Since 9/11/01, scores of people have exposed glaring anomalies
in the official account of the attack,
and implicated insiders in the US government in the planning
and execution of the attack.
Such exposures were slow to emerge, J. McMichael's
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
being the first thorough deconstruction of the explanation that the
World Trade Center skyscrapers simply collapsed.
Over time, an increasing number of critics attacked the many
aspects of the official story,
this website and its companion,
being two examples among many.
Since the inception of the 9/11 Truth Movement,
we have yet to see any obvious targeting of
researchers and activists with assassination, death threats,
or even heavy-handed suppression of their messages
as through hacking of websites.
Noting the freedom with which 9/11 truth activists are allowed to operate,
many people conclude that the message of these activists --
that the attack was aided or engineered by powerful insiders --
After all, wouldn't such insiders 'neutralize' anyone
publicly disclosing evidence of their crimes?
The answer to this question is not obvious,
but is essential to understanding how crimes such as 9/11/01 are covered up.
In his video Painful Deceptions,
cites Orlando Sentinel reporter David Porter's comment:
"Conspiracy people would be killed if they were correct."
Hufschimd goes on:
Millions of people will dismiss what I say on the grounds that,
if I was correct,
the people who conducted the scam wouldn't allow me to expose it to the world.
Since nobody cares what I say, I must be spewing nonsense.
In my book
I explain that the Towers were blown up with explosives,
and Building 7 was the command center.
These are serious accusations.
If I'm even partially correct,
why would they let me sell this book, and talk to you about it?
Wouldn't the people who conducted this scam want to kill me?
Most people find it difficult to believe that
someone could expose a scam
without the people involved trying to shut him up.
Understanding why they ignore us will help you understand
how they get away with these scams.
Hufschmid continues by reviewing the
Oklahoma City Bombing
and noting that General Partin provided conclusive evidence
that most of the damage to the building was produced by explosives
in the building, not the truck bomb blamed by the official story.
If the conspirators had killed Partin in order to silence him,
people would have been much more likely to take him seriously,
and the perpetrators might not have gotten away with the crime.
While intimidating truth-tellers through
assassinations, threats, and other illegal means
would risk exposing those involved in the cover-up,
a variety of other methods avoids these risks.
In fact, most of these other methods function effectively
only in the absence of heavy-handed illegal methods of suppression.
As long as the truth-tellers are left relatively unmolested,
they can easily be ignored as crackpots.
Ridicule is the single most effective tool in marginalizing
challenges to the official story.
Given the psychological dynamics of the
the vast majority of ridicule leveled against such challenges
will come, not from architects of the cover-up,
but from normal people simply offended by the suggestion that
such a crime could be the work of insiders.
Americans, in particular, are highly resistant to the idea that
high-level government officials participated in the attack,
for a number of reasons.
- It is much more comforting to think that the attack was the work
of elusive rebels from the opposite side of the globe
than of people who share the same language and culture as their victims.
- Government officials have a great deal of power over people's lives
(power amplified in the wake of the attack),
making it more frightening to entertain notions that those officials
would be capable of such crimes.
- People tend to identify with those in power over them,
even when the relationship is abusive
(a phenomenon known as the Stockholm Syndrome).
This increases the difficulty in recognizing the perpetrators of a crime
when they are insiders supposedly duty-bound to protect the victims.
Given such reasons for denying the possibility of insider involvement,
the majority of Americans tend to reflexively dismiss
challenges to the official story as "conspiracy theories" --
even pieces such as David Griffin's
testimony to the Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Conference
which expose problems in the official conspiracy theory without
proposing any alternative theories.
Given the forces of denial at work,
it is difficult to know whether attacks such as
are disingenuous or just sloppy.
Disinformation works hand-in-glove with
the easily fostered denial that the attack could be the work of insiders.
The insertion of
in support of correct conclusions --
a tactic that has come to be identified with George W. Bush's
propaganda architect Karl Rove --
is rampant in the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement.
Such claims, aided by effective marketing, easily eclipse
rational and scientific analysis of the anomalies and contradictions
in the official story.
