Loose Marbles I: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[greyl]

It seems to be part of human nature that any event of great scale or significance will inevitably engender conspiracy theories. The Kennedy assassination and the moon landing are two recent events that have spawned some of the most durable and complex examples, but there are many more, swirling around nearly every major world event and ranging from the nearly plausible to the outright ridiculous. (An example of the latter category would be the assertion that Hurricane Katrina was caused by secret weather-control technology.)

But no recent world event has been more iconic or more horrifying than the September 11, 2001 attack on America. As such, it is no surprise that the events of 9/11 have given rise to a slew of conspiracy theories alleging that the attacks were not, as they appeared, the handiwork of radical Islamists working for the terror group al-Qaeda, but rather a plot orchestrated by the U.S. government. This charge is leveled most prominently by a variety of conspiracy documentaries circulating on the Internet, one of which is titled Loose Change. Created by the filmmakers Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas, LC alleges that the 9/11 attacks occurred primarily as a cover-up for a plan to steal billions of dollars in gold (hence the title), and secondarily as an excuse to enact elements of a neoconservative political agenda.

Before going any further, I should stress that I fully support efforts to roll back the regressive laws and stop the bellicose and disastrous foreign policy which were both defended by the Bush administration by endless appeals to 9/11. However, I also believe that we on the left should be, as the saying goes, in the reality-based community. Our opposition to these programs should be based on the facts, not on paranoid fantasies, and in this respect LC and other 9/11 conspiracy theories must be met on their own terms and debunked. This documentary in particular was characterized by corruptions of logic, appeals to missing or dubious evidence, wild speculation blended with selectively presented fact, and other hallmarks of the irrationality that pervades most conspiratorial thinking. It will be the purpose of this post series to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt by analyzing its claims and showing that they do not hold up.

I will not be arguing against hypotheses that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the attacks and deliberately failed to prevent them. Although I believe this idea is also false, it is not the purpose of this series to address it. Rather, I will focus on debunking the idea that the Bush administration, or any other government or entity, carried out a plan whose purpose was to make Americans believe that we had been attacked by Islamic terrorists when we had not been. As I will argue, the conventional explanation for 9/11 - that the attacks were planned and carried out by members of al-Qaeda, smuggling weapons on board four commercial airliners to hijack them and use them as kamikaze missiles - is the only reasonable explanation for the events of that terrible day. more

[petgoat]

1. Loose Change is a straw man, greyl.

Does anybody actually read screeds like the one you linked? I sometimes wonder if such
things are designed NOT to be read, but simply to intimidate.


Here's a more readable debunking:


http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

And a summary:

http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/supplements/loosechange.html

The Loose Change team attended the Chicago conference; maybe some time around
grown-ups has influenced them and Loose Change 3 will be better.

[greyl]

2. You aren't making sense.

It appears you're criticizing the 3 articles I linked to, but you offer nothing more than the statement that Loose Change is a strawman. I guess that's supposed to mean that the arguments in Loose Marbles are a waste of time. Then you link to a site that you say debunks Loose Change.
Whatever.

[MervinFerd]

3. Mr. Goat.....

You never proved the Earth is Round.

Or that you are not a Space Alien.

[SidDithers]

4. Excellent...thanks for posting nt.

Sid

[mirandapriestly]

5. Why aren't you interested in the omissions & mistakes made by

the 9-11 Commission? Don't you think that is a little more influential? Why are you going after some college kids and their budget video? You give a pass to the official investigation but you go after some students who are trying to spread their message by going to college campuses with bullhorns? The article's "reality based community" = corporate media and spokesperson from the bush administration, both of which are far more inaccurate than Loose Change.

[greyl]

6. So, did you like the Loose Marbles articles? nt

[mirandapriestly]

15. It is subjective,I was hoping for a list of specific inaccuracies

The example of the world trade center on the FEMA cover. I didn't see that as an attempt to show that there were secret plans to crash planes into the WTC. It's obvious that it was used retrospectively. Things like that are subject to interpretation. The film goes on to show some pretty strong evidence for preplanning: Northwoods and PNAC, the article insinuates that the FEMA pamphlet was the only point they had of preplanning.

[MervinFerd]

13. Because wild claims prevent serious investigations and.....

harm progressive causes.

Yes, the 9/11 Commission was not independent and left critical questions unanswered.

BUT

unfounded theories that the average citizen will consider bonkered only give the Administration cover.

[mirandapriestly]

38. "Give the administration cover"

What does that mean?. The media gives this admin. a pass on everything they do, posters speculating on 911 have no effect on this admin.,whatsoever. Most don't think ideas about 9-11 are "bonkers" once they find out why people believe them. You don't think they're "bonkers" either or you wouldn't be posting here 24/7. I think it's "bonkers" to think intelligent life lives on, say, Mars. But, if I saw a forum full of people who believed that was true I wouldn't waste my time posting there and arguing with them or even ridiculing them because it would be unchallenging and I would feel sorry for them. That is the way someone reacts to those whom they consider "bonkers", you don't move in with them.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

43. Or, if you were an anti-intellectual who gets wet

from jerking people around on internet forums.

