hands of any and all considerations of molten steel or iron.

So, I have to ask Phil Mole: Why didn’t you consider all the evidence surrounding molten steel and iron when you were dismissing the non-official accounts of what happened to the WTC complex? Why didn’t you consider the FEMA/BPAT report or the USGS report which contained evidence of extremely high temperature reactions? Why not take into account all the evidence before making a judgment in regard to the legitimacy of non-official theories of the collapses?

Until you make yourself clear, we can only assume.

I am not the first to respond to this, as it has been more than 2 years since the article first appeared in Skeptic Magazine, however, my objective was to make these issues accessible in a quasi-Socratic method, that is, by allowing the reader to make up his own mind when presented with unpolished facts

The disaster of manufactured consent in the Matrix

U.S. Army PSYOP Force structure
U.S. Army PSYOP Force structure (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Jon Rappoport
Infowars.com
March 16, 2013

This article may seem to be about abstract theory, but it isn’t. It’s about how populations are viewed by psychological-operations specialists.

More importantly, it’s about how people are led to accept substitutes for their own highest ideals. The substitutes look like the real thing, but they’re actually very well drawn cartoons.

The most successful long-terms psyops are aimed at getting people to accept “good things, wonderful things.” Except, it turns out that these things magically evaporate and leave populations in the lurch.

Imagine for a moment that every crisis we now find ourselves in, every form of pollution and poisoning and every war and every mass destruction of life…was preceded and precipitated by…a psyop that looked like a golden destiny of fulfillment.

Okay. Let’s begin.

At some point, every intelligent human develops their own reality.

This reality isn’t usually a clear, articulated, and overall position. It tends to be a hodge-podge of linked ideas, preferences, feelings, principles, and morals.

Nevertheless, consciously and unconsciously, the person refers to it often, and uses it as a tool with which to navigate through life.

In the Matrix, there is pressure to have people connect their realities to each other. Why? Because groups can thus be created. Groups are easier to compromise than individuals.

We get the concept of hooked ideas. A hooked idea is one which will entice people to merge their realities into One. The hooked idea can be expressed as a slogan, a so-called meme, a principle. It is introduced by people who work psyops.

A psyop is a campaign to herd people into a place where their individual realities overlap.

For the propagandist, there is the eternal search for the good, better, and best hooking idea, the one that will collect the greatest possible number of people under one roof.

This has nothing to do with true progress or honest intent. It has everything to do with control.

Therefore, the actual content and substance and meaning of the hooking idea is irrelevant. A retired propaganda operative once told me, “If I could broadcast a piece of absolute gibberish from one end of the planet to the other, and have it picked up and consented to, I would do it.”

For a psyop specialist, the jackpot is a large group of hooked ideas that, taken together, change the world, and bring a billion or more people’s realities into one overlapping space.

Here is a current ongoing group of such hooked ideas. Before you read them, remember that the aim of such ideas is collecting people under AN IMITATION OF THE REAL THING.

Whatever meaning these hooked ideas have, they are not searching out people to move them into actual individual choices. No, the objective is to rope them under a fake banner that looks real.

“Help others. Help the needy. Raise up the needy. We’re all in this together. Greatest good. Greatest good for the greatest number. Humanity as one. Peace. Let’s all cooperate. The human family…”

This is only a partial list of the group of hooked ideas.

These ideas are transmitted to the global population through every means possible: ads, public service announcements, political speeches, movies, articles, books, the news, television shows of every type, the education system. It’s a blitz, and it doesn’t stop. All the angles are played.

The psyop calculation runs this way: the majority of people who buy in and connect their realities to other people’s realities and achieve overlap—will go passive and accept “the new humane society.” All these people are complete pawns.

The sector of people who buy in and thus share realities, collectively, and then DO something about it…these people will follow a prescribed path. They’ll join the approved groups and campaign for the chosen causes. They’re dupes.

The very small fraction of people who buy into the group of hooked ideas and think of them as genuine and real, and also DO something genuine and real and good about it, will create a manageable amount of disruption to the scheme and the objective—which by the way is a completely collectivist planet. The operative word here is “manageable.”

