9/11 Research Collection - Part 4

[Shallel Octavia]

20. Insider involvement with alleged 9/11 hijackers as possible protection of ‘patsies’ creating an ‘evidence trail’ to support the official narrative

“If the real authorship of state-sponsored terrorism is to be successfully concealed, then a collection of scapegoats is the first ingredient required. These may be defined as the patsies, or alternatively as fall-guys [or ‘lone-wolf’] ... Because the patsies are usually such low grade subjects they require comprehensive support ... [they] will assume a distinct ideological or religious coloration and will advertise it, and that will become the key to the process of creating or reinforcing the enemy image desired by the terrorist controllers after the terrorist action has been successfully carried out ...

They must attract lots of attention ... They need to get into fights with passersby, as Mohammed Atta is said to have done concerning a parking space

at the airport in Maine early in the morning on September 11. Even if they are presumed dead they must remain prominent, as in the case of Atta’s passport, which is alleged by the FBI to have survived the fiery collapse of the World Trade Center towers to be found undamaged and unsinged on a nearby street. Even when presumed dead they must be eloquent about themselves and their activities, as they accused 9/11 hijackers when they left behind a copy of the Koran, airline schedules, terrorist literature and videotapes, and Atta’s crudely forged last will and testament in a car and in luggage.

Despite the need to be noticed as much as possible, the patsies have to stay out of jail. If they are all in jail, the planned terror action cannot take place. This is not because the patsies are needed to carry it out, but rather because they must be on hand in order to be blamed for it, whether they are on the scene or far away ... To keep the patsies out of jail so they can serve their vital purpose is the job of the moles [inside agents] ...

[After the terror event has occurred] The patsies must be hunted down and, preferably, liquidated on the spot ... Their faces and stories will be demonized as the latest manifestation of absolute evil. The nationality, philosophy, or religion which the media portray them as representing will become the target of raving vilification, arrest, economic sanctions, cruise missile retaliation, and armed invasion, as the case may be.”

‘9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA’, Webster Griffin Tarpley, Progressive Press, 2011 21. ‘Someone would have talked’

“Another popular argument is that in any 'vast conspiracy...there's the likelihood that someone along the chain would squeal.' Even this administration - (defenders of the official story argue) - 'could never have acquiesced in so much human slaughter and kept it a secret. Especially when so many people would have to have been involved.' Although this argument may seem strong at first glance, it becomes less impressive under examination.

"This argument is, for one thing, based partly on the belief that it is impossible for big government operations to be kept secret very long. However, the Manhattan Project to create an atomic bomb, which involved some 100,000 people, was kept secret for several years. Also, the United States provoked and

participated in a civil war in Indonesia in 1957 that resulted in some 40,000 deaths, but this illegal war was kept secret from the American people until a book about it appeared in 1995. It also must be remembered that if the government has kept several other big operations hidden, we by definition do

V5.1 31

not know about them. We cannot claim to know, in any case, that the government could not keep a big and ugly operation secret for a long time.

"A second reason to question this a priori objection is that the details of the 9/11 operation would have been known by only a few individuals in key planning positions. Also, they would have been people with a proven ability to keep their mouths shut. Everyone directly complicit in the operation, moreover, would be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the death penalty. The claim that one of these people would have come forward by now is irrational.

"When people suggest that whistleblowers would have come forward, of course, they usually have in mind people who, without being complicit in the operation, came to know about it afterward, perhaps realizing that some order they had carried out played a part in the overall operation. Many such people could be kept silent merely by the order to do so, along with the knowledge that if they disobeyed the order, they would be sent to prison or at least lose their jobs. (see Kevin Ryan as an example of this) For people for whom that would be insufficient intimidation, there can be threats to their families. How many people who have expressed certainty about whistleblowers would, if they or their families or their jobs would be endangered by coming forward with inside information, do so?

"In any case, the assumption that 'someone would have talked,' being simply an assumption, cannot provide a rational basis for refusing to look directly at the evidence."

‘Debunking 9/11 Debunking’, Prof. David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2007

1. 2.

3. 4.