[greyl]

42. Your Life on Mars forum analogy doesn't work.

Unless you'd like to look at it this way: The forum is DU, and it's full of people who don't believe intelligent life is on Mars. You do.

[mirandapriestly]

47. I don't think you get it.nt

[Grateful for Hope]

40. Can you elaborate

on what you mean by "progessive causes"? What progressive causes?

I do believe there is some disinfo out there that may be intended to misdirect serious investigations, but, there is also a lot of legitimate info out there. And, because we know so very little about the evidence (since this administraton is so secretive about everything), it is difficult to separate info from disinfo.

One thing I do know is that the public does not know the whole truth about what really happened.

[MervinFerd]

93. What are "Progressive Causes?.......

Feeding the hungry. Fair wages for all. Universal Health Care. Rational foreign policy. Abortion choice. Tolerance.



YES. The administration lies, daily and blantly.

That does not mean that they can fly in holographic airplanes.

[KJF]

7. I can't help but sometimes think...

... that the people that write these things are even less knowledgeable about the events of 9/11 than the Loose Changers themselves, for example:

(1) "Flight 77 disintegrated because it was crashed at 350 mph into a nine-foot-thick wall of reinforced concrete and steel."
This claim - "a nine-foot-thick wall of reinforced concrete and steel" - is, as far as I can tell, entirely of the author's own invention. The actual wall was mostly made of limestone and brick, although it did have a few steel elements, and was only a couple of feet thick.

(2) The South Tower fell first, depsite being hit second, "for the most basic of reasons - the South Tower was hit lower down, meaning that there was more mass above the impact site weighing down on the damaged structural elements."
Anyone who has actually bothered to learn a little about the structure of the WTC knows that the gravity load-bearing columns were tapered and that those on the impact floors in the South Tower were thicker than those on the impact floors in the North Tower, meaning that they were as able to support the weight of the section of the tower above them as their counterparts in the North Tower.

(3) "This is especially true if, as eyewitness reports indicate, the plane crashed and skidded along the ground before striking the Pentagon; in such case, its wings would already have been disintegrating before impacting the building."
Not this one again. The plane hit light poles and items in front of the Pentagon (a chain link fence, a generator and a utility vault retaining wall). It didn't hit the lawn. It didn't skid. Can we not just stop this?

[greyl]

8. That's good to hear...

..oh, you weren't finished with the sentence. ;)

(1)"The primary structure of the Pentagon is 42,420 steel-reinforced concrete columns."
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/news_1-2.html

"The original structural system, including the roof, was entirely cast-in-place reinforced concrete using normal-weight aggregate."
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html


(2)"...there was more mass above the impact site weighing down on the damaged structural elements."

You simply cannot argue with that statement. It's true.



(3)"This is especially true if, as eyewitness reports indicate, the plane crashed and skidded along the ground before striking the Pentagon"

In context: "To begin with, the real world is not a Warner Brothers cartoon. A plane crashed at high speed into a solid object will not leave a hole that is an exact silhouette of itself. This is especially true if, as eyewitness reports indicate, the plane crashed and skidded along the ground before striking the Pentagon; in such case, its wings would already have been disintegrating before impacting the building. Nevertheless, there is extensive damage to the Pentagon consistent with the impact of a jumbo jet. See here for a large picture (warning: 2.3 MB image), and here for a gallery of somewhat smaller photos. Clearly, although the plane's wings did not punch cartoon-like holes into the Pentagon, they did inflict extensive damage to its facade. (As multiple sites have pointed out, airplane wings are designed to be as light as possible, and would have shredded upon impact with the building's heavily reinforced load-bearing columns.) See here and here for detailed analyses."

Me thinks your quibbles don't amount to much.

[KJF]

9. Pentagon, WTC

(1) The document you linked to said American 77 hit a "nine-foot-thick wall of reinforced concrete and steel". The American Soceity of Civil Engineers says "The perimeter exterior walls of Ring E are faced in limestone and backed with unreinforced brick infilled in the concrete frame."
Link: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf (page 6)
Are you seriously suggesting the ASCE can't tell the difference between a couple of feet of masonry and 9 feet of reinforced concrete? Just because the internal columns and the roof are made of concrete, doesn't mean the outer wall has to be as well.

(2) The statement is true, but meaningless, because the supporting columns were thicker lower down.
"The upper parts of the buildings had less wind load and building mass to support. This, on higher floors, the thickness of the steel plates making up the columns decreased, becoming as thin as 1/4 in. near the top."
NIST, main report, p. 8

(3) Discussion of whether American 77 hit the lawn is irrelevant. It didn't hit the lawn and this has been shown conclusively.

Loose Change isn't very good. Neither is the "debunking" you posted.

[greyl]

10. My main point is that

your quibbles don't amount to much, relative to the dozens of excellent points made by Loose Marbles.

"Loose Change isn't very good."

