9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Professor Richard Falk joins the 9/11 Dissidents

------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Professor Richard Falk joins the 9/11 Dissidents
Date:     Sat, 29 Jan 2011 11:29:33 +0000
From:     peter.myers@mailstar.net

Professor Richard Falk joins the 9/11 Dissidents

(1) Richard Falk & 9/11
(2) Richard Falk doubts 9/11 orthodoxy, citing David Ray Griffin & other scholars
(3) UN chief condemns Richard Falk's comments on 9/11 cover-up
(4) Richard Falk Reponds to The Lobby's Vilification
(5) Call to Arms against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk over 9/11
(6) Insider Trading before 9/11
(7) German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals
(8) British intelligence report: Mossad ran 9/11 Arab hijacker cells - Wayne Madsen
(9) Cell phone calls from Flight 93 were impossible. Without those hoax calls, we would
not have blamed Arabs
(10) Chilcot Inquiry like 9/11 Commission - both included a pro-war Jewish Zionist
(11) 9/11 Families Ask: Why did WTC7 collapse?
(12) Giuliani meets Olmert, declares, "We're together with you. We are bound by blood"
(13) Huffington Post refuses Jesse Ventura article arguing 9-11 was a conspiracy
(14) Guess Who Michael Moore's Agent Is?
(15) Persecuted FEMA 9-11 Photographer Fights Extradition
(16) Huge building burns in South Korea – does not collapse
(17) Harvard paper recommends "Cognitive infiltration" of Dissident groups by Government

(1) Richard Falk & 9/11 - Peter Myers, January 29, 2011

Richard Falk is probably the most eminent person who has taken a Dissident position 9/11.
He's not the only Professor to do so - rather, one of many - but it is his diplomatic
position is what makes him special. This also means that he will be subjected to extreme
pressure - and that he has already shown great courage.

For an introduction to 9/11, please see my webpage http://mailstar.net/wtc.html.

I have much material there attesting that Mohamed Atta was a Mossad agent. For example,
his girlfriend said, on video, that he could speak Hebrew.

Item 8 is a Wayne Madsen report, based - he says - on a British intelligence report -
that Mossad agents ran the Arab hijacker cells. Specifically, that Egyptian- and
Yemeni-born Jews infiltrated "Al Qaeda" cells and then took them over; the Arab members
thought they were working for Bin Laden.

In the first part of the report, dated January 24, there's no mention of Atta being a
Mossad agent. But in an UPDATE of January 25, Madsen says he's been informed of this.

Item 17 reports a strategy for countering "Conspiracy theories" - devised at Harvard
University - through "Cognitive infiltration" by Government agents

(2) Richard Falk doubts 9/11 orthodoxy, citing David Ray Griffin & other scholars


Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance

by Richard Falk

January 13, 2011

I spent a year in Sweden a few years after the assassination of Olaf Palme in 1986, the
controversial former prime minister of the country who, at the time of his death, was
serving as a member of the Swedish cabinet.. He was assassinated while walking with his
wife back to his apartment in the historic part of the city after attending a nearby
movie. It was a shocking event in a Sweden that had prided itself on moderateness in
politics and the avoidance of involvement in the wars of the twentieth century. A local
drifter, with a history of alcoholism, was charged and convicted of the crime, but many
doubts persisted, including on the part of Ms. Palme, who analogized her situation to
that of Coretta King, who never believed the official version of her martyred husband's

I had a particular interest in this national traumatic event as my reason for being in
Sweden was a result of an invitation to be the Olaf Palme Professor, a rotating academic
post given each year to a foreign scholar, established by the Swedish Parliament as a
memorial to their former leader (after the Social Democratic Party lost political control
in Sweden this professorship was promptly defunded, partly because Palme was unloved by
conservatives and partly because of a neoliberal dislike for public support of such

In the course of my year traveling around Sweden, I often asked those whom I met what was
there view of the assassination, and what I discovered was that the responses told me
more about them than it did about the public event. Some thought it was a dissident
faction in the Swedish security forces long angered by Palme's neutralist policies; some
believed it was resentment caused by Palme's alleged engineering of Swedish arms sales to
both sides in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s; some believed it was the CIA in revenge for
Palme's neutralism during the Cold War; some believed it could have criminals in the pay
of business tycoons tired of paying high taxes needed to maintain the Swedish maximalist
version of a welfare state; and there were other theories as well. What was common to all
of these explanations was the lack of evidence that might connect the dots. What people
believed happened flowed from their worldview rather than the facts of the event—a
distrust of the state, especially its secret operations, or a strong conviction that
special interests hidden from view were behind prominent public events of this character.

