The Mechanical Popularity Of Lies by Joe Quinn
In case you didn't hear, the materialistically-obsessed people over at Popular Mechanics, under the tutelage of Editor in Chief Jim "Oh look, a tank!" Meigs, assembled a team of researchers, including "professional fact checkers" (impressive eh?) to debunk the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists about 9/11.
Praise the Lord! The truth can't be far behind.
Unsurprisingly, the PM editors claim that, in the end: "we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate."
In fact, at most 3 of the 16 claims could have been the result of "reporting error", forcing us to assume that, in the razor-like emotionally unclouded cerebrum of Jim Meigs, at least 13 of the conspiracy claims about 9/11 are the result of "cynical imaginations aiming to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate".
Those dirty, cynical, animosity and suspicion-injecting conspiracy theorists! WHY!? Why do they do it!
The sad fact is that, while Popular Mechanics claims to be interested in understanding what really happened that day, their rebuttal of 16 of the most common claims by conspiracy theorists about 9/11 isn't worth the $3.57 of server space that it has so far cost them to publish it.
If there is one glaring and common hole in the arguments put forward by 9/11 conspiracy "debunkers", it is the fact that such people have NEVER come up with a reasonable argument to explain WHY, in the wake of 9/11, so many obviously intelligent citizens became gripped by the uncontrollable urge to continually waste their time recklessly and fecklessly "injecting suspicion and animosity into public debate" for no apparent reason. It really is a mystery. Maybe they're trying to take over the world or something.
On the other hand, it doesn't take a degree in psychology to understand the primary motivations of the conspiracy debunkers.
You see, the very last thing that many Americans (and others) WANT to believe is that their government would attack its own people. For 9/11 "debunkers", logic and intellect have NO part to play in investigating the question of what really happened on 9/11. It's pure emotion all the way.
In the beginning, on the morning of September 11, 2001, we were all united in our emotional reactions: shock, horror, grief and jubilation from a bunch of Israeli Mossad agents. As the emotion subsided, most went on with their lives, but a few stood on, brows furrowed, scratching their heads. After considerable digging and research, it became obvious that the official story did not answer all of the questions, and the fact that officials were refusing to answer those outstanding questions, gave rise, logically enough, to a conspiracy theory. Not long thereafter, the debunkers stepped in, NOT because they had the answers to the outstanding questions, but because they had their emotional buttons severely poked by the fact that someone was saying that their government was lying!
You see the problem here. Kind of frustrating, isn't it?
Sadly, the editors at PM are no different, and their little fear-inspired rebuttal of 9/11 conspiracy theories is of little actual use to ANYONE, least of all to those who really do want to know the truth of 9/11. Far from approaching the matter with an open mind (which is crucial in any attempt to find the truth) , it is clear that Popular Mechanics' "professional fact checkers" BEGAN with the premise that the US government was NOT lying about the main events of 9/11.
From there, the objectivity and integrity of their research went sharply downhill as they busied themselves with hunting down the VERY SAME SOURCES THAT PROVIDED THE OFFICIAL STORY to confirm that the official story was in fact correct. Apparently, in debunkerland, it is completely reasonable to ask US government representatives to testify that the US government is squeaky clean and then present that evidence as "fact". It is also kosher, we assume, to have a murder suspect double as a credible court's witness in a murder trial.
Further evidence of the depths of delusion to which the "professional fact checkers" at Popular mechanics have sunk is evidenced by their outrageous claim that the landing gear of Flight 77 was responsible for creating the "punch out" hole in Ring C of the Pentagon. Just to get an idea of what we are being asked to believe here, consider the picture below:
While the hole was opened somewhat by workers in order to gain better access, this is still a massive hole for a landing gear to have made in a 18" thick concrete wall. Look also at the distance to the other side of Ring C. Allowing for the fact that the aircraft made the first opening in the Pentagon facade, we are being asked to believe that 757 landing gear passed through FOUR other rings, a total of seven other walls of the Pentagon before blasting the final hole above and coming to rest in between rings B and C. Just to put it in perspective, below is a picture of a 757's landing gear.
For those of you who have looked unemotionally at the events of 9/11, it is not unusual to be left wondering how those members of the US government who were clearly complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their own citizens can remain so smug and seemingly self-assured. To find the answer we need look no further than the Jim Meigs' of this world.
You see, it is people like Meigs who lack any love or appreciation for the truth and worship only their subjective view of the world that make it so easy for big government to commit big crime. At present there are millions of Americans and others around the world who, aided by the years of social conditioning and media mind programming, drew a very clear line around what they would and would not believe about their government and country. Most of what was inside the line was "feel good" stuff about "greatest democracy on earth" and other jingoistic nonsense, with perhaps a few admissions that "sometimes bad things happen" and "not everyone is a saint". This mindset provided (and continues to provide) a perfect opportunity for unscrupulous US politicians to literally get away with the murder of which most of the US public refuse to believe they are capable.
The result is that, for all intents and purposes, today there are two Americas:
- The America of the average American citizen which is little more than a government-provided dream world.
- The real America of the corrupt politicians and the select few who run the country, and much of the rest of the world.
Luckily for the select few, this second, real America just happens to lie outside of what many ordinary Americans are willing or able to believe is possible. Lest anyone think otherwise, the setting up of any accusation against government as being the domain of "conspiracy nuts" is not the result of pure coincidence. Conspiracy theories are as old as the first lie ever told, and the subsequent attempts by the liar to avoid exposure. Most people think that "conspiracy theories" are made up by "conspiracy theorists", but the term "conspiracy theory" is most often used by those people who have most to gain from the ridicule of the allegations that are directed at them. The tactic has been used to such great effect over the years that certain high crimes committed by government have become the touchstone by which all other "conspiracies" are measured.
Take the folks at Popular Mechanics. In dealing with 9/11 they simply couldn't resist referencing that other most despicable crime committed by a US government but of course, to them it just another "theory":Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Nobody should take everything they hear from the government, the media or anybody else at face value. But in a culture shaped by Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate, shadowy theorizing.
Did you catch it? The reference to Oliver Stone can mean only one thing: Jim's "fact checkers" contacted the CIA and they told him straight up that some bullets really can do magic things.
So far, we have been generous to the people at Popular Mechanics. We have assumed that they are simply well-intentioned but misguided souls. However, it appears that there is a more sinister, and, dare we say it, 'conspiratorial' side to Popular Mechanics' 'innocent' debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. You see, it turns out that one of the main contributors to the article is one Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of the new Dept. of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff. AFP's Christopher Bollyn, who dug up the information, also alleges that Ben Chertoff's mother was a Mossad agent. While there is, as yet, no evidence of any working relationship between the two, it is certainly noteworthy that the cousin of the current Homeland Security Chief, who, in his previous incarnation as head of the Justice Department's criminal division was instrumental in the release of obvious Israeli spies before and after 9/11, happens to be behind a high-profile attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.
In closing, if you happen to stop by at the sorry article in question, don't be fooled or intimidated by the word "SCIENCE" in big bold letters on the Popular Mechanics page. In Europe, McDonald's drink cups have the words "I'm loving it" emblazoned across them in various languages, regardless of what you put in them.
Credit by association or juxtaposition is one of the oldest tricks in the book of mass mind programming. Just because "they" say it, don't make it so. This simple, logical statement is a salient lesson for us all in these heady days where disinformation masquerades as truth and even "innocent" fun-loving "boys with toys" have become obedient workers in the lie factory.
This article originally appeared on the website
Signs of the Times
Fair Use Policy
A copy of the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM. Details here.
The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11 Serendipity Home Page