No, Loose Change is a piece of garbage.
Loose Marbles makes many sharp points about ridiculous arguments, many of which are found repeatedly outside of Loose Change.

[Grateful for Hope]

11. But

if there are better critiques out there, then why not acknowledge this? Most of us know that there are shortcomings with Loose Change. This is not news. But, this is not to say that everything in that film is erroneous.

And, this particular critique has some good points, but, from what Kevin says (forgive me that I have not taken the time to analyze the article), there are also some inaccuracies.

I am getting the idea here that, instead of wanting to get at the truth, some of the posts in this forum indicate that what is more important is debunking the work of 9/11 skeptics.

I hope I am wrong.

[greyl]

12. The truth behind the lies you mean?

How does the existence of 1 thread about this article imply what I care more about? It doesn't.
What part of my 1st response to kjf's points about innacuracy do you disagree with?

[Grateful for Hope]

18. It's not that I disagree so much

as I see YOU disagreeing with, what I thought to be, a fair critique of the article you posted.

This statement: "Me thinks your quibbles don't amount to much" says to me that maybe there is an unwillingness here to listen to constructive criticism much like the 9/11 skeptics are accused of.

And, this is an issue on both sides of the "aisle" as far as I am concerned.

[greyl]

33. My quibble statement was after a fairly thoughtful reply

which dealt directly with the criticism.
Based on the veracity of the arguments, they didn't amount to much.

[Grateful for Hope]

24. Also wanted to add

When did I ever mention "lie"?

[greyl]

34. How is that important?

I never implied that you did.

[Grateful for Hope]

41. I stand corrected

I was misreading your post.

I apologize.

[mirandapriestly]

14. Astute observation, Hope

also, as Pet Goat said it is a straw man; Loose Change has errors, therefore critics of official story are erroneous. It starts out with the general: conspiracy theories about 9-11, then proceeds to only criticize L.C. to give the appearance that it is actually critiqueing the collective argument against the official theory.

[Grateful for Hope]

23. Yes, MP

Once a few errors are found, then this is enough evidence to denigrate the entire video/article/book.

It does go both ways, but, from what I see in this forum, there are honest attempts to critique links provided by those who are honestly debunking various aspects of the 9/11 truth movement. And these critiques seem to be dismissed in the same manner as the various theories of 9/11 skeptics are dismissed.

On the other hand, what really concerns me is that, when a thread presents some verifiable evidence (such as Osama bin Laden has never been charged for 9/11), we do not see these same people, who are so seemingly eager to debunk any and all alternative theories, participate in those threads.

[KJF]

16. Well, here's some more

(4) Loose Marbles: "The film asks (00:17:55) what happened to the plane's massive, six-ton main engines, and the answer is that they did indeed punch into the Pentagon. An Army report on the cleanup two weeks after 9/11 (source) says: "On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane."

Do you think that is right? That the "punchout hole" was made by an engine?
btw, the link doesn't work, but the quote can be found at Snopes.

(5) Loose Change "It's an interesting postscript that Flight 93 was spotted on April 10, 2003 at Chicago's O'Hare airport by David Friedman, a United Airlines employee… The tail number, N591UA, was spotted on Flight 1111, a United Airlines 757."
Loose Marbles: "It is unclear why we should not consider this report a simple mistake, or the reuse of a number - unless we are to believe that the conspiracy decided to reuse the plane it tried to pass off as destroyed (evidently, this is a very budget-conscious conspiracy), and then neglected to repaint the tail number."

United 93's tail number was N594UA, not N591UA, as is pointed out at 911research.

(6) Loose Change "On September 23, the BBC reported that Waleed al-Shehri was alive and well in Casablanca, Morocco. They also tracked down Abdul Aziz al-Omari… So how many hijackers turned up alive? At least nine of them."
Loose Marbles: "What we have here is a simple case of mistaken identity."

The thing is that the identity was mistaken by the FBI, who initially thought that Waleed Ahmed Al Shehri (a US-trained pilot) was one of the hijackers. They subsequently found he was alive and that another Waleed Al Shehri appeared to be dead (and had a brother called Wail who appeared to be dead too) and changed their minds. This is fairly clear to anyone who has a look at it in any depth. This is typical of Loose Marbles - it goes for a "never mind the quality - feel the width" approach.

[greyl]

30. meh

(4) The existence of a hole isn't the best argument for the existence of aircraft engines travelling at high speeds, but you and I both agree that a plane hit the pentagon and that Loose Change is wrong, so I don't think this a big problem.
I think it's possible that at least one of the pics of a "punch out" was made during the rescue/cleanup.

(5) Again, you agree that Loose Change is very wrong, and that Loose Marbles could have given a better argument. I agree.

(6) Again, you essentially agree with Loose Marbles.

"This is typical of Loose Marbles - it goes for a "never mind the quality - feel the width" approach."