In a way, this process of reflection is natural, even inevitable, but it leads to faulty
conclusions. We tend to process information against the background of our general
worldview and understanding, and we do this all the time as an efficient way of coping
with the complexity of the world combined with our lack of time or inclination to reach
conclusions by independent investigation. The problem arises when we confuse this means
of interpreting our experience with an effort to provide an explanation of a contested
public event. There are, to be sure, conspiracies that promote unacknowledged goals, and
enjoy the benefit of government protection. We don't require WikiLeaks to remind us not
to trust governments, even our own, and others that seem in most respects to be
democratic and law-abiding. And we also by now should know that governments (ab)use their
authority to treat awkward knowledge as a matter of state secrets, and criminalize those
who are brave enough to believe that the citizenry needs to know the crimes that their
government is committing with their trust and their tax dollars.

The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues. What fuels
suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and
contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin (and other devoted
scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since 2001.
What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the
mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official
version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government
officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally
disturbing filter of self-censorship? Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of
a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The
forms persist, but the content is missing.

This brings me to the Arizona shootings, victimizing both persons apparently targeted for
their political views and random people who happened to be there for one reason or
another, innocently paying their respects to a congresswoman meeting constituents outside
a Tucson supermarket. As with the Palme assassination, the most insistent immediate
responses come from the opposite ends of the political spectrum, both proceeding on
presuppositions rather than awaiting evidence.

On one side are those who say that right-wing hate speech and affection for guns were
clearly responsible, while Tea Party ultra-conservatives and their friends reaffirm their
rights of free speech, denying that there is any connection between denouncing their
adversaries in the political process and the violent acts of a deranged individual
seemingly acting on his own. If we want to be responsible in our assessments, we must
restrain our political predispositions, and get the evidence. Let us remember that what
seems most disturbing about the 9/11 controversy is the widespread aversion by government
and media to the evidence that suggests, at the very least, the need for an independent
investigation that proceeds with no holds barred.

Such an investigation would contrast with the official '9/11 Commission' that proceeded
with most holds barred. What has been already disturbing about the Arizona incident are
these rival rushes to judgment without bothering with evidence. Such public
irresponsibility polarizes political discourse, making conversation and serious debate

There is one more issue raised, with typical candor and innocence, by the filmmaker,
Michael Moore. If a Muslim group had published a list of twenty political leaders in this
country, and put crosshairs of a gun behind their pictures, is there any doubt that the
Arizona events would be treated as the work of a terrorist, and the group that had
pre-identified such targets immediately outlawed as a terrorist organization? Many of us,
myself included, fervently hoped, upon hearing the news of the shootings, that the
perpetrator of this violence was neither a Muslim nor a Hispanic, especially an illegal
immigrant. Why? Because we justly feared the kind of horrifying backlash that would have
been probably generated by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sarah Palin, and
their legion of allies. Now that the apparent perpetrator is a young white American, the
talk from the hate mongers, again without bothering with evidence, is of mental disorder
and sociopathology. This is faith-based pre-Enlightenment 'knowledge.'

What must we learn from all of this? Don't connect dots without evidence. Don't turn away
as soon as the words 'conspiracy theory' are uttered, especially if the evidence does
point away from what the power-wielders want us to believe. Don't link individual
wrongdoing, however horrific, to wider religious and ethnic identities. We will perish as
a species if we don't learn soon to live together better on our beautiful, globalizing,
and imperiled planet.

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at
Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara,
California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and
International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation. Read more articles by Richard Falk.

(3) UN chief condemns Richard Falk's comments on 9/11 cover-up

From:    Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics Earth Sciences) <sadanand@mail.ccsu.edu> Date:
26.01.2011 12:54 PM
Subject:    UN chief condemns Richard Falk's comments on 9/11 cover-up

[Hillel Neuer is the Executive Director of UN Watch…the Geneva based international
version of ADL of Abraham Fox or Middle East Forum/Jihad Watch run by Daniel Pipes that
challenges anyone who criticizes Israel's oppression of Palestinians. UN Watch was
established in 1993 under the Chairmanship of Ambassador Morris B. Abram, the former U.S.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva. Below is a recent statement
from Mr. Neuer]

"The UN's obsession with Israel not only harms Israel, it harms the peace process, and it
harms the UN as a whole," said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer. "It prevents the
UN from being effective for human rights victims who never get their day of international
attention." -- Interview on Russia Today TV, Dec. 30, 2010.