This same retired propaganda operative, who goes by the pseudonym of Ellis Medavoy (I interview him 28 times in one section of my collection, The Matrix Revealed), explained this “psyop calculation”:

“The target of a terrific psyop is yearning and longing. That’s what I looked for when I was working: what people long and yearn for. Something unformed and undefined but very powerful. That’s what I wanted to tap into.

“If I could tap into that, people would buy in and surrender a significant part of whatever their personal world looks like. Because they want to believe they’re coming together with like-minded others. They’ll also believe the path laid out for them is correct and proper and wonderful. This is really a fake religion we’re talking about.

“A fake religion. It’s really for children, and most people turn out to be children. Give them a group of high-minded ideas, and they’ll grab on and think everything they’ve done up to that moment is a prelude to THIS.

“We [operatives] are playing a symphony, you see, and once they listen to the prelude, they’re hooked. They stay. They long for the climax, which doesn’t exist; not the way they imagine it. To them it’s all about ‘arrival in the promised land,’ as if that’s some kind of gift that’s wrapped up under the tree, waiting to be opened.

“We give them a fake god, a dead-end god. If they were once burning with authentic faith, we derail that and take them to another place…”

In truth, there is no such thing as the sum of all personal realities. That concept is a delusion that is foisted on people.

As I stated at the beginning of this article, each person has their own reality. It may be a hodge-podge, it may be borrowed to some degree, but it IS the reality of the individual. Each person has the opportunity, if he takes it, to expand that reality and make it more profound, on his own terms.

But once he becomes mesmerized by the notion of overlapping his reality with others, he’s in a whole different pew.

Here is another very important distinction: you and I and others could, for example, decide to start a business. We could cooperate in this new enterprise. We could decide on common objectives. We could be inspired to a tremendous degree. But we are still—each of us—carrying along our individual realities. That’s what gives us our core individual strength. That’s what allows us to contribute to the group.

And we’re aware of what we’re doing. We’re choosing to do it.

That’s quite different from falling under the sway of a psyop. That’s quite different from buying into hooked ideas on a emotional level. That’s quite different from accepting the generalized idea of an emotional and spiritual merger of our personal realities.

In the latter case, what is happening is the supreme irony: people are buying the idea that their freedom actually equals their merging.

It is exactly this “merging” that obsessed technocrats are proposing. They see it in terms of humans and machines “coming together.” This is their envisioned promised land. The ability to instantly access trillions of pieces of information and do lightning-speed calculation and organize that information in countless ways is their version of personal revelation.

It’s their fake religion.

Humans and machines as One is, if you examine it, the sacrifice of personal reality.

Of course, technocrats don’t see it that way. But that’s what they’re doing. Information is only one component of personal reality—and they’re blowing that up into a god.

There is a sequence at work here. First, with the development of the computer, people could search and find information. Now, they can have computers anticipate what the desired information is and provide it. Finally, people will be given—quite apart from their desires—the information they require, as adjudicated by experts.

This has less and less to do with personal reality.

Manufactured consent in the Matrix is a bit of a misnomer. Manufactured consent IS the Matrix, at the most profound level.

Whatever a person has as his personal reality is something to build on. You might say it’s the engine by which he can set sail and voyage. And during his personally navigated voyage, he enlarges and changes his personal reality. It becomes more powerful. It becomes more a matter of imagination and a life lived through and by imagination.

In this light, cooperation with others takes on a whole new meaning. The longing and obsession to overlap his reality with that of others fades in importance.

His immunity to hooked ideas becomes stronger.

The very notion of what personal reality is changes. It is no longer simply a fixed configuration set in concrete.

The psyop is aimed at disintegrating the personal voyage.

It is aimed at flattening the emotions and shortening the perspective and short-circuiting the fire in the soul.

Hooked ideas and manufacturing consent and overlapping realities and merging are the tools used to deaden life and invent the collective future.

In that future, each person becomes a mirror that reflects every other person. And it turns out that there is no substance at all in the trillions of rebounding reflections.

The endless overlapping deletes all content.

Personal reality and the personal voyage are the WAKING UP that breaks the trance.

A great deal of history of the human race, littered as it is with suffering and pain and war and hunger, was produced by competing psyops.

Each side was utterly convinced that its ideals were superior. What neither side realized was that everybody, on all sides, was accepting a psyop substitute of their own personal reality. That was the big switch.

