It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paul Craig Roberts on 9/11 Denial: Excellent Article!

page: 1
13

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Paul Craig Roberts is an interesting figure. Treasury Secretary under Reagan, he's since become one of the most trenchant critics not only of the Bush administration, but latterly of the whole system.

wiki ref (fwiw)

And for someone of that seniority to be in the truth movement is pretty cool.

This article goes into why the Big Lie works so well.

A couple of gems to whet your appetite...


The researchers explain why so many Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, years after it has become obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the event. Americans developed elaborate rationalizations based on Bush administration propaganda that alleged Iraqi involvement and became deeply attached to their beliefs. Their emotional involvement became wrapped up in their personal identity and sense of morality. They looked for information that supported their beliefs and avoided information that challenged them, regardless of the facts of the matter.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler explained the believability of the Big Lie as compared to the small lie: “In the simplicity of their minds, people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have such impudence. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”



What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11. How can this be, I ask them. Did the government slip up once and tell the truth? My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government’s 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.




posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by rich23
 


It is really too bad that so many of our opponents are incapable of thinking for themselves. Paul Craig Roberts explains it so well.



The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the government’s line, they know what they are talking about.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

People don’t even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers’ destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Naive people think that if the US government’s explanation of 9/11 was wrong, physicists and engineers would all speak up. Some have (see above). However, for most physicists and engineers this would be an act of suicide. Physicists owe their careers to government grants, and their departments are critically dependent on government funding. A physicist who speaks up essentially ends his university career. If he is a tenured professor, to appease Washington the university would buy out his tenure as BYU did in the case of the outspoken Steven Jones.

An engineering firm that spoke out would never again be awarded a government contract. In addition, its patriotic, flag-waving customers would regard the firm as a terrorist apologist and cease to do business with it.

In New York today there is an enormous push by 9/11 families for a real and independent investigation of the 9/11 events. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers have provided the necessary signatures on petitions that require the state to put the proposal for an independent commission up to vote. However, the state, so far, is not obeying the law.

Why are the tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are demanding a real investigation dismissed as conspiracy theorists? The 9/11 skeptics know far more about the events of that day than do the uninformed people who call them names. Most of the people I know who are content with the government’s official explanation have never examined the evidence. Yet, these no-nothings shout down those who have studied the matter closely.

source



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Paul Craig Roberts is an interesting figure. Treasury Secretary under Reagan, he's since become one of the most trenchant critics not only of the Bush administration, but latterly of the whole system.

wiki ref (fwiw)

And for someone of that seniority to be in the truth movement is pretty cool.

This article goes into why the Big Lie works so well.

A couple of gems to whet your appetite...


Tell us precisely why you fell for that.

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Originally posted by jthomas



Tell us precisely why you fell for that.


How about, just for once, instead of a post count consisting mainly of snide comments, you actually put forward something worth debating and why you believe it to be so, some pointers...

1). Air Squibs popping before collapse, your government state these are caused by compressed air as the none pancake collapse, starts collapsing and pancakes before any floors have collapsed, explain please.


(click to open player in new window)


2). Tons of steel with obvious signs of cutting literally everywhere at ground zero, but strangely enough bears no similarity at all with your cookie cutter oxy-acetylene cut, scorching all around the cut and molten steel residue welded to the beam, a part of a cut exterior steel section that houses the the truss seat fixings, these have all been cut out as clearly seen, also the top picture is a prime example of a heat induced cut, the other two pictures also contain steels that have been cut, where are the 360 degree scorch marks around the cut area and melted steel residues?, explain please.



3). Why in any government report does it not state the explosions clearly seen exiting every face of WTC1 the North Tower, plus the two faces visible more explosions around the hat truss sections, kept this quiet didn`t they? yet another miraculous feat from the Kryptonite hating Boeing super planes, explain please....



4). Why, milliseconds after the initial explosions (make sure to note the difference in debris between the two explosions, another huge clue)........