UN Watch's open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, "Ban Ki Moon is letting the
Israel-bashers of the Human Rights Council make the UN look bad," NY Daily News, January
21, 2011. ______

U.N. chief condemns rights expert's 9/11 comments


UNITED NATIONS | Mon Jan 24, 2011

(Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned "preposterous" comments by a
U.N.-appointed expert on Palestinian rights that there was a cover-up over the September
11 attacks, Ban's chief of staff said on Monday.

The official, Vijay Nambiar, said however that it was not up to Ban to fire the expert,
U.S. academic Richard Falk, as demanded by UN Watch, a Geneva-based advocacy group.

Falk wrote in a blog this month that there had been an "apparent cover-up" by U.S.
authorities over the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which hijackers flew airliners into
the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon near Washington.

He said mainstream media had been "unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts
about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by
government officials."

In a letter to Ban last Thursday, UN Watch director Hillel Neuer called on the U.N. chief
to "strongly condemn Mr. Falk's offensive remarks -- and ... immediately remove him from
his post."

A letter of reply from Nambiar said Ban "condemns (Falk's) remarks. He has repeatedly
stated his view that any such suggestion is preposterous -- and an affront to the memory
of the more than 3,000 people who died in the attack."

Nambiar said Falk and other rights experts were not appointed by Ban but by the
Geneva-based Human Rights Council, a 47-nation body created by the U.N. General Assembly
in 2006. "Their continuance in their jobs is thus for the Council to decide," he added.

UN Watch says on its website it is a non-governmental organization, accredited with the
United Nations and affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, that aims to monitor
U.N. performance against the yardstick of the U.N. Charter.

It supports U.N. goals but frequently criticizes the Human Rights Council, saying it
constantly berates Israel but ignores many rights violations by developing countries. It
has often targeted Falk, the council's special rapporteur on human rights in the
Palestinian territories, for anti-Israeli comments.

In a statement, Neuer welcomed Nambiar's letter but said the Human Rights Council could
not be trusted to fire Falk. He said Ban and U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay had "the
power and responsibility to play an influential and decisive role."

(4) Richard Falk Reponds to The Lobby's Vilification

From:    chris lenczner <chrispaul@netpci.com> Date:    29.01.2011 07:56 PM
Subject:    Richard Falk Reponds to The Lobby's Vilification

By Richard Falk in Foreign Policy Journal

January 28, 2011


Because my blog prompted by the Arizona shootings
a href="http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/13/interrogating-the-arizona-killings-from-a-safe-distance/" target="_blank">http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/01/13/interrogating-the-ar...> has attracted many comments pro and con, and more recently has been the object of a more selective public attack on me personally, I thought it appropriate to post a supplementary blog with the purpose of clarifying my actual position and re-focusing attention on the plight and suffering of the Palestinian people being held in captivity. In the background, are crucial issues of free speech, fairness in public discourse, and responsible media treatment of sensitive and controversial affairs of

Both the UN Secretary General and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations harshly
criticized some remarks in my personal blog that mentioned the 9/11 attacks. They
referred to the views expressed there as 'despicable and deeply offensive,' 'noxious,
'inflammatory,' and 'preposterous.' Their comments were apparently made in response to a
letter written to the UN Secretary General by the head of UN Monitor, a Geneva-based
highly partisan NGO, that called misleading attention to this passage in the blog.
Ambassador Rice called for my dismissal from my unpaid post as an independent Special
Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council with a mandate to report upon the Israeli
observance of "human rights in Palestinian territories occupied since 1967."

For anyone who read the blog post in its entirety, it should be plain that the reference
to the 9/11 issues is both restrained and tangential. What is stressed in the blog is the
importance of carefully examining evidence before drawing conclusions about political and
legal responsibility for highly sensitive public acts, and the importance for the
serenity of the society of achieving closure in a responsible manner. I never endorsed
doubts about the official version of 9/11 beyond indicating what anyone who has
objectively examined the controversy knows — that there remain certain gaps in the
official explanation that give rise to an array of conspiratorial explanations, and that
the 9/11 Commission unfortunately did not put these concerns to rest. My plea was
intended to encourage addressing these gaps in a credible manner, nothing more, nothing
less. I certainly meant no disrespect toward the collective memory of 9/11 in the country
and elsewhere. On the contrary, my intention was to encourage an investigation that might
finally achieve closure with respect to doubts that remain prevalent among important
sectors of the public, including among some 9/11 families.

