Friday, February 23, 2007


Well, that's a lot of BBC bashing in so little time.

As I posted in the comments section
, I will have to work on my October Crisis essay. I will not be able to afford more of this until after March 5, when my essay is due. You might want to stay tuned; I will post it online. It's a very interesting part of Quebec history, with some parallels to the 9/11 event (including some false flag operations by the RCMP).

Thanks to Prison Planet and Whatreallyhappened for linking to my rants. This has encouraged me to post more. I will hopefully be back soon.

Do give credit to my friend I-Am-Wolfman, who contributed a LOT to the Debunking-BBC article (in fact, more than I did).

Thursday, February 22, 2007

BBC: "Conspiracy on conspiracy"

Isn't it funny how the more Rudin tries to deny there is a conspiracy, the guilter he appears.

I suppose it had to happen. First we’re accused of being spies. Then we’re told we’re getting our orders from others.

For someone who isn't a spy, he sure is giving a very good impression of one.

But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy.

Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, claimed last Friday that a source had told him that we were in a “in a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to air”.

He alleged: ”One version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.”

And the story was picked up on the Alex Jones’ website Prison Planet with the headline “BBC Pressured to Air 9/11 Hit Piece?

Only trouble is there weren’t two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.

It's a shame it's just a conspiracy theory, Rudin. If you did have another version of the documentary, you could have released it to save your credibility. According to you and your ilk, conspiracy theorists love to engage in wishful thinking, and you just shattered their hopes that BBC might not be a totally inept propaganda mouthpiece as your documentary has revealed it to be.

Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldn’t run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Gee, I wonder where people get such ideas? Maybe it has something to do with your 'documentary' trying to smear us by showing to the public theories that neither Alex Jones nor 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK actually endorse, and that have been discredited inside the movement years ago.

First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story.

We didn’t find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.

You missed another opportunity to save your arse, Rudin. Conspiracy mongers as we are, we had some hopes that maybe you're just being ordered to make up that bilge for public consumption, but you're telling us that you're just an incompetent on your own.

Too bad for you, Rudin. Even we conspiracy theorists are coincidence theorists at heart, and we would love to believe that you're just so inept that you can't do enough research to find our real arguments. But you're starting to look too suspicious for your own good.

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that in the programme, together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.

You're so full of shit. Your documentary didn't mention anything about the 'New Pearl Harbor' quote in the document of the Project for a New American Century, which you could at least have attempted to spin into meaning that the neocons didn't plan but just 'wanted' a New Pearl Harbor. It made no mention of Larry Silverstein's 'Pull it' quote, which you could have attempted to spin into meaning that he 'pulled the firefighters' out of the building. Your documentary repeated the assertions made by the NIST report, called Popular Mechanics a 'no-nonsense' magazine, despite having been repeatedly debunked and being owned owned by Hearst, and used an animation of the 'truss' theory that was long debunked. Anyone who does basic 9/11 research will find out about those essential facts. In addition to that, Alex Jones went on the record saying that he showed those documents to your colleague.

Instead, you tried to link us to anti-Semitism by taking the Odigo story out of context and claiming that we still believe in the missing 4000 Jewish employees rumour. You pitted three 9/11 opponents against thirteen supporters of the official story, while showing Alex Jones for only five minutes and portraying him as a cult leader, and falsely calling Dylan Avery a 'college dropout'. And on top of that, you undermined their image with manipulative camera work. Naturally, we're expected to believe that you're doing all this by coincidence, and I bet you will answer that all just imagining those conspiracies on top of the other layer of conspiracies (oh yeah, and makes the conspiracy more complicated, even though it's supposed to simplify the world for us).

I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And it’s great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.

Hmm, let's see, you're smearing us as a bunch of people who believe in conspiracies because we like to make up fantasies, calling us cult members and college dropouts and implying that we're anti-Semites, all this on British public television reaching to the entire world. Maybe there's a reason why we might want to defend ourselves.

However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:

“Attacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by ’Al Qaeda’, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?”

Leaving aside your insinuation (or shall I call it a 'conspiracy theory'?) that we're part of a fake grassroots campaign, and the fact that our numbers have nothing to do with whether our theories are true or not, anyone who took a research methodology class in college can tell that this question is blatantly leading. The phrase 'it is generally accepted' adds a heavy bias to the question. This has an especially exacerbating effect when carried out on the phone, where the respondent will tend to vote with the majority for fear of judgement from the person taking the poll, and have little time to think about the question before answering.

16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.

Gee, I wonder why?

However, as we pointed out in Debunking BBC, other polls, scientific or online, consistently show high levels of support for the 9/11 Truth Movement:

"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%"

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.

Despite the best efforts of the now whimpering attack poodles of the mainstream media, an online CNN poll shows that over four-fifths, or 82 per cent, agree with actor Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks.

Documentary film maker and radio host Alex Jones, coordinating today's 9/11 truth movement events in downtown New York City, says that the atmosphere around ground zero has dramatically changed, with the majority of firefighters and police officers now sympathetic to the claim that 9/11 was an inside job.

Official BBC propagandist concludes:

In fact our opinion poll found much more widespread doubts of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure.

And this Sunday, The Conspiracy Files series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.

