Originally published by Joe Giambrone, American author, filmmaker, at Political Film Blog on 1/11/14
“FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.”
I gave up knocking heads with disinfobots concerning the 9/11 attacks back in 2009. It was after I read this, and it finally appeared hopeless. Barack Obama, the stuffed suit who could speak for hours and say exactly nothing, would continue the September 11th cover-up. The 9/11 Commission, which the two chairmen admitted was “set up to fail,” and was largely based on testimony extracted through torture in secret dungeons, was to be taken at face value by Obama’s Administration. Obama also went to great lengths to protect the CIA torturers and to persecute CIA whistleblowers like John Kiriakou.
It was by then a nightmarish media environment. Most so-called “alternative” press wouldn’t listen to actual, substantial complaints with corroborated evidence of government malfeasance and lying about 9/11. Accusing the government of criminal activity made one a “conspiracy theorist” by definition, even if the crimes were true. “Conspiracy theorist” describes every police investigator in the world; that’s what they do. Intelligent writers who pushed to discredit the government’s treasonous 9/11 cover-up were ignored.
“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
The Bush White House committed Treason… Continue reading
by Kevin Ryan
When Underwriters Laboratories fired me for challenging the World Trade Center (WTC) report that it helped create with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it said “there is no evidence” that any firm performed the required fire resistance testing of the materials used to build the Twin Towers. Of course, that was a lie.
With this experience in mind, I checked to see how many times the 9/11 Commission Report used the phrase “no evidence,” and noted in particular the times the Commission claimed to have “found no evidence” or that “no evidence was uncovered.” I discovered that the phrase “no evidence” appears an amazing 63 times. An example is the dubious statement — “There is no evidence to indicate that the FAA recognized Flight 77 as a hijacking until it crashed into the Pentagon (p 455).
Of these 63 instances, some variation of “we found no evidence” appears three dozen times. This seems to be an unusually high number of disclaimers begging ignorance, given that the Commission claims to have done “exacting research” in the production of a report that was the “fullest possible accounting of the events of September 11, 2001.”
The number of times these “no evidence” disclaimers appear in the report is doubly amazing considering how infrequently some of the most critical witnesses and evidence are referenced. For example, the FAA’s national operations manager, Benedict Sliney, who was coordinating the FAA’s response that day, appears only once in the narrative (and twice in the notes).…Continue reading