Each person on each side had bought into a hooking idea that looked so good and so right and so wonderful.

And each person was operating on a false basis. Each person had, without noticing it, misplaced his own personal reality.

You could accurately write, on many gravestones: “I died for a psyop.”

In this day and age, political leaders have entirely given up the notion of personal reality, if they even understand what it means. For them, it’s all about psyop, because they are thinking about mass and number and population. They are looking for central hooking ideas—the very best they can find—and how to express them and transmit them as convincingly as possible.

The major differences between these leaders are to be found in how well they function as mouthpieces for hooking ideas.

Freedom? Democracy? The will of the people? A better future for all? Equality? Justice? These are merely concepts in search of ways to run psyops.

 

9/11 Commission Deceived: An Unintentional Work of Fiction Based on Cheney’s Torture Program

 

The 9/11 Commission: A Victim of Cheney’s Torture Program

Preface:  This is not a partisan post. We have repeatedly documented that Obama is as bad or worse than the Bush administration.

In the run up to the Iraq war – and for several years thereafter – the program of torture carried out by the Bush administration was specifically specifically aimed at establishing a false justification for war. Dick Cheney is the guy who pushed for torturepressured the Justice Department lawyers to write memos saying torture was legal, and made the pitch to Congress justifying torture. (The former director of the CIA said Cheney oversaw American torture policies).

The type of torture used by the U.S. on the Guantanamo suspects is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. usedCommunist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating false confessions (see thisthisthis and this).

According to NBC News:

  • Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
  • At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured.”
  • One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was not even allowed to read
  • The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves

In fact, the 9/11 Commission Report was largely based on third-hand accounts of what tortured detainees said, with two of the three parties in the communication being government employees.

As the 9/11 Commission Report itself states:

Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these “detainees” have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot. Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses-sworn enemies of the United States-is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting.

In other words, the 9/11 Commissioners were not allowed to speak with the detainees, or even their interrogators. Instead, they got their information third-hand.

The Commission didn’t really trust the interrogation testimony. For example, one of the primary architects of the 9/11 Commission Report – Ernest May – said in May 2005:

We never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources.

New York Times investigative reporter Philip Shenon Newsweek noted in a 2009 essay in Newsweek that the 9/11 Commission Report was unreliable because most of the information was based on the statements of tortured detainees:

The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda’s history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.

The panel raised no public protest over the CIA’s interrogation methods, even though news reports at the time suggested how brutal those methods were. In fact, the commission demanded that the CIA carry out new rounds of interrogations in 2004 to get answers to its questions.

That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission’s final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain. [That’s what top military interrogators say.]

And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission’s report may have been subjected to “enhanced” interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, becauseof the 9/11 Commission….

Information from CIA interrogations of two of the three—KSM and Abu Zubaydahis cited throughout two key chapters of the panel’s report focusing on the planning and execution of the attacks and on the history of Al Qaeda. [Remember the names “KSM” and “Abu Zubaydah” – we’ll get back to them below.]

Footnotes in the panel’s report indicate when information was obtained from detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that more than a quarter of the report’s footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.

Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel’s behalf.

The commission’s report gave no hint that harsh interrogation methods were used in gathering information, stating that the panel had “no control” over how the CIA did its job; the authors also said they had attempted to corroborate the information “with documents and statements of others.”

But how could the commission corroborate information known only to a handful of people in a shadowy terrorist network, most of whom were either dead or still at large?

Former senator Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat on the commission [one of the 9/11 Commissioners], told me last year he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking. …

The Washington Post documents that Abu Zubaydah was literally crazy – as he head suffered a serious head injury years before 9/11 – and that the FBI agent involved in interrogating Abu Zubaydah and reviewing documents at his house (Daniel Coleman) said that everyone knew that Abu Zubaydah was an unreliable source for information.

This is confirmed by the the New Yorker. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Ron Suskind writes that interrogator Coleman advised a top FBI official at the time:

“This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality.”

Indeed, the government has since backed away from all claims that Abu Zubaydah had any role in Al Qaeda or 9/11. For example – in September 2009 – the U.S. government admitted in writing in a court proceeding that Abu Zubaydah had never been a member or associate or supporter of al-Qaeda, was not involved in 9/11, and had no prior knowledge of 9/11:

The Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner [Abu Zubaydah] was a member of al-Qaida or otherwise formally identified with al-Qaida.