Seen exiting South (wtf a blast heading back over 80 metres where a plane travelling around 550 mph has just been) east and north faces respectively did all hell brake loose with this?, orange flames and white smoke to red and white flames with black smoke.



Apparently not all the fuel ignited jt, oh no, only a 3rd or two 3rds ignited, the rest of it had to somehow spread over 110 storeys and weaken 90,000 tons of tempered steel, and reduce to dust 110 acres of concrete, how embarrassing for NIST having to tell the whole world that the explosion seen that covered over 100 metres in height and 200 metres in length (including a back blast of 80 metres????), was caused only by part of the fuel, here to scale is a cube that is exactly 36 cubed metres (even though there was only around 34 cubed metres of fuel left, once again, explain please.....



Now these are just 4 of the 300 plus reasons that make we tin foil hat brigade ask questions, now, as I see it you are one of two things.....

1). A true government loyalist a loyalty based on trust, the trust being believing all they tell you, so you will find it easy to explain the anomalies above no problem, as these are the basis of your belief in the government and therefore what creates the void that is the truthers and debunkers sides of looking at things, I have had the common curtsy to show why I am a truther, thus according to the unwritten rules of CT`s everything I disclosed above is fabricated and made from pixie dust... the stage is yours.

2). You have no opinions whatsoever you are just here to troll bait.

Now, no sidestepping, no derailing, there are 4 points here to discuss, I have put forward my reasoning, now, let`s hear yours, that is how a debate forum works, 4 aspects await your analysis, nothing more, nothing less.

Let`s see why you guys believe in the OS, as clearly shown I have thrown onto the table, why we, do not.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Er... guys... the subject here is actually why people deny what's in front of their faces rather than rehash stuff that's already been covered in other threads.

And, no, I'm not dumb enough to fall for the obvious trolling by jthomas.

People get all funny when their sacred beliefs are disturbed, and they don't react rationally. I have no expectation that governments obey moral rules: they don't. I have no expectation that governments should act monolithically: they don't. That makes it easy for me to comprehend that the cave-dwelling boxcutter-wielders were patsies.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
DenialConscience=Denial

Denial>>>>>Conscience=Light

Too much Light can blind a man though too little could cripple him.

May one's shade be for all the world to see.

May one's cave be 'left' behind.

I'm sure there's a Platonic cure One could find for their 'illness'.

It's there for the taking and waiting to be Seen for all it's glory.

It's time to take a trip to the River.

May you find a 'connection'?

You may not.

Have you ever tried, alone?

You may not have to be.

To seek, to perceive, to become Aware.
It's a revelation in the making.
I don't believe it's free.

We really Are what we are.
How you?
R, U?



[edit on 18-9-2009 by Perseus Apex]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
This post is gold.

I am reading this thing now.

so far this guys has been right.

I am going to school for sociology, and this is a reason why i chose this career path.

Ahh the study of Humans societies and social structure. this subject never gets boring.




People don’t even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers’ destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.


EDIT: Wanted to add that.

This is what turned me to the truther's side.

[edit on 9/18/2009 by ugie1028]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
The guy's a majorly syndicated columnist. When I worked on RCCL cruise ships in the Caribbean, they used to produce a digest of the NYT on 2 sheets of A4 paper folded in half, and PCR's op-eds were always included. I wonder if they still are?

I did a search of Informationclearinghouse (which always links his stuff) and got these results.

It's full of cracking stuff... like this article on Gullible Americans


How do you know that 9/11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do you know that three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because two were hit by airliners? You only “know” because the government gave you the explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC buildings collapsed?)

I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in Russian Studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest..


He's articulate, he's forthright and he's nationally syndicated. How come he hasn't been nobbled yet?



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Paul Craig Roberts is my favorite syndicated columnist. He is usually in the forefront of important revelations. Here is an example of why we call it the 9-11 Whitewash Commission. And further examples for why we need a real investigation.