Nah, its main focus is on the obviously poor logic in Loose Change, and it provides some occasional sources to contradict factual errors.
The author states: " "Most of my writing on this topic is an attempt to synthesize various points made by others more knowledgeable than I" & "I must admit I have no particular qualifications on the subject" 7 "As always, I extend the same invitation to all comers: if you think there are any errors or omissions in my posts that bear on my conclusions, by all means, point them out and we can discuss them."
Why don't you go ahead and post your improvements to Ebonmuse's arguments in the comments section? I'm sure he'd appreciate it. Btw, I'm very impressed that you're one of the very few who read to the 3rd article. ;)

[KJF]

36. If you want to praise...

... a fairly sloppy piece of work, then please feel free. I'd rather distance myself from it.

"...its main focus is on the obviously poor logic in Loose Change..."
Yes, but it shouldn't be. Logic isn't Loose Change's main problem, inaccurate research is. It gets the little details wrong and the big picture is made up of the little details, so the big picture is then necessarily skewed. The author of the piece you posted tries to use logic to cut corners, but that's never going to work - logic is no substitute for facts.

[greyl]

37. Logic doesn't always involve or depend on "facts" per se.

Therefore, your statement that logic is no substitute for facts is meaningless. Of the six criticisms you gave of Loose Marbles, none of them result in saying Loose Change got it right instead. None of them argue with the conclusions of Loose Marbles.

Just to be clear, between Loose Marbles and Loose Change I or II, which do you think has more truthiness?

[KJF]

56. The author clearly believes that:

(1) The Pentagon's outer wall was 9 feet thick and made of reinforced concrete;
(2) American 77 was able to penetrate the 9-foot thick reinforced concrete wall.
That's not an "excellent point", it's ludicrous. Not only does he not have any "particular qualifications on the subject", he hasn't even done his readers the courtesy of striking up a nodding acquaintance with the subject about which he is writing. You yourself admit that "its main focus is on the obviously poor logic in Loose Change". However, the main problem with Loose Change is not its logic, but the inaccuracy of some of its facts. Therefore the author is "obviously" focusing on a side issue, although you appear not to have noticed this.

"Of the six criticisms you gave of Loose Marbles, none of them result in saying Loose Change got it right instead."
Wrong. Go back and read them again.

"Just to be clear, between Loose Marbles and Loose Change I or II, which do you think has more truthiness?"
Neither. This is much better:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/introduction.html

[greyl]

57. Which of the 6 did Loose Change get right? nt

[mirandapriestly]

52. Well said

nobody ever agrees on what is logical anyway.

[StealthyDragon]

55. I find it very odd........

That something that didn't make a hole on the outer wall..........could in fact make a hole........on an inner wall.

But what the hell.........physics seems to have been thrown out the window that day anyway!

;o)

[KJF]

59. I'm not really keen on cryptic comments

Care to explain?

[StealthyDragon]

62. You know.......

silly things like folding wings and missing vertical stabilizer marks. Fire proof lawn grass.

Steel and concrete that somehow have the same potential energy as air.

[KJF]

64. You're going to have to be more specific

You can start with folding wings.

[StealthyDragon]

67. I believe........

That's what I did.

To believe in such nonsense..........borders on the insane.

Do you believe in angels by any chance?

[greyl]

72. It's clear to me that you aren't interested in authentic discussion.

I thought you'd like to know.

[StealthyDragon]

73. I thought you'd like to know.

What do you think I'd like to know?

That you buy the government's version of magic jets and shape shifting arab terrorists?

I think you make that clear.

[greyl]

76. ...that I know you aren't interested in authentic discussion. nt

[Americus]

77. Sounds like "Confessions Of a 9/11 OCT Shill"

Since when have ANY OCT cheerleaders/shills been interested in discussing anything? After all, by definition, an OCT shill is here ONLY to to undermine the search for the truth about what happened on September 11, 2001...why it happened, who the perps are, and how we and the rest of the world should respond to it.

The only people fooled by such patently phony protestations of an OCT'er saying they just "want to engage in meaningful discussion" are new DUers and naive DUers.

[greyl]

78. Turn that loop off, don't play me.

Already got laid.

[SidDithers]

87. new DUers...

now, who would fit that description?

Sid

[StealthyDragon]

83. that I know you aren't interested in authentic discussion.

How is pointing out the obvious lack of external holes not made by the PentagonMagicJet not a authentic discussion?

Should we talk about the fire that no one seemed interested in putting out?

[petgoat]

25. Loose Change is a piece of garbage, agreed. I watched about

half of it. Good production, lousy research.

Nobody here is promoting Loose Change. It's a straw man.

[Jazz2006]

90. "Nobody here is promoting Loose Change"

Au contraire, lots of tinhatters in this forum have not only promoted it but have leapt all over those who have criticized it.

Nice to see that you have finally come around to calling it the garbage that it is.

And interesting to see that none of the CTers who jumped all over skeptics for saying that Loose Change is crap have posted a single response to your post in which you finally say straight out that which skeptics have been saying for a long time here.

Very interesting, that.

[Jazz2006]

96. But nice to see that we agree, for once, that Loose Change is garbage

Cuz it is.