Respondent [The United States Government] does not contend that Petitioner was a “member” of al-Qaida in the sense of having sworn a bayat (allegiance) or having otherwise satisfied any formal criteria that either Petitioner or al-Qaida may have considered necessary for inclusion in al-Qaida. Nor is the Government detaining Petitioner based on any allegation that Petitioner views himself as part of al-Qaida as a matter of subjective personal conscience, ideology, or worldview.

The Government has not contended in this proceeding that Petitioner had any direct role in or advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

***

The Government has not contended that Petitioner had any personal involvement in planning or executing either the 1998 embassy bombings… or the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Kevin Ryan – who has interviewed 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton, Abu Zubaydah’s attorney and other knowledgeable people – documents how central Abu Zubaydah is to the 9/11 Commission Report (footnotes omitted; see original for documentation)

The 9/11 Commission (falsely) called Zubaydah an “al Qaeda lieutenant.” The Joint Congressional inquiry did the same, calling him “al-Qa’ida leader Abu Zubaydah,” and the “Bin Ladin lieutenant captured in March 2002.” As late as 2006, the Justice Department’s Inspector General report on the 9/11 attacks called Zubaydah a “Bin Laden lieutenant.”

When Zubaydah was captured, in March 2002, U.S. government officials touted him as the biggest catch of the War on Terror, at least until the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that Zubaydah’s capture wouldhelp deter future attacks. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that Zubaydah could provide a treasure-trove of information about al-Qaeda. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that Zubaydah was “a man who knows of additional attacks”, who has “trained people to do this”, and was a big fish who had a fountain of knowledge.

The extensive allegations against Zubaydah went on and on, and included that he was:

  • along with KSM, one of “Al Qaeda’s top operational managers” – “Counterterrorism Czar”Richard Clarke, in his bookAgainst All Enemies
  • “sinister” and “there is evidence that he is a planner and a manager as well. I think he’s a major player.” – Former State Department director of counter-terrorism, Michael Sheehan
  • “extremely dangerous” and a planner of 9/11. – State Department legal advisor John B. Bellinger III in a June 2007 briefing.
  • a trainer, a recruiter, understood bomb-making, was a forger, a logistician, and someone who made things happen, andmade “al-Qaeda function.” – Former CIA station chief, Bob Grenier
  • “a close associate of UBL’s [i.e. Bin Laden], and if not the number two, very close to the number two person in the organization. I think that’s well established.” -Donald Rumsfeld
  • “a very senior al Qaeda official who has been intimately involved in a range of activities for the al Qaeda.” – Donald Rumsfeld
  • a “very senior al Qaeda operative.” – Donald Rumsfeld
  • a “key terrorist recruiter and operational planner and member of Osama bin Laden’s inner circle.” – White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
  • someone whose capture was a “very serious blow” to al-Qaeda and therefore one of al-Qaeda’s “many tentacles” was “cut off.” – White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
  • one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States.” –President George W. Bush
  • one of al-Qaeda’s top leaders” who was “spending a lot of time as one of the top operating officials of al Qaeda, plotting and planning murder.” –President George W. Bush
  • “al Qaeda’s chief of operations.” – President George W. Bush
  • “one of the top three leaders” in al-Qaeda. – President George W. Bush
  • someone whose interrogation “led to reliable information”, a “prolific producer” of information, with whom originated roughly25 percent of the information on al Qaeda that came from human sources. – [National Security Agency Director] Michael Hayden
  • one of three individuals “best positioned to know about impending terrorist atrocities.” – Michael Hayden