What seems apparent from this incident, which is itself disturbing, is that any
acknowledgement of doubt about the validity of the official version of the 9/11 events,
while enjoying the legal protection of free speech, is denied the political and moral
protection that are essential if an atmosphere of free speech worthy of a democracy is to
be maintained. When high officials can brand someone who raises some doubts in the most
cautious language as 'an enemy of the people,' then there are either things to hide or a
defensive fury that is out of all proportion to the provocation. To seek further inquiry
into the unanswered questions about 9/11 is surely not an unreasonable position

What is dismaying to me is that neither the office of the Secretary General nor the U.S.
Mission to the United Nation made any effort to contact me to seek clarification of my
remarks on these issues that are not connected with my UN role prior to making their
insulting criticisms damaging to my reputation. I would think that as a representative of
the UN and a citizen of the United States, I am at least entitled to this minimal
courtesy, and more substantially, that whatever criticisms are made are based on what I
said rather than on a manifestly inflammatory letter written by the UN Monitor, that has
made a habit of publicly attacking me in consistently irresponsible and untruthful ways,
presumably with the intention of diverting attention from my criticisms of Israel's
occupation policies in the Palestinian territories. It is always more tempting to shoot
the messenger than heed the message. A similar tactic, what I call 'the politics of
deflection' was deployed over a year ago in a shabby attempt to discredit the
distinguished South African jurist, Richard Goldstone, a person of impeccable credentials
as an international public servant. The intention was again to avoid a proper focus upon
the devastating findings and recommendations of the Goldstone Report submitted to the
United Nations after conducting a scrupulous inquiry into the allegations of violation of
law associated with the Israeli attacks on Gaza between December 27, 2008 and January 18,

I remain determined to report as fully and honestly as possible about the massive human
rights violations confronting Palestinians who have now lived without rights under
occupation for more than 43 years, and to do my best not to let such personal attacks
impair my capacity to carry out the assignment that I was invited to perform by the UN.

What the United States Government, the Secretary-General and the media should be focused
on is the ongoing, widespread and systematic violation of Palestinians' human rights by
Israel. Only since the beginning of 2011, at least four Palestinian civilians have been
killed by Israeli forces and more than 33 others have been injured. This is in addition
to the expansion of settlements, home demolitions, forced evictions and displacement of
Palestinian families, revocation of residency permits and forced transfers, particularly
devastating in East Jerusalem, detention and mistreatment of over 6000 Palestinians,
including children, as well as the illegal blockade of Gaza. My forthcoming report to the
Human Rights Council addresses these and other severe ongoing violations of Palestinian
rights by Israel.

- Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at
Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara,
California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and
International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation. Read more articles by Richard Falk.

(5) Call to Arms against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk over 9/11


Why the Fuss? The Call to Arms against UN Rapporteur Richard Falk for Alluding to Gaps in
the 9/11 Official Story

by Elizabeth Woodworth

January 28, 2011

A former Princeton international law professor has been condemned by the UN Secretary
General and the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations for alluding to "an apparent
cover-up" of the events of September 11th, 2001..

On January 11, 2011, UN Special Envoy to Palestine Richard Falk posted on his personal
blog an article entitled "Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance."[1]

Dr. Falk made a tangential point in his blog-post that governments too often abuse their
authority by treating "awkward knowledge as a matter of state secrets".

To illustrate the point, he referred to gaps and contradictions in the official account
of the 9/11 attacks, which have been documented in the scholarly works of Dr. David Ray
Griffin, a professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology.

"What seems most disturbing about the 9/11 controversy is the widespread aversion by
government and media to the evidence that suggests, at the very least, the need for an
independent investigation that proceeds with no holds barred," wrote Falk.

On January 20th, executive director Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, a European NGO, called upon
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to condemn the remarks made by Falk, and to fire him,
claiming that Falk had "endorsed the conspiracy theory that the 9/11 terrorist attacks
were orchestrated by the U.S. government and not Al Qaeda terrorists." [2]

On January 24th, in a reply to Hillel Neuer, Vijay Nambiar, Ban Ki-moon's Chief of Staff,
responded that the Secretary-General "condemns these remarks. He has repeatedly stated
his view that any such suggestion is preposterous — and an affront to the memory of the
more than 3,000 people who died in the attack."[3]

The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, called for Falk's removal, stating that "Mr.
Falk's comments are despicable and deeply offensive, and I condemn them in the strongest
terms." [4]

Surely, in light of what Falk actually said, these indignant cries on behalf of the
victims seem more than a little apoplectic.