[HornBuckler]

17. I have a few questions/problems with the original post

Mainly the first paragraph

"It seems to be part of human nature that any event of great scale or significance will inevitably engender conspiracy theories. The Kennedy assassination and the moon landing are two recent events that have spawned some of the most durable and complex examples, but there are many more, swirling around nearly every major world event and ranging from the nearly plausible to the outright ridiculous. (An example of the latter category would be the assertion that Hurricane Katrina was caused by secret weather-control technology.)"

Sounds to me the author believes the official story on Kennedy and throws in the moon landing so as to not look like an ass. The last sentence regarding weather control is interesting, and also plausible. (not exactly what I would call 'outright ridiculous'). If someone wants to talk about weather control we can do it in another thread.

If you wanted to cite outright ridiculous things people believe in, try religion for starters. That is the whopper of all conspiracies - organized religion is the mother of myth. Interesting that the site seems to be run by an atheist/agnostic and missed out on that reference. But let's move on.

the last sentence, or actually last half of it

"-that the attacks were planned and carried out by members of al-Qaeda, smuggling weapons on board four commercial airliners to hijack them and use them as kamikaze missiles - is the only reasonable explanation for the events of that terrible day"

ONLY REASONABLE explanation? Someone explain how that is the ONLY reasonable explanation? Sounds like faith based thinking to me (the government would never do something so atrocious) It's plausible, and to down right deny suspicion and speculation does a disservice to whatever the truth may be.

[wildbilln864]

20. Looks like "loose marbles"....

is just another RW feeble attempt to disuade any attempts at getting to the real truth. Loose change has errors, that's common knowledge. These guys were speculating. But if the governments story were true, they'd have no reason to keep the many video's and other evidence from public scrutiny.
Ridicule will not stop the truth from coming out!
I guess those 9 ft. titanium engines just vaporized?

[HornBuckler]

21. Yep

There are SO many anomalies on that day to just sum it up by saying : that 19 dudes pulled it off behind everyone's backs nothing to see here move along - bullshit!

[greyl]

27. Right wing? very funny.

I'm convinced you didn't click the link.

[JohnyCanuck]

22. Here's another ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Nato, the CIA, MI6 and various Western European security and/or secret service agencies conspired to allow wacko, far right, fascist organizations, secret military units and underworld figures in the 70s and 80s to murder European civilians in terrorist attacks which were then blamed on radical leftists and commies in order to discredit left leaning/communist politicians and causes. Oh wait a minute, that one turned out to be true. Sorry, my mistake.

'You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

This was the essence of Operation Gladio, a decades-long covert campaign of terrorism and deceit directed by the intelligence services of the West -- against their own populations. Hundreds of innocent people were killed or maimed in terrorist attacks -- on train stations, supermarkets, cafes and offices -- which were then blamed on "leftist subversives" or other political opponents. The purpose, as stated above in sworn testimony by Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was to demonize designated enemies and frighten the public into supporting ever-increasing powers for government leaders -- and their elitist cronies.

First revealed by Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti in 1991, Gladio (from the Latin for "sword") is still protected to this day by its founding patrons, the CIA and MI6. Yet parliamentary investigations in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have shaken out a few fragments of the truth over the years. These have been gathered in a new book, "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe," by Daniele Ganser, as Lila Rajiva reports on CommonDreams.org.

Originally set up as a network of clandestine cells to be activated behind the lines in the event of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, Gladio quickly expanded into a tool for political repression and manipulation, directed by NATO and Washington. Using right-wing militias, underworld figures, government provocateurs and secret military units, Gladio not only carried out widespread terrorism, assassinations and electoral subversion in democratic states such as Italy, France and West Germany, but also bolstered fascist tyrannies in Spain and Portugal, abetted the military coup in Greece and aided Turkey's repression of the Kurds.

Among the "smoking guns" unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which details the methodology for launching terrorist attacks in nations that "do not react with sufficient effectiveness" against "communist subversion." Ironically, the manual states that the most dangerous moment comes when leftist groups "renounce the use of force" and embrace the democratic process. It is then that "U.S. army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger." Naturally, these peace-throttling "special operations must remain strictly secret," the document warns.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO502B.html

[mirandapriestly]

29. Or the CIA handing out pamphlets

to contras in nicaragua instructing them to:

U.S. Orders Probe of CIA Terror Manual

Facts on File World News Digest

October 19, 1984

Pg. 764 A2

President Reagan Oct. 18 asked the director of the Central Intelligence Agency to investigate a manual issued by the agency that instructed Nicaraguan contras in techniques of political assassination and guerrilla warfare.

The Associated Press had gained a copy of the manual, called "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War." An AP dispatch disclosing its existence was widely published in the U.S. press Oct. 15.

The authenticity of the manual was reported to have been confirmed by U.S. intelligence sources. According to the sources, the manual was distributed to the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN), a contra group based in Honduras. FDN leader Adolfo Calero Portocarrero had denied that the manual came from the CIA. ...
However, the manual also endorsed the "selective use of violence" and gave instructions on how to blow up public buildings and blackmail ordinary citizens.