As the myth of Zubaydah grew, it was reported that he was –

  • “worth a ton of guys at Gitmo.”
  • a “senior bin Laden official” and the “former head of Egypt-based Islamic Jihad.”
  • “played a key role in the East Africa embassy attacks.”
  • listed as a “trusted aide” to bin Laden with “growing power.”
  • in control of al-Qaeda.
  • an aide of bin Laden who ran training camps in Afghanistan and “coordinated terror cells in Europe and North America.”
  • a “key terrorist recruiter, operational planner, and member of Osama Bin Laden’s inner circle.”
  • bin Laden’s CEO”, and “a central figure in Al Qaeda
  • Bin Laden’s “travel planner.”
  • “one of a handful of men entrusted with running the terrorism network in the event of Osama bin Laden’s death or capture.”
  • a senior bin Laden lieutenant who was believed “to be organizing al Qaida resources to carry out attacks on American targets.”
  • the fourth ranking member of al Qaeda behind Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Muhamed Atef.
  • someone who knew the identities of “thousands” of terrorists that passed through al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan
  • a colleague of Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber.
  • one of bin Laden’s top planners of terrorist operations who knew of al Qaeda plots and cells.
  • the “connection between bin Laden and many of al-Qaida’s operational cells.”
  • the source of information that UAL Flight 93 was intended to hit the White House.

Because we now know that Zubaydah was never an al Qaeda operative, or even an al Qaeda associate, we are forced into the stunning realization that all of this was false. The questions that should arise from that realization include: How much of what we know about al Qaeda, and how much of the War on Terror, was built on the torture testimony of a man who clearly could not have known anything about al Qaeda at all? [We’ve already documented that Cheney, Rumsfeld and the boys are guilty of war crimes for falsely using 9/11 as a justification for the Iraq war, and noted that Cheney admits that he lied about 9/11.]

***

But as we know now, the CIA reportedly told Abu Zubaydah during his interrogation that they discovered he was not an al-Qaeda fighter, partner, or even a member. Still, KSM and Bin Alshibh were caught and tortured too.

***

Given the apparent “mistakes” related to Zubaydah being represented as an al Qaeda leader, there appears to be some serious revision required in the official account of 9/11. However, realistically, at this late date the information attributed to Zubaydah cannot likely be untangled from the official myth behind the War on Terror and the associated actions of the U.S. government. That’s because the torture of Zubaydah was used in support of unprecedented policy changes and actions.

  • President Bush personally used the perceived value of Zubaydah’s capture and torture to justify the use of the CIA’s torture techniques as well as the detention of suspects in secret CIA prisons around the world.
  • The U.S. government used the questionable intelligence obtained from Zubaydah in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. Officials stated that the allegations that Iraq and al-Qaeda were linked through training people on the use of chemical weapons came from Zubaydah. There was no independent verification of these claims.
  • Zubaydah’s torture testimony was also used to justify the use of military tribunals, moving the trial of alleged al Qaeda suspects out of the open civil courts. President Bush asked Congress in a speech in September 2006 to formulate special rules in order to try Abu Zubaydah via military commission in Guantanamo Bay. In fact, in late April 2002 less than one month after Abu Zubaydah’s capture, Justice Department officials stated Abu Zubaydah “is a near-ideal candidate for a tribunal trial.” Ironically, Zubaydah may be the only leading suspect to never face trial.
  • In addition to justifying the use of illegal torture techniques, the Bush administration used Zubaydah’s capture as justification to accelerate its domestic spying program. The claim was that it would allow quick action on the phone numbers and addresses seized during Zubaydah’s capture.

How can the 9/11 Commission Report stand when one of the main sources for information was crazy, was tortured with a specific technique aimed at extracting false confessions, was never allowed to speak (first or second-hand) to the Commissioners, and was not even affiliated with Al Qaeda or 9/11?

The Other Main Source of Information Was Also Unreliable

The other main source for the Commission – KSM – the self-confessed “mastermind” of 9/11, also confessed to crimes which he could not have committed.

He later said that he gave the interrogators a lot of false information – telling them what he thought they wanted to hear – in an attempt to stop the torture. We also know that he was heavily tortured specifically for the purpose of trying to obtain false information about 9/11– specifically, that Iraq had something to do with it.

So the two main sources for the 9/11 Commission investigation were wholly unreliable.

Government Cover-Up of Unreliability of Witnesses

Moreover, certain government personnel went to great lengths to cover up how unreliable the information was.

For example, the CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

The chief lawyer for Guantanamo litigation – Vijay Padmanabhan – said that torture of 9/11 suspects was widespread. And Susan J. Crawford – the senior Pentagon official overseeing the military commissions at Guantánamo – told Bob Woodward:

We tortured Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture.

Indeed, 90 of the 92 videotapes that the CIA destroyed related to Abu Zubaydah.

