Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed - A Conspiracy Nut or Whaco?

[greatcalgarian]

http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/09/interrogating-911.html

But is it all just a pile of lunacy? If only it was, I could sleep much better at night. Unfortunately, beneath the mountain of theories and speculations, there remain disturbing and persistent anomalies that have yet to be resolved. In this respect, the mainstream media’s approach to criticism of the 9/11 official narrative has been wanting in the extreme, focusing largely on bizarre pet theories and fringe speculations, suggesting that anybody who has doubts about the official story must be delusional, dumb, or both.

Collusion with the Enemy

In fact, overwhelming evidence confirms that al-Qaeda networks in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Asia-Pacific, have been penetrated and manipulated by Western intelligence services. Conspiraloonery? If only it was. As I argue in my 3rd book, The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (2005), the evidence for this is extremely well-documented, deriving from innumerable, credible intelligence sources. But why? Largely to destabilize regional environments to pave the way for new “security” policies that serve to protect not people, but foreign investors taking over regional markets -- especially markets with significant oil and gas deposits.

Who Dunnit? “Er, Ahem, Don’t Ask, We’re Still Not Sure…”

So what about 9/11 specifically? Five years on, even core elements of the official narrative taken for granted by the 9/11 Commission Report, remain absurdly unresolved. To this day, for example, the real identities of most of the alleged hijackers are unknown. In this year’s volume of the peer-reviewed journal Research in Political Economy, edited by economics professor Paul Zarembka of New York State University, Jay Kolar reviews credible reports from the BBC, CNN, and other mainstream sources around the world, confirming that “at least ten of those named on the FBI’s second and final list of 19 have turned up and been verified to be alive, with proof positive that at least one other ‘hijacker’, Ziad Jarrah, had his identity doubled, and therefore fabricated”. Kolar argues that since many of the alleged hijackers are now alive, they must have had ‘doubles’ using their identities as aliases.

And How Did They Do It? “Er, Ahem, No Comment…”

Worse still, in yet another bizarre anomaly that the 9/11 Commissioners simply ignored

The WTC Collapse Anomaly

Even the official account of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is being increasingly disputed by some American scientists.

author of The London Bombings: An Independent Inquiry (www.independentinquiry.co.uk) and The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism (Arris, Olive Branch, 2005). I teach undergraduate courses at the Department of International Relations, University of Sussex, Brighton, where I’m currently a PhD candidate. My research is about the relationship between European imperialism since the 15th century, and Western practices of violence and genocide. I’m also director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, based in central London. My first book, The War on Freedom: How & Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001, was an instant bestseller in the US, Germany and Italy, and won the latter’s Naples Prize. My 2nd book, Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq, examines the role of energy in the pattern of Western interventionism in the Middle East since the collapse of the Ottomon Empire. My third book, The War on Truth, is my magnus opus on international terrorism. Shortly after its publication, I was fortunate enough to testify as an expert witness in US Congress about my research.

 

[greatcalgarian]

The 9/11/01 attack was a complex psychological operation carefully designed to conceal the truth, in spite of numerous obvious red flags in the fraudulent official story. As such it relies on the dissemination of memes that overpower rational consideration of the evidence. One of the most important memes is the idea that all people who question the basic tenets of the official story are loony conspiracy theorists, whose ideas are not worthy of consideration. Part of the construction of this meme was to make the attack so audacious that even a straightforward accounting of the basic facts sounds too outrageous to possibly be true.

http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html

An effective tool for reinforcing the loony conspiricism meme is the introduction of theories that that have no basis in evidence, such as the idea that no planes hit the towers. The association of these ideas with the careful research of investigators in the 9/11 Truth Movement stands to set back the cause of awakening the larger public to the facts of the attack.

 

[greatcalgarian]

The Morgan Reynolds Phenomenon
In mid-2005 a former Bush administration official, Morgan Reynolds, gained notoriety by publishing an essay that sandwiched grandiose ridicule of the accounts of the crashes of the four jetliners between imprecise summaries of evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Titled Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?, the article was widely promoted, for the most part, without any comment on its embedded no-jetliners message. Reynolds did not respond to the substance of the 911Research critique of his article: A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds' Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? , and went on to promote his flawed analysis of the plane crashes on venues like Coast to Coast and the Boulder Weekly. His Boulder Weekly interview is the subject of Boulder Weekly Trots Out Morgan Reynolds' Trojan Horse.

Even if Reynolds has only the best of intentions, his inclusion of easily debunked arguments against the jetliner crashes in his well-publicized article questioning the official account of the World Trade Center disaster makes it function as a Trojan Horse.

This guy might be a government double agent

 

[greatcalgarian]

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.

Some one asked me this question before........

 

[greatcalgarian]

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.

Now you see why we still have 40% of American believing in Government story of 9/11