February 4, 2008

Did They Reveal the Absence of Confessions?
Why Were the 9/11 Tapes Destroyed?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Many Americans are content with the 9/11 Commission Report, but the two chairmen of the commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton are not. Neither was commission member Max Cleland, a US Senator who resigned from the 9/11 Commission, telling the Boston Globe (November 13, 2003): "This investigation is now compromised." Even former FBI director Louis Freeh wrote in the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 17, 2005) that there are inaccuracies in the commission's report and "questions that need answers."

Both Kean and Hamilton have twice stated publicly, once in their 2006 book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, and again in the January 2, 2008, New York Times, that there are inaccuracies in their report and unanswered--or mis-answered--questions.

On the second day of this new year, Kean and Hamilton accused the CIA of obstructing their investigation: "What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the President, to investigate one of the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction."

In their book, Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were unable to obtain "access to star witnesses in custody who were the only possible source for inside information about the 9/11 plot."

The only information the commission was permitted to have about what was learned from interrogations of alleged plot ringleaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, came from "thirdhand" sources. The commission was not permitted to question the alleged plotters in custody or even to meet with those who interrogated the alleged plotters. Consequently, write Kean and Hamilton, "We had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information" that was fed to them by third party hands. "How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was telling us the truth?"

The fact that video tapes of the interrogations existed was kept secret from the 9/11 Commission.

The video tapes have since been destroyed. The destruction of the videos has become an issue because of White House involvement in the decision to destroy the tapes and because the videos are believed to have been destroyed because they reveal methods of torture that the Bush administration denies using.

According to President Bush, the US does not practice torture even though he and his Department of Justice (sic) assert the right to torture.

Is the torture issue a red herring? The 9/11 Commission was not tasked with investigating interrogation methods or detainee treatment. The commission was tasked with investigating al Qaeda's participation in the 9/11 attack and determining the perpetrators of the terrorist event. There was no reason to withhold from the commission video evidence of confessions implicating al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Was the video evidence withheld from the 9/11 Commission because the alleged participants in the plot did not confess, did not implicate al Qaeda, and did not implicate bin Laden?

There is no reason for the Bush administration to fear the torture issue. The Justice Department's memos have legalized the practice, and Congress has passed legislation, signed by President Bush, giving retroactive protection to US interrogators who tortured detainees. The Military Commissions Act passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October 2006 strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: "No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights." Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. The law has a provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.

Did the Bush administration cleverly take advantage of the torture claims in order to spin the destruction of the CIA video tapes as a "torture story." It is conceivable that the tapes were destroyed because they reveal the absence of confession to the plot. As Kean and Hamilton ask, without evidence how do we know the truth?

All we have is the word of the administration that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that, while sitting on a NIE report that concluded that Iran had terminated its weapons program in 2003, told us that Iran had an ongoing nuclear weapons program and was close to having a nuclear weapon.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

source




Gullible Americans

"Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9/11. All I know is that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable."



9-11, Six Years Later

"Why are the U.S. media untroubled that there has been no independent investigation of 9-11?

Why are the media unconcerned that the rules governing preservation of forensic evidence were not followed by federal authorities?

Why do the media brand skeptics of the official line "conspiracy theorists" and "kooks"?

What is wrong with debate and listening to both sides of the defining issue of our time? If the official line is so correct and defensible, what does it have to fear from skeptics?"



9-11 And the Evidence

"Despite widespread belief that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attack, the evidence we have is a suspect video declared to be "bogus" by Bruce Lawrence, perhaps the leading American expert on bin Laden. The U.S. government has never produced the promised report on bin Laden's responsibility. When the Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden on presentation of evidence, the U.S. government had no evidence to deliver — thus the invasion of Afghanistan.

The fragility of the NIST report is astonishing. The report succeeded because people accepted its assurances without examination.

Griffin shows that the Popular Mechanics report consists of special pleading, circular reasoning, appeals to the authority of the NIST report, straw men and internal contradictions in the report itself."



new topics

top topics



 
13

log in

join