Conclusion

Multiple facts indicate that the official investigations cannot be considered credible. (see Part 1)
Multiple credible facts indicate the official conspiracy theory (Al Qaeda conspiring to attack America) is false. Therefore it is not known what the truth is. Therefore a proper, independent investigation is required to determine the truth. (see Part 2)

An assessment of these facts without prejudice indicates that the possibility of an alternate conspiracy theory (an ‘inside faction’ was involved in the attacks) is supported by these facts. (see Part 2)
There is an historical context that also supports the alternate conspiracy theory.

Why do we often resist this information?

V5.1

32

Part 4 - The Cultural and Psychological Aspect Why do we often resist this information?
1. Conspiracy denial in the US media

“Many American journalists appear to be locked into a peculiar way of thinking that makes them blind to signs of political criminality in high office ... They categorize all such suspicions as “conspiracy theories,” which they assume are not only untrue, but wacky and paranoid ... most run-of-the-mill reporters have embraced conspiracy denial, and for them it has become an emotionally charged, self-reinforcing belief system. The mindset is self-reinforcing in the sense that it engenders feelings of superiority and is dismissive of evidence. Ironically, conspiracy deniers think they are protecting civility and reason in

public discourse, when in fact, by ridiculing reasonable concerns and appealing to elite prejudices, they are doing just the opposite.”

‘Conspiracy Denial in the U.S. Media’, Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith, Florida State University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Letters, March 2013

Conspiracy to Tell the Truth - Interview with Dr. Lance deHaven-Smith (10:02) 2. CIA foundations of ‘conspiracy theory’ as a weaponized term

“[I]t was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the [“conspiracy theory”] term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.”

‘“Conspiracy Theory”: Foundations of a Weaponized Term’, Prof. James Tracy, 2017

V5.1 33

3. Blinded by belief and government manipulation

“Protecting democracy requires that the general public be educated on how people can be manipulated by government and media into forfeiting their civil liberties and duties ... cognitive constructs that can prevent people from processing information that challenges pre-existing assumptions about government ... how pre-existing beliefs can interfere with people’s examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy (SCADs), specifically in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, and the war on terror in Afghanistan

and Iraq. Reform strategies are proposed to motivate citizens toward increased social responsibility in a post-9/11 culture of propagandized fear, imperialism, and war.”

‘In Denial of Democracy: Social and Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11’, Laurie Manwell, University of Guelph, Ontario,

Canada, American Behavioral Scientist, 53: 795-825, Feb 2010

The Toronto Hearings on 9/11 Uncut - Laurie Manwell (1:00:36)

4. Psychology experts answer “Why is the 9/11 evidence difficult for some to accept?”

Licensed clinical psychologist Robert Hopper, Ph.D. “9/11 Truth challenges some of our most fundamental beliefs about our government and about our country. When beliefs are challenged or when two beliefs are inconsistent, cognitive dissonance is created. 9/11 Truth challenges [our] beliefs that our country protects and keeps us safe and that America is the ‘good guy.’ When this happens, fear and anxiety are created. In response, our psychological defenses kick in [to] protect us from these emotions. Denial, which is probably the most primitive psychological defense, is the one most likely to kick in when our beliefs

are challenged.”
‘Psychology Experts Speak Out: “Why is the 9/11 Evidence Difficult for Some to Accept?”’, July 2012

V5.1 34

1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

‘Seeking Understanding - Experts Speak Out’ (12:18) Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

5. Psychology expert answers ‘Why do good people become silent - or worse - about 9/11?’

“[We have] human tendencies toward denial in order to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Indeed, resistance to information that substantially challenges our worldview is the rule rather than the exception ... This is so because fear is the emotion that underlies most of the negative reactions toward 9/11 skeptics’ information ... [there are] many types of fear that are involved, and how they tie into the “sacred myth” of American exceptionalism.”

‘Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?’, 20-Part Series, Nov 2013

Conclusion

Multiple facts indicate that the official investigations cannot be considered credible. (see Part 1)
Multiple credible facts indicate the official conspiracy theory (Al Qaeda conspiring to attack America) is false. Therefore it is not known what the truth is. Therefore a proper, independent investigation is required to determine the truth. (see Part 2)

An assessment of these facts without prejudice indicates that the possibility of an alternate conspiracy theory (an ‘inside faction’ was involved in the attacks) is supported by these facts. (see Part 2)
There is an historical context that also supports the alternate conspiracy theory. (see Part 3)

Cultural and psychological mechanisms exist that help to explain our resistance to this information.