The manual did not use the words "assassinate" or "kill," but it did refer to "neutralizing" specific targets.

...Among the suggestions included in the manual were the following:

* "Selected targets" such as judges, police and state security officials could be "neutralized." The manual said, "For psychological purposes . . . it is absolutely necessary to gather together the population affected, so that they will be present, take part in the act, and formulate accusations against the oppressor." Rebels should explain to the people why targeted individuals should be "replaced"; it cited reasons such as the "unjust, indiscriminate" nature of the Sandinista regime.

* Guerrillas should infiltrate "workers' unions, student groups, peasant organizations, etc., preconditioning these groups for behavior within the masses, where they will have to carry out proselitism for the insurrectional struggle in a clandestine manner." A "psychological war team" would "prepare in advance a hostile mental attitude among the target groups, so that at the decisive moment they can turn their furor into violence." The manual cautioned that the propaganda teams initially "should not mention their political ideology."

* After a rebel uprising had occurred, "if possible, professional criminals should be hired to carry out specific, selective 'jobs.' "

* Guerrillas should arrange for the deaths of sympathizers to create "martyrs" for their cause. They were advised to lead "demonstrators into clashes with the authorities, to provoke riots or shootings, which lead to the killing of one or more persons, who will be seen as the martyrs; this situation should be taken advantage of immediately against the government to create even bigger conflicts."

* Individuals should be drawn into meetings with rebel leaders, who would not disclose their identities. If the individuals failed to cooperate, the guerrillas should threaten to expose them to the police.

* If it "becomes necessary" to shoot a fleeing citizen in a town occupied by guerrillas, the guerrillas should explain that the citizen was "an enemy of the people" who would have "alerted" the Sandinistas, who would then have carried out "acts of reprisals, such as rapes, pillage, destruction, captures, etc."

.....The administration was also reported to be investigating another CIA publication, a comic book instructing Nicaraguan citizens opposed to the Sandinista government in sabotage techniques. Among the suggestions were: "Stop up toilets" with sponges; "telephone to make false hotel reservations"; "hoard and steal food from the government," and "cut and perforate the upholstery of vehicles." The aim of the sabotage techniques was to "paralyze the military-industrial complex of the traitorous Marxist state."



http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/60879.html

[Americus]

35. Wait, wait. There's another HUGE conspiracy theory that's even crazier

The Offical 9/11 Conspiracy. You know, the one in which a CIA asset directs 19 young cocaine-loving Muslim extremists to pretend to be "regular guys" who frequent topless bars and are so self-disiplined and serious about their religion that they could almost take over control of the entire U.S. military defense while conducting their suicide missions in NYC, at the Pentagon, and somewhere in Pennsylvania (maybe)...all plotted, planned, and accomplished while their main man moves around from one cave to another somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan (when he isn't in a Pakistani military hospital or one in an Arab country - undergoing dialysis and having meetings with the local CIA honcho for that area).

Now THAT'S what I call a wacky conspiracy theory to top all conspiracy theories, and I think most reasonable people agree, regardless of whether you're an objective truth seeker, neocon, Bush apologist, or paid shill.

[StealthyDragon]

49. Well........

If you call fascism "freedom" long enough.......people will believe it.

===============================================================
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one - Spock
===============================================================

[greyl]

26. Confirmation bias has misled you.

-On jfk: The author cites the assasination as an example of a big event that spawned an incredible amount of conspiracy theories. The author knows the theories can't all be true, and that many of them are ridiculous on their face. Do you realize the same?

-"If you wanted to cite outright ridiculous things people believe in, try religion for starters.

Haha. The article is on daylightatheism.org but you'd only know that if you actually clicked on the link and read the fucking article.

Finally, you've got an odd idea of what faith based thinking is. Narrowing down hypothesis to the most reasonable is not a faith based process. Criticizing a long article based on quickly reading 4 paragraphs of it is.

[HornBuckler]

31. I did read it, and in my post #17

I mention the fact that the author seems to be atheist/agnostic - why did you miss that part of my post?

I believe I understand why he cites JFK - but why lump that with the moon landing? It makes it look like JFK and the moon landing are on the same page in the conspiracy theory world. And that, as we both know, is ridiculous.

I disagree with your assessment of my thoughts on faith based thinking - my response to the last paragraph of the OP remains valid. He says the official story is the ONLY reasonable explanation - that's close-minded thinking in my opinion.

[greyl]

32. Confirmation bias misled me. :) nt

[StealthyDragon]

48. The article is on daylightatheism.org

I know a few science poor atheists that believe that jet's can fold their wings, and steel and concrete can have the same potential energy as air.

So much for that parallel!