By disingenuously identifying nonsensical criticisms with legitimate ones
challenging the official story,
attack pieces such as
set up and effectively tear down a straw man.
Since this attack piece carefully avoids the real evidence that the
attack was the work of insiders while creating the false impression
of covering the gamut of issues associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement,
it effectively inoculates most naive readers against evidence of
the guilt of insiders.
Another tool used to sustain the cover-up is the harassment of
activists and researchers using personal attacks.
Indeed, there are internet personas and websites whose entire purpose
seems to be to attack and defame legitimate researchers.
Examples such as 'the WebFairy', 'Gerard Holmgren', and
are described on the
Since these attacks come from entities claiming to be
proponents of '9/11 truth' the purpose of their attacks
is less likely to be understood by people to fail to
understand that the struggle for 9/11 truth is
a two-front information war.
The personal attacks serve several functions including:
Interestingly, the entities most identified with promoting
elaborate scenarious of fakery
in the Tower crashes)
are the principal promoters of
ad hominem attacks against Jim Hoffman,
recognized by many for his no-nonsense scientific approach.
- Drawing attention away from the work of researchers.
- Distracting researchers away from their work to answer false charges.
- Persuading casual onlookers that the 9/11 truth arena is dominated
by ugly attacks and infighting, and lacking in substance.
- Dissuading newcomers from getting involved in 9/11 truth
lest they become targets of such attacks.
While exposing insider involvement in the crimes of 9/11/01
my not be hazardous to one's health,
for all the reasons described above,
the common belief that it could be
is itself used as a tool of intimidation.
A case in point is the treatment of Professor Steven Jones by
s u m m a r y
In this essay Victoria Ashley covers the surprisingly positive press attention
afforded physics professor Steven Jones in the mainstream press
for his presentations of evidence supporting the hypothesis of the
controlled demolition of the World Trade Center skyscrapers.
Then she provides a detailed review of apparent efforts by
Greg Szymanski -- a author of many articles of the
Arctic Beacon website notable for their lack of corroboration --
to intimidate Jones by suggesting that all manner of terrible fates await him.
Other articles by Szymanski seem to be aimed more generally at
intimidating people inclined to investigate the attack.
The supposed victims cited by Szymanski are notable for their obscurity.
Are such articles designed to intimidate would-be whistleblowers
who are afraid of being harassed by the government for their work?
In a Dec. 2005 article entitled,
'911 Lies: Whistleblower Attacked By Microwave Beam',
Syzmanski relays the experiences of an apparent victim of microwave radiation
for simply trying "to publicize his information on radio and television"
And the harassment just never seemed to stop after I saw that first helicopter.
For example, I had a man come up to me when I was trying to get into my house
and, for no good reason, poke me in the stomach with something
which made me very sick, later causing a staff infection.
He ran away before I could catch him and as a result I had to take heavy duty
drugs. But the most painful was when I felt my insides bubbling,
and I was getting very hot as I was washing dishes.
The next thing I know I can hear the fluid in my head bubbling and
got a massive head ache.
Szymanski does not question anyone else in the piece for verification
of the helicopters or medical records for proof of his condition.
But the details become more sinister:
The thing is all of us have been getting smaller doses to where you
don't notice it. But it slowly causes cancer in many different parts
of the body as well as memory loss and loss of bodily control.
Without questioning any of the veracity of this claim,
Szymanski goes on to explain:
This type of retaliation is usually not associated with a simple carpenter
from a small Montana town, but sometimes those who dig too deeply
"know not what they find." In Nelson's case, he amassed numerous videos,
research documents, seismic studies and other 9/11 facts,
many of which may have contained messages or information
the government wants hidden away.
Again, Szymanski makes outlandish claims of
government attacks against 9/11 researchers, yet he gives the reader
no way to verify anything he writes.
It is bad enough when mainstream media outlets cite too many unnamed sources,
or provide a name but no way to verify that the person even exists.
It is a huge red flag when it is done by someone who purports to expose
a massive government conspiracy, and has neither an editor he reports to,
nor, as far as we know, any journalism training.
page last modified: 2007-08-05