Postscript: The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:

  • The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

And the Co-Chair of the official Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11 – and former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee – has called for a new 9/11 investigation.

Very high-level intelligence officials have also called the Commission’s findings into doubt:

  • A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials, and who has for years been a tireless anti-war advocate and critic of imperial foreign policy (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”
  • A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job
  • Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
  • Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) says “The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defense of incompetence”

Some other examples of obstruction of justice into the 9/11 investigation include:

  • An FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquirydiscovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:

    Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

  • The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses
  • The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements
  • As reported by ACLUFireDogLakeRawStory and many others, declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001

Peace IS Possible If We Remain Committed to the Truth

Global Research, March 13, 2013

 

In these turbulent times, we believe in using every possible means to bring accurate and timely information to our readers. With increased global militarization and financial instability, it is more important than ever to have a reliable news source that delivers the critical analysis that is ignored or manipulated by mainstream media. We are committed to curbing the tide of disinformation by stimulating public engagement and understanding. It’s time to come together and say NO to the US/NATO world order!

We invite you to subscribe to our free newsletter if you have not already done so, and also remember to forward our articles and videos to your friends and colleagues. And don’t forget to connect with us through FacebookTwitter and YouTube and keep spreading awareness.

“Global Research is a much-needed and potent antidote to the massive doses of disinformation administered to us daily by the mainstream media, including newspapers, magazines, and of course television. I urge you to subscribe to the Global Research newsletter and, if at all possible, to support Global Research financially.”
-Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, author of The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, James Lorimer & Company Ltd., Publishers, Toronto, 2002. (Click to browse articles by Dr. Pauwels)

We remind you that Global Research operates exclusively through the support of its readers, and does not accept funding from public or private sources. We continue to run on a shoestring budget in order to maintain our independence. Therefore, please consider making a contribution to Global Research through a membership or a donation of your choice. (New and renewing memberships qualify for a free book offer!)

The team at Global Research thanks all our readers for your continued support — peace IS possible if we remain committed to the truth.

Leaked Bradley Manning Audio Recording + Daniel Ellsberg: Secret Tape Refutes Media Slander

Dandelion Salad

Dandelion Salad

freepressfoundation·Mar 12, 2013

Leaked audio recording of Bradley Manning describing his response to the July 12, 2007 Baghdad Apache airstrike video that documented the killing of two Reuters journalists.

View original post 535 more words

AE911Truth Activists Reach Out to Democracy Now!

AE911Truth Activists Reach Out to Democracy Now!

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/728-ae911truth-act…

Will Amy Goodman Break the 9/11 Media Silence?
Is Amy Goodman part of the “silent majority” when it comes to questioning the official 9/11 story?
 photo Amy_Goodman_zps33945712.png

For a journalist, when something cannot be said, the silence is the most important story. Many people believe that Amy Goodman, host of the popular public radio and TV show Democracy Now!, is among the best when it comes to confronting people in power and asking hard questions. She may be one of the best, but her silence about 9/11 is stunning. For example, she has yet to tell her audience or her readers that nearly 2,000 architects and engineers – all verified and vetted – are calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11, citing evidence of controlled demolition. That should be headline news for a journalist whose self-described role is to report on alternative voices excluded by the mainstream media.

Goodman is an accomplished author and syndicated columnist, and Democracy Now! airs on more than 1,000 television and radio stations in 35 countries. She is the first journalist to receive the Right Livelihood Award, widely known as the “Alternative Nobel Prize” for “developing an innovative model of truly independent grassroots political journalism that brings to millions of people the alternative voices that are often excluded by the mainstream media.” Goodman was also an eyewitness to the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11;video footage from that tragic day appears to show her ducking for cover with other bystanders as WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration. However, she won’t report about the calls for a real 9/11 investigation that have been made by thousands of technical professionals and over 100 family members of 9/11 victims.