[mirandapriestly]

28. I noticed that too.nt

[hpot]

19. I prefer "Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime"

It is hard to dispute LIHOP statements provided by high level government officials.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688

[mhatrw]

44. Just one question.

Why is it so easy for most of us to believe that 19 Arab hijackers pulled off 9/11 by themselves but so impossible for most of us to consider that 19 Arab hijackers might have pulled of 9/11 with the help of a few powerful insiders?

Jut wondering ...

[StealthyDragon]

45. Thanks! I needed a good laugh!

Another obvious neoshill site!

>>>To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that Flight 77 was entirely vaporized by the heat of the explosion; rather, Flight 77 disintegrated because it crashed at 350 MPH into a nine-foot-thick wall of reinforced concrete and steel.<<<

The fact is the Pentagon had a press conference on National TV in Oct 01 and used the words "vaporized and wings folded!" I'm sure plenty of people in this forum also heard this televised event.

As far as 9 foot thick wall goes. Anybody who's done any research into this subject knows better.

Obviously............YOU DON'T also!

[Grateful for Hope]

46. This is one of the best pics

I have seen of the pentagon damage. Thanks for posting this.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Grateful for Hope]

51. LOL!!

"Setting shape charges for dummies!" Another good one! This is the second good laugh I have had tonight.

Thanks!

[mirandapriestly]

53. The book sitting on the stool untouched

I was reading some testimonies today and one of them was by a woman who was sitting at her desk and she says a fireball flew over her shoulder right before the explosion. It is so weird, I don't know if it was supposed to be an offshoot of the main fireball or what, but that is what she said.

[StealthyDragon]

54. I don't know if you realize.......

that the fire ball was nothing but a gas main that the neocons set off as part of the illusion.

[mirandapriestly]

61. well, there was jet fuel store conveniently near the "impact"

are which added to the fireworks .They sure were in no hurry to put the fire out.

[StealthyDragon]

63. They sure were in no hurry to put the fire out.

They let the fire burn for days. And as the movie Fahrenheit 911 shows (the only worth while part of the movie).......added extra fuel to keep the illusion burning.

[greyl]

66. You have a photo set of "favorites!" from 9/11?

Interesting.

What does book.jpg mean to you?

[StealthyDragon]

69. What does.........

folding wings..........mean to you?

[greyl]

70. Do you think the USA has behaved poorly in the mideast?

Do you think the USA is immune from foreign attack?

Do you think bush using the term "crusade" means anything?

Do you know that "folding wings" aren't mentioned in the OP?

Do you know what strawmen and non sequiters are?

Do you know what stealthy means?

[StealthyDragon]

74. Do you think the USA has behaved poorly in the mideast?....

No, I think mass murder is a turn on to megalomaniacs.

>>>Do you think the USA is immune from foreign attack?<<<

Considering that our borders are wide open........I don't think it's a valid concern.

>>>Do you think bush using the term "crusade" means anything?<<<

I think Bush plays the "I'm an idiot game" with the American sheep-le because he's told to do so by the Karl (creators of illusions) Roves of the world.

>>>Do you know that "folding wings" aren't mentioned in the OP?<<<

I know what I heard on National TV.

>>>Do you know what strawmen and non sequiters are?<<<

Terms that government shills use all the time in order to get out of answering valid questions.

>>>Do you know what stealthy means?<<<

I'm sure you work for some sector of the military. Why don't you tell me?

[greyl]

75. Upfront, I'm not taking you seriously.

"No, I think mass murder is a turn on to megalomaniacs."

That's some kind of goofy sarcasm and I'll be damned if it resonates.
Should I assume that you believe the USA hasn't acted in a horrible manner toward other, less militarily supplied cultures? That there's no reason for the indigenous people of the mideast to retaliate against our culture for invading theirs with whatever tools they may have?

"Considering that our borders are wide open........I don't think it's a valid concern."

That means that the US isn't immune to foreign attacks, right?

"I think Bush plays the "I'm an idiot game" with the American sheep-le because he's told to do so by the Karl (creators of illusions) Roves of the world."

That statement means that you think bush and his admin are more savvy than most Americans.
Forgive me for vehemently disagreeing with you. If I knew you believed polls meant anything, I'd direct you toward those.

"I know what I heard on National TV."
I don't know what you heard on National TV, and I why should I care? The OP didn't mention folding wings, you did.

And lastly, to the question "Do you know what strawmen and non sequiters are?":

"Terms that government shills use all the time in order to get out of answering valid questions."

To me, that's explosive evidence that you either have no appreciation for logic, critical thought, & honesty, or are simply masturbating.

[StealthyDragon]

81. Upfront, I NEVER take you seriously

>>>That's some kind of goofy sarcasm and I'll be damned if it resonates.
Should I assume that you believe the USA hasn't acted in a horrible manner toward other, less militarily supplied cultures?<<<

Take it anyway you like. The fact is, 10's of thousands of people are being killed so that a few people can bocome even more rich than they are. In fact, millions have been killed over the years by these people.

>>>That there's no reason for the indigenous people of the mideast to retaliate against our culture for invading theirs with whatever tools they may have?<<<

Everything about 9/11 points to the neocons as being behind this fake terror. Look around you. Where's the terror?