If Falk's suggestions were so "preposterous" and "offensive", they might have been
dismissed as the ravings of a madman.

So why did officials bring out their cannons to shoot at a sparrow?

Well, turning to the work of Professor Griffin we find that there were 115 omissions and
distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report, though Falk did not, in his brief remarks,
provide details. [5]

A search of the Internet reveals 12 professional organizations calling for a new
investigation, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (with over 1,400
professional members), Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth,
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth,
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, and Scientists for
9/11 Truth.

In August, 2005, the New York Times printed the oral testimonies of 118 firefighters and
emergency workers who reported stunning, graphic evidence of enormous explosions,
including mysterious blasts in the deep sub-basements of the buildings long before the
towers fell.[6]

More recently, a nine-author peer-reviewed study, which showed that the World Trade
Center dust appeared to contain residue of explosive material (nanothermite), made
headlines for the first week of February 2010 in major Danish newspapers. [7]

This news never reached the North American media.

A December 2010 poll by the prestigious Emnid Institute showed that 89.5% of Germans
doubt the US official story about the September 11th attacks.[8]

The 9/11 commissioners themselves, in a 2008 op-ed piece to the New York Times, bemoaned
the withholding of witness evidence to the 9/11 Commission by the CIA: "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 the greatest tragedies to confront this
country. We call that obstruction." [9]

Perhaps this sparrow is worth a cannon or two.

In other words, was Falk attacked so strongly to try to make people fear suggesting in
public even the possibility that the official story is problematic?


[1] Richard Falk. "Interrogating the Arizona Killings from a Safe Distance."

[2] "U.N. Chief Urged to Fire Official for Promoting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory"

[3] Letter to Mr. Neuer, January 24, 2011,

[4] Rice calls for removal of U.N.'s Palestine rapporteur, JTA, January 26, 2011,

[5] David Ray Griffin. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive
Branch Press, 2004.

[6] "The September 11 Records," New York Times, August 12, 2005,

[7] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et al., "Active Thermitic Material
Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," Open Chemical Physics
Journal, Vol. 2 (April 3, 2009): 7-31

[8] "Exklusiv-Umfrage des Wissensmagazins Welt der Wunder: Wem glauben die Deutschen
noch?" December 22, 2010,

[9] Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, "Stonewalled by the C.I.A.," New York Times,
January 2, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html

(6) Insider Trading before 9/11


the case, Dr. Stephen Hatfill or Dr.Philip Zack, are Arabs, and doesn't this case
prove that Arabs are being framed for terror attacks in the United States?

Michael Moore rightly condemns the US Government for the USAPATRIOT act's draconian
assault opon our rights. However, one of those rights is that nobody shall be declared
guilty of a crime without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As Michael Moore professes a
deep respect for American values, he should not glibly declare that someone is guilty of
a crime without being able to make his case beyond that reasonable doubt.

There is a reasonable doubt.

And if Michael Moore is a reasonable man who respects American principles, he must
acknowledge that.

(15) Persecuted FEMA 9-11 Photographer Fights Extradition

From:    Sami Joseph <sajoseph2005@yahoo.com> Date:    30.10.2010 02:04 AM


By Pat Shannan

For five weeks following the 9-11 attacks, high-ranking FEMA official Kurt Sonnenfeld was
given unlimited access to the various crime scenes as an official videographer.

However, when Sonnenfeld discovered that his official documentation contradicted the U.S.
government's account of the events, he refused to be a part of a cover-up and did not
turn over the tapes to officialdom.

This was when his troubles began, and seven years ago he fled to Argentina in fear for
his life but remains in possession of the video evidence. For the U.S. government,
Sonnenfeld, 41, is a troublesome witness on the loose, whose documented evidence can
expose its fraudulent account of 9-11. This places him in a unique, but extremely
vulnerable position. He was jailed for seven months in 2002 on trumped-up charges before
being exonerated by a Denver court.

Add two favorable rulings by an Argentine federal court and two more by the Argentine
Supreme Court and Sonnenfeld has a total of five impartial courts that have now looked at
the evidence and ruled in his favor.