Are there further credible people speaking out about this?

V5.1

35

Part 5 - Statements by Credible People (in addition to all statements contained in Parts 1-4)

In 2011, the ‘International Hearings on the Events of September 11 2001’ were held over 4 days in Toronto, Canada. Research was presented by only credentialed experts that included scientists, engineers, architects, university professors, academics and government officials. Statements by the hearing judges include:

Ferdinando Imposimato - Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy, former Senior Judge and Grand Officer of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Italy

“The 9/11 attacks were a global [western] state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. To put it briefly, the 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.”

Journal of 9/11 Studies, Letter, Sept 2012
Herb Jenkins PhD - Professor Emeritus, McMaster University

“These [Hearing] papers present the strongest evidence against the official account, and the strongest circumstantial evidence for believing the US government had a hand in 9/11.

The first accomplishment has been to present a convincing case that the previous investigations of 9/11 – those by FEMA, the 9/11 Commission, and by NIST – all failed to confront important facts that challenge the official account ... those investigations were designed not to understand what actually happened, but rather to defend the official account, which they did by selective omissions and distortions of the evidence.

[The Hearing] has produced so many converging lines of evidence,
that in my view, controlled demolition is now the strongest hypothesis for how [WTC 1, 2 and 7] were brought to the ground.”

‘The 9/11 Toronto Report - International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001’, 2012 Richard B. Lee - Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

“The Hearings have been extraordinarily effective in presenting carefully compiled scientific evidence that casts serious doubt on the veracity of the official story. The overwhelming burden of that evidence leads to the conclusion that the official story is based on false premises, and succeeds only by ignoring or distorting masses of contrary evidence.

Sadly science has taken a beating in the last ten years; in the dubious conclusions reached by NIST researchers about WTC 1 and 2 building collapses and the many other anomalies and contradictions in the official story. However, the basic laws of physics form a bedrock of truth that even the most sophisticated political propaganda cannot ignore or sidestep.

Therefore we support the call for a full and independent public inquiry into 9/11 with subpoena powers.”

‘The 9/11 Toronto Report - International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001’, 2012 V5.1 36

David A. Johnson, Ph.D., FAICP - Professor Emeritus, University of Tennessee

“The aggregate weight of the facts and deductions offered should give any thoughtful person reason to question the validity of the official version of events offered by the 9/11 Commission and the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST).

The analyses of David Chandler showing free-fall movements in the
collapses of the twin towers and WTC 7 are strong evidence of
controlled demolition ... and the identification of unignited nano-
thermite residues in the dust by Niels Harrit provide sufficient
grounds to demand an independent review of the conclusion that
explosives were used to bring down the three WTC buildings ...
Richard Gage’s analysis of the building destruction noted numerous phenomena that appeared to be incompatible with the official version of how the buildings failed.

At the conclusion of the Hearings, the only reasonable conclusion one could come to is that the official reports have failed to provide a satisfactory explication of the events of 9/11/01.

... A third scenario that might be found would be where American authorities secretly farmed out to third parties the planning and logistics of carrying out the attacks and building collapses, but keeping enough distance to maintain deniability. These third parties could be foreign intelligence services, or pseudo-business corporations formed specifically for the task, or a combination of the two. Such enterprises have been used in the past to carry out covert activities.”

‘The 9/11 Toronto Report - International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001’, 2012
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts - former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former Associate Editor of

the Wall Street Journal - an article describing the Toronto 9/11 Hearings:

“I was impressed that the extremely high level of intelligence and scientific competence of the witnesses was matched by a high level of integrity, a quality rare in US politics and totally absent in the American media ... I pay attention when the fact-based community finds problems with the official propaganda.

A nano-chemist from the University of Copenhagen, who together with a scientific team spent 18 months investigating the chemical and physical properties of dust from the towers, found evidence of nano- termite in the dust and quantities of particles not naturally formed by office or normal building fires that indicate another explosive was also present.

These findings explain the extreme high temperatures that produced
the molten steel for which indisputable evidence exists. In the orchestrated cover-up, NIST denies that molten steel is present as its presence is inconsistent with the low temperatures that NIST acknowledges building fires can produce.