Last fall, Goodman launched a 100-city tour promoting her new book, The Silenced Majority, along with her co-author, Denis Moynihan. As they describe their book, it is “intended to provide a vivid record of the events, conflicts, and social movements that are shaping our society today. The book gives voice to ordinary people standing up to corporate and government power across the country and around the world. Their writing and daily work at the grassroots public TV/radio news hour Democracy Now! casts, in stark relief, the stories of the ‘silenced majority.’ These stories are set against the backdrop of the mainstream media’s abject failure, with its small circle of pundits who know so little about so much, attempting to explain the world to us and getting it so wrong.”
 photo Goodman_poster_zpsaaf81621.jpg
[AE911Truth activists brought this poster to Amy Gooodman’s book signing to call attention one of the most silenced news stories in America]

On September 26, the book tour came to the University of Connecticut with a presentation, followed by a book signing, at the UConn Student Union. During Goodman’s presentation, she mentioned that all news about the conflict in East Timor was obliterated from the media and was not mentioned once from 1975 until she was assaulted and beaten in 1989 (which made the news). She mentioned how the police have been militarized since 9/11 and gave personal examples of how this has affected journalism. She mentioned 9/11 many times as being a significant event that has precipitated the loss of our civil liberties, but not once did she mention anything about the overwhelming body of evidence questioning the official story of what happened on 9/11.

In advance of this event, our local AE911Truth Action Group researched Amy’s history of reporting on 9/11 and found out that she did have an “interview” with producers of the 9/11 Truth documentary Loose Change in 2006, which included the surprise addition of two editors of the Popular Mechanics series, “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.” The interview pitted the professional “hired guns” from the Hearst Corporation, owner of Popular Mechanics, against the courageous young filmmakers in an ill-matched debate.

As Amy Goodman talks with some of her fans, AE911Truth Congressional Outreach Team leader Wayne Coste (left) prepares to deliver an important message to her

The only other time Goodman has dealt with the 9/11 Truth issue on her show was in August 2011, when she interviewed the head of the Internet Archive about the BBC news report in which Jane Standley reported the fall of WTC7 – 20 minutes before it occurred.

AE911Truth supporters and WeAreChange activists have asked Goodman about the 9/11 evidence on many occasions, and she has given a lukewarm response, sometimes claiming that she supports a real investigation and sometimes ignoring the question altogether.

To highlight her reluctance to speak out about the 9/11 tTruth issue, we developed a quarter-page flyer and a large 30-in x 40-in poster that said:

“Newscasting is the art of the Story and the Silence; When something cannot be said, the Silence is the most important Story;
Amy Goodman cannot say: “Nearly 2000 architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center Towers on September 11th, citing evidence of controlled demolition with pre-planted explosives.”

Why can’t Amy say this? Certainly … 2000 architects and engineers … opposing fraudulent engineering reports … should be worth reporting … because that fact is important.”

We handed out the quarter-page flyer until we were told to stop because “canvassing or soliciting” within or around the UConn Student Union was not allowed without a permit. I was told I could not display the poster so that the text and image were visible, because that was also considered to be soliciting or canvassing. Following this warning, I grudgingly joined the “silenced majority.”

During the book signing, I brought the poster back out and ignored warnings from Student Union security personnel to turn the poster around so that the text and image could not be seen. When the security officer said that it would be necessary to call the campus police, I responded, “I am here with Amy; we are breaking the silence together!” Denis Moynihan waved off the security staff, indicating that they were not to call the campus police, so I remained visible with the poster until it was time to get my copy of the book signed.

When I asked Amy to sign my book, I introduced myself. I told her,

“You were one of my heroes… but I hold AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, as an even greater hero, since he works tirelessly to get out the truth out about what really happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11.”

Then I gave her a boxed copy of 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out. I let her know that the story about 9/11 Truth was breaking and that Experts Speak Out became the #1 viewed and the #1 shared video on the national PBS website during last year’s 9/11 anniversary.

In the end, Wayne was allowed to approach Amy Goodman and display his informative poster, even though she sidestepped any discussion of 9/11 Truth

Using a sticky note like everyone else, I asked Amy to write “Wayne, keep trying to break the silence.” (As a volunteer who commits many hours per week to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, breaking the silence about 9/11 is my focus.) However, all she wrote was “Wayne, Democracy Now!” I guess she does not want me to break the silence about what really happened on 9/11, but perhaps she will watch Experts Speak Out and somehow find the courage to take a stand.

Goodman appears to have fallen more in line with the mainstream media by ignoring the 9/11 Truth issue, but don’t let her inaction stop you from taking action. Join us by signing our petition, becoming a member, and volunteering on one of our many vital teams, and help us continue to break news barriers around the world.