However, the federal government is determined to do whatever it takes to retrieve
Sonnenfeld's material and silence him. This has converted him into the refugee that he
never meant to be.

Although many of his large-format tapes were stolen during his imprisonment, he still had
some videos that were in a box of junk cassettes marked "recycle." His description of the
actual happenings of 9-11 from his book, The Persecuted, reads like a report from the

Read more at the above link...

(16) Huge building burns in South Korea – does not collapse

Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse

Russia Today

Oct 2, 2010


A massive fire broke out on Friday in a 38-floor apartment and office building in South
Korea's southern port city of Busan. No deaths were reported. The fire official could not
say how many people remained in the building, only that residents were still being
rescued, some by helicopter from the building's roof. Busan, South Korea's second-largest
city and a major seaport, is located about 400 km (250 miles) southeast of Seoul. The
fire started early Friday morning in a janitor's closet on the fourth floor of the
high-rise building located in the city's plush beachside Haeundae district. ==


10-01-2010 16:50    Fire guts high-rise building in Busan

{photo} A helicopter drops water to put out a blaze at the Wooshin Golden Suites
apartment block in Haeundae, Busan, Friday. The fire was extinguished two-and-a-half
hours after it started. No casualties were reported but the authorities estimated the
damage to the building to be substantial. / Korea Times photo by Lee Sang-deokBy Bae
Ji-sook {end}

A fire engulfed a 38-story apartment building in the southeastern port city of Busan,
Friday. ... ==


Massive Fire Engulfs 38-story Building in Busan

A massive fire swept all the way up to the rooftop of a 38-story apartment and office
building Friday morning in Busan leaving four people injured.

Nearly two hundred firefighters were dispatched to the site but the flames which
officials say originated in the garbage room on the 4th floor spread at a rapid pace.
According to investigators, strong coastal winds and highly flammable wall material could
have fueled the blaze.

Local authorities say no serious casualties occurred since residents were evacuated soon
after the fire broke out but some are being treated at nearby hospitals for smoke
inhalation. ==


Sat, Oct 02, 2010
The Korea Herald/Asia News Network

Fire at S.Korea high-rise apartment under control

A BLAZE at an apartment building was brought under control after reaching the rooftop of
the 38-story complex in a fire Friday authorities say seems to have started at a garbage
collection room, Yonhap News reported. No casualties were reported.

Firefighters battled the blaze for more than two and a half hours as it spread through
the stairways after being first spotted at around 11.30 am (12.30pm Singapore Time). ...

(17) Harvard paper recommends "Cognitive infiltration" of Dissident groups by Government


Conspiracy Theories

Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard University - Harvard Law School

Adrian Vermeule
Harvard University - Harvard Law School

January 15, 2008

Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03
U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199
U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387

Working Paper Series
Date posted: January 17, 2008 ; Last revised: January 18, 2010

This paper can be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network at:

Preliminary draft 1/15/08


Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories ... Because those who hold conspiracy
theories typically suffer from a "crippled epistemology," in accordance with which it is
rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of
extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for
government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.

Introduction ...

Part II discusses government responses and legal issues, in light of the discussion in
Part I. We address several dilemmas of governmental response to conspiracy theories, such
as the question whether it is better to rebut such theories, at the risk of legitimating
them, or to ignore them, at the risk of leaving them unrebutted. Conspiracy theories turn
out to be especially hard to undermine or dislodge; they have a self-sealing quality,
rendering them particularly immune to challenge. We suggest several policy responses that
can dampen the supply of conspiracy theorizing, in part by introducing diverse viewpoints
and new factual assumptions into the hard-core groups that produce such theories. Our
principal claim here involves the potential value of cognitive infiltration of extremist
groups, designed to introduce informational diversity into such groups and to expose
indefensible conspiracy theories as such. ...

Consider, for example, the view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for
the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; that doctors deliberately manufactured
the AIDS virus; that the 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military
missile ...

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The
Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by
Republican officials ...

French author Thierry Meyssan, whose book "9/11: The Big Lie" became a bestseller and a
sensation for its claims that the Pentagon explosion on 9/11 was caused by a missile ...

