9-11 Review
articles critiques
9-11 Research
reviews essays
9-11 Review
sections
Attack & Cover-Up
Means & Motive
Info Warfare
contents
Info Warfare
Trojan horses
dissembling websites
hoax-promoting videos
dissembling books
legal subterfuge
parade of errors
phantom planes
Webfairy's Whatzit
pod-planes
North Tower hit
South Tower hit
bumble planes
Flight 93
fake calls
Pentagon attack
757 maneuvers
eyewitnesses
no debris
crash debris
small impact hole
missing wings
turbofans 101
standing columns
punchout
obstacles
small plane
Boeing 737
Flyover
WTC demolition
seismic spikes
pre-impact explosions
collapse times
diminishing fires
Building 6 explosion
basement bombs
spire to dust
WTC 2 powerdown
mini nukes
pull it
vast conspiracy
divide and conquer
left gatekeepers
Holocaust denial
the Big Tent
intimidation
propaganda
hit parade
conspiracy theory
Denmark
shell game

Intimidation

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, 911Research.wtc7.net, 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 -- is wrong. 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, Eric Hufschmid 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 [Painful Questions], 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, Hufschmid explains, 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

Ridicule is the single most effective tool in marginalizing challenges to the official story. Given the psychological dynamics of the Big Lie, 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 Michael Shermer's are disingenuous or just sloppy.

Disinformation

Disinformation works hand-in-glove with the easily fostered denial that the attack could be the work of insiders. The insertion of ludicrous ideas 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 Popular Mechanics ' 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.

Personal Attacks

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 'WingTV' are described on the bogus page of OilEmpire.us. 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:

  • 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.

Interestingly, the entities most identified with promoting nonsensical claims (such as pods, hologram planes, and other 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.

Virtual Intimidation

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 Greg Szymanski.

s u m m a r y
title: Steven E. Jones; A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction
authors: Victoria Ashley
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" about 9/11:

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
Copyright 2004 - 2011,911Review.com / revision 1.08 site last modified: 12/21/2012