>>>That means that the US isn't immune to foreign attacks, right?<<<

I'm saying that the terror is state sponsored. Nobody wants to attack us. People don't like the idea of dying.

>>>That statement means that you think bush and his admin are more savvy than most Americans.
Forgive me for vehemently disagreeing with you. If I knew you believed polls meant anything, I'd direct you toward those.<<<

They're stupid........so no way they could have pulled off 9/11. A perfect alibi. But the facts don't lie.

>>>To me, that's explosive evidence that you either have no appreciation for logic, critical thought, & honesty, or are simply masturbating.<<<

I lump UFOs, Crop Circles, Magic Jets, Free falling steel buildings, and shape shifting Arab terrorists all in the same category.

And if you believe any one of them..........you need shock treatments.



Why can't people just step back and just look at the illusion? -- Lionel

[greyl]

85. I guess that's why your "answers" suck.

Arab terrorists are on the level of Crop Circles? Okayyy.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Americus]

79. I think it means: "HELP. I gotta change the subject REAL fast"

It's surprising that they don't teach shills how to be a little more subtle when they're asked/confronted with a question or information about the absurdity of the OCT and pretending to be something other than a OCT cheerleader.

[greyl]

80. Call me a shill. nt

[StealthyDragon]

82. Call me a shill.......

I don't think it's necessary.

Not acknowledging mistakes like "9 foot thick walls" makes it obvious.

[greyl]

86. I provided links

to detailed info on the walls. I'm still waiting for acknowledgment that they are in fact concrete reinforced with steel.

[StealthyDragon]

91. 9 foot thick?

I think not!

Faced with limestone may I add! Which shows no mark by the supposed jet's vertical stabilizer.

Let's play...........move the evidence at the crime scene!
http://car.batcave.net/

[greyl]

94. Read the links in post #8 carefully

and explain how they support Loose Change.

If the only argument you have against Loose Marbles is the 9 foot thing, you are way behind.
There are several dozen other pieces of the argument that you aren't touching.

A preponderance of the evidence shows that Loose Change is mostly bullshit.

[StealthyDragon]

95. The official story is complete bull

compared to Loose Change.

Have you noticed that?

[Desertrose]

58. Welcome to the 911 dungeon, Stealthy Dragon

Some things here never seem to change...always nice to see some new sensible faces though. :)

Interesting how some folks still try to spin whats been said...."folded wings"...as in folded hands praying some fools would believe their version of Flt 77.

DR

[StealthyDragon]

60. some fools........

Thanks for the welcome........

I'm sure the neocons were counting on the number of fools in the general public.

As the comedian Lewis Black would say, "What does one take to become so delusional?"





===============================================================
Why can't people just step back and just look at the illusion? -- Lionel
===============================================================

[greyl]

65. Once one realizes that they've been lied to all of their life

by most every authority figure in it, it takes a while for them to rebuild a coherent model of the world that actually relates directly with reality. For some, it takes longer than others.

[StealthyDragon]

68. For some, it takes longer than others......

and most.........never figure it out.

Following blindly seems to be the norm. aka the collective disability.






===============================================================
"Coup d'etat in the United States would be too fantastic to contemplate, not only because few would actually entertain the idea, but also because the bulk of the people are strongly attached to the prevailing political system and would rise in defense of a political leader even though they might not like him. The environment most hospitable to coups d'etat is one in which political apathy prevails as the dominant style." - Andrew Jonas
===============================================================

[greyl]

71. I can't argue with that at all.

Be comforted knowing that you're in the majority.

[salvorhardin]

84. You just said something interesting

"Once one realizes that they've been lied to all of their life by most every authority figure in it, it takes a while for them to rebuild a coherent model of the world that actually relates directly with reality. For some, it takes longer than others."

That would indicate to me a useful model of categorization for worldviews along three dimensions

y............z........................
|.........../.........................
|........../..........................
|........./...........................
|......../............................
|......./.............................
|....../..............................
|...../...............................
|..../................................
|.../.................................
|../..................................
|./ ..................................
|/....................................
+-------------------------------------x

x = those who don't believe they are routinely lied to by authority -- those who do believe they are routinely lied to by authority
y = those who have adopted no coherent models of world -- those who have adopted coherent models of the world
z = those who are not reasonably happy with their lives -- those who are reasonably happy with their lives

The only problem I see is that the y axis might be discrete rather than continuous since some people develop multiple models of the world (scientists and mathematicians in particular, but others too). Also some models are more adaptive than others. I'd argue that the conspiracist model is not very adapative though there are certainly those who would disagree.

The z axis might be replaced with locus of control

The big problem with all models like this is whether or not the axes are orthogonal. They usually never are.

[greyl]

88. Looking up orthogonal...

Interesting idea you have.
How could that data be gathered?

[salvorhardin]

89. Fancy word for "are all the axes actually independent"

I suppose you could always go the political compass route. Throw up a web site with a survey and start collecting data (except they claim not to collect data).