These are circumstances in which arguments by outsiders, unconnected with the group, will
lack much credibility, and fail to have much of an effect in reducing polarization. As we
will explore below, these circumstances imply that direct government rebuttals of the
reigning conspiracy theory will prove ineffective; government will instead do best by
using various tactics of cognitive infiltration to break up the polarized information
cluster from within. ... Once polarization occurs or cascades arise, and the group's
median view begins to move in a certain direction, doubters and halfway believers will
tend to depart while intense believers remain. The overall size of the group may shrink,
but the group may also pick up new believers who are even more committed, and in any
event the remaining members will, by self-selection, display more fanaticism. Group
members may engage in a kind of double-think, segregating themselves, in a physical or
informational sense, in order to protect their beliefs from challenge by outsiders. Even
if the rank and file cannot coherently do this, group leaders may enforce segregation in
order to insulate the rank and file from information or arguments that would undermine
the leaders' hold on the group. ...

An obvious answer is to maintain an open society, in which those who are tempted to
subscribe to conspiracy theories do not distrust all knowledge-creating institutions, and
are exposed to corrections. But we have seen that even in open societies, conspiracy
theories have some traction; and open societies have a strong interest in debunking such
theories when they arise, and threaten to cause harm, in closed societies.

Here we suggest two concrete ideas for government officials attempting to fashion a
response to such theories. First, responding to more rather than fewer conspiracy
theories has a kind of synergy benefit: it reduces the legitimating effect of responding
to any one of them, because it dilutes the contrast with unrebutted theories. Second, we
suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply
conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government
agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or
anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such
theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that
circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity. ...

3. Cognitive infiltration

Rather than taking the continued existence of the hard core as a constraint, and
addressing itself solely to the third-party mass audience, government might undertake
(legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories,
arguments and rhetoric that are produced by the hard core and reinforce it in turn. One
promising tactic is cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. By this we do not mean
1960s-style infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information, possibly
for use in future prosecutions. Rather, we mean that government efforts might succeed in
weakening or even breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that
constitute these networks and groups.

How might this tactic work? Recall that extremist networks and groups, including the
groups that purvey conspiracy theories, typically suffer from a kind of crippled
epistemology. Hearing only conspiratorial accounts of government behavior, their members
become ever more prone to believe and generate such accounts. Informational and
reputational cascades, group polarization, and selection effects suggest that the
generation of ever-more-extreme views within these groups can be dampened or reversed by
the introduction of cognitive diversity. We suggest a role for government efforts, and
agents, in introducing such diversity. Government agents (and their allies) might enter
chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine
percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal
logic or implications for political action. ...

Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers Qld 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296 [in
Australia: 07 41262296]
http://mailstar.net/index.html  I use (by choice) the old Mac OS; being incompatible, it
cannot run Windows viruses or transmit them to you.

Never respond to emails offering pornography ("see my photo") or sex; never click on
links they provide. Intelligence agencies may be using them to lure and trap dissidents
(for possessing child pornography, or sex with a minor). They'd rather discredit you that
way, than prosecute you for revealing some inconvenient truth. Mordecai Vanunu was lured
by a "honey trap", after which he was jailed for 18 years (11 solitary); and he never
even got the honey. Don't try to fight the government with guns - that just gives them an
excuse for getting rid of you. Your most potent weapon is information - that's what Big
Brother is really scared of.

Filters (ostensibly to trap porn) may be used to censor this newsletter. If my bulletins
do not arrive, check your Spam, Junk & Trash folders; if not there, ask your Internet
Provider about their filters. Failing that - and if your mail to me keeps bouncing -
please ring me: this helps beat sabotage. To unsubscribe, reply with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line; allow 1 day.

Views: 201


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on January 31, 2011 at 4:47pm

"What must we learn from all of this? Don't connect dots without evidence. Don't turn away 
as soon as the words 'conspiracy theory' are uttered, especially if the evidence does 
point away from what the power-wielders want us to believe. Don't link individual 
wrongdoing, however horrific, to wider religious and ethnic identities. We will perish as 
a species if we don't learn soon to live together better on our beautiful, globalizing, and imperiled planet"


This is really a great speech coming from a reknowned scholar, he really does get it.  If the general public only understood all this, and that the "CT" label is a transparent attempt to obfuscate the truth and this message with the "kook" label, I just wish people would take the time to learn scientific method.  I think people in general instinctively do want to live together on the planet, but are being provoked by the monstrous intelligence operations.  I am really encouraged that some great scholars are finally getting it, although I wish they would have awakened about 50 years ago when Mark Lane and Jim Garrisson were getting the kook label.  

© 2022   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service