Witnesses at the Toronto Hearings proved that building 7 was a standard controlled demolition and that incendiaries and explosives brought down the twin towers. There is no doubt whatsoever about this. Anyone who declares the contrary has no scientific basis upon which to stand. Those who defend the official story believe in miracles that defy the laws of physics.”

‘Does 9/11 Truth Have A Chance?’, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Sept 2011
V5.1 37

Dr. Tun Mahathir Mohamad - former Prime Minister of Malaysia, keynote speaker at the ‘9/11 Revisited: Seeking the Truth’ conference by the Global Peace Foundation, Kuala Lumpur, Nov 2012

“The purpose of this forum is nothing less than the search for truth on an event that has serious consequences for us all. The Perdana Global Peace Foundation is doing the “unthinkable.” It is going to seek the truth about the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings in New York on 9/11. The official explanation for the destruction of the twin towers is still about an attack by suicidal Muslim extremists. But even among Americans this explanation is beginning to wear thin and is to be questioned.”

‘AE911Truth Presents WTC Evidence to Malaysian War Crimes Conference’, AE911Truth, Dec 2012

Bill Christison - former senior CIA National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis

“I spent the first four and a half years since September 11 utterly unwilling to consider seriously the conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks of that day ... [I]n the last half year and after considerable agony, I’ve changed my mind ... [The evidence] strongly suggest that some unnamed persons or groups either inside or with ties to the government were actively creating a ‘Pearl Harbor’ event, most likely to gain public support for the aggressive foreign policies that followed — policies that would, first, ‘transform’ the entire Middle East, and second, expand U.S. global domination.”

Foreign Policy Journal, June 2010

Dr. David Ray Griffin - Professor Emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Theology and Co-director of the Center for Process Studies at the Claremont School of Theology, Nobel Peace Prize Nominee 2008 and 2009, and ranked #41 among "The 50 People Who Matter Today" by The New Statesman, 2009

“As [Bill] Christison and hundreds of other professionals have illustrated, once people actually examine the evidence, the fact that 9/11 was an inside job becomes pretty obvious.”

‘The New Pearl Harbour Revisited – 9/11, The Cover-Up, and the Expose’, Prof. David Ray Griffin, Olive Branch Press, 2008

“There are literally dozens of problems in the official account of 9/11
sufficiently serious to show the official story to be false. But the clearest proof is provided by the video of the World Trade Center building # 7 coming straight down in absolute free fall. Even though this proof has existed in plain sight for all these years, the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, and hence a State Crime Against Democracy, has remained a hidden fact."

‘Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight’, Prof. David Ray Griffin, May 2010

V5.1 38

Peter Dale Scott – former Canadian diplomat and Professor at the University of California, Berkeley

“9/11 was not only the largest and least investigated homicide in American history but perhaps also the largest hoax, with extremely fateful consequences for human civilization as a whole.”

‘9/11 and American Empire - Intellectuals Speak Out’, Griffin, Scott, 2007

A catalogue of more than 1000 public statements by credible people challenging the official 9/11 story

PatriotsQuestion9/11.com

Including two particular articles:

‘41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11’, May 2009

‘Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11’, Jan 2008
Advocacy groups whose memberships include further credible people

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (2800+ members) Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth Military Officers for 9/11 Truth Veterans for 9/11 Truth

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Many further statements by credible experts can be found in the following two publications

‘The 9/11 Toronto Report, International Hearings on the Events of September 11, 2001’, 2012

Amazon

V5.1

39

‘9/11 and American Empire - Intellectuals Speak Out’, Griffin, Scott, 2007 Amazon

Book review

1. 2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

Conclusion

Multiple facts indicate that the official investigations cannot be considered credible. (see Part 1)
Multiple credible facts indicate the official conspiracy theory (Al Qaeda conspiring to attack America) is false. Therefore it is not known what the truth is. Therefore a proper, independent investigation is required to determine the truth. (see Part 2)

An assessment of these facts without prejudice indicates that the possibility of an alternate conspiracy theory (an ‘inside faction’ was involved in the attacks) is supported by these facts. (see Part 2)
There is an historical context that also supports the alternate conspiracy theory. (see Part 3)

Cultural and psychological mechanisms exist that help to explain our resistance to this information. (see Part 4) Therearenumerouscrediblepeoplewhoarepubliclystatingtheir agreement with the above points.

To learn more, a collection of evidence-based research is listed in Part 6

V5.1

40