Aww, mister Rudin throws us a lolly to prove us that he's not a government agent. Nice try.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

George Monbiot responds, calls us 'conspiracy idiots'

George Monbiot really has gone the way of Doug Thompson.,,2017005,00.html

These conspiracy idiots are a boon for Bush and Blair as they destroy the movements some of us have spent years building

Aww, poor Monbiot whines because people want to indict Bush and Blair for their real crimes and won't listen to establishment opposition like Monbiot anymore. But as Chomsky said, who cares?

'You did this hit piece because your corporate masters instructed you to. You are a controlled asset of the new world order ... bought and paid for." "Everyone has some skeleton in the cupboard. How else would MI5 and special branch recruit agents?" "Shill, traitor, sleeper", "leftwing gatekeeper", "accessory after the fact", "political whore of the biggest conspiracy of them all".

These are a few of the measured responses to my article, a fortnight ago, about the film Loose Change, which maintains that the United States government destroyed the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Having spent years building up my leftwing credibility on behalf of my paymasters in MI5, I've blown it. I overplayed my hand, and have been exposed, like Bush and Cheney, by a bunch of kids with laptops. My handlers are furious.

I might add that you're also a drama queen and a phony intellectual who thinks that calling people disagreeing with the official story 'conspiracy idiots' is a 'measured response', even though it plays into the same line of logic as the Bushists who call criticism of Bush and his wars 'anti-patriotic' and 'anti-American', the Zionists who call criticism of Israel 'anti-Semitic', and the Democrats who tell people that calling Bush out for his fraudulent elections and demanding his impeachment would 'hurt the progressive movement' and 'scare the voters'.

You've blown your credibility, deservedly, because after years of professional journalism, you wrote a poorly researched article full of stupidities, ad hominem attacks, strawman attacks and repeated the canned pseudoscience fed to the public over and over again about the alleged psychological motivations of 'conspiracy theorists', with the expectation to detract people superficial enough to swallow your tripe from our research. And that, with the purpose of getting people to ignore those important issues, is what makes you an 'accessory after the fact'.

I believe that George Bush is surrounded by some of the most scheming, devious, ruthless men to have found their way into government since the days of the Borgias. I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.

I believe, too, that the Bush government seized the opportunity provided by the attacks to pursue a longstanding plan to invade Iraq and reshape the Middle East, knowing full well that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush deliberately misled the American people about the links between 9/11 and Iraq and about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He is responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis.

But you couldn't believe that those people ruthless enough to send more than 3000 people to their deaths in a war based on lies would have the nerve to kill their own citizens. And obviously, the fact that they stated the need for a 'New Pearl Harbor' one year before 9/11 merely meant that they took advantage of 9/11, but couldn't possibly have been complicit.

But none of this is sufficient. To qualify as a true opponent of the Bush regime, you must also now believe that it is capable of magic. It could blast the Pentagon with a cruise missile while persuading hundreds of onlookers that they saw a plane. It could wire every floor of the twin towers with explosives without attracting attention and prime the charges (though planes had ploughed through the middle of the sequence) to drop each tower in a perfectly timed collapse. It could make Flight 93 disappear into thin air, and somehow ensure that the relatives of the passengers collaborated with the deception. It could recruit tens of thousands of conspirators to participate in these great crimes and induce them all to have kept their mouths shut, for ever.

The planting of explosives in the towers didn't attract attention? Never mind the testimony of Scott Forbes who witnessed power downs and an entire floor being shut down and strangers walking around the building with cables, amongst other things.

As for the other points, they are already addressed in my comments that I contributed to the Debunking-BBC article.

In other words, you must believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their pals are all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful, despite the fact that they were incapable of faking either weapons of mass destruction or any evidence at Ground Zero that Saddam Hussein was responsible. You must believe that the impression of cackhandedness and incompetence they have managed to project since taking office is a front. Otherwise you are a traitor and a spy.

Monbiot restates again the old, tired line that conspirators have to be 'all-powerful' to carry out conspiracies. Apparently it's not enough for him that this point was already addressed in his previous hit piece, and addressed over and over again in response to dozens of other propaganda pieces.

Again, the fact that their conspiracy is falling apart and being exposed left and right is testimony to the fact that the Bush cabal is not 'all-seeing and all-powerful', as were nor the Soviets and Nazi Germany.

Why do I bother with these morons? Because they are destroying the movements some of us have spent a long time trying to build. Those of us who believe that the crucial global issues - climate change, the Iraq war, nuclear proliferation, inequality - are insufficiently debated in parliament or congress, that corporate power stands too heavily on democracy, that war criminals, cheats and liars are not being held to account, have invested our efforts in movements outside the mainstream political process. These, we are now discovering, are peculiarly susceptible to this epidemic of gibberish.

Have you ever thought about the possibility that you're the one destroying the movement by limiting inquiry about the extent of their crimes and controlling the opposition? You really think that exposing a government, supported by that same corporate elite, that murders almost 3,000 people to justify an imperial agenda, and raising awareness about the fact that governments have been pulling off such tricks since the beginning of times, is less important than climate change and the Iraq war? You really think that the deaths of 3,000 people and their grieving families are unworthy of a true investigation because you would rather focus on vague issues such as 'nuclear proliferation' and 'inequality'?

The obvious corollorary to the belief that the Bush administration is all-powerful is that the rest of us are completely powerless. In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless. The omnipotence of the Bush regime is the coward's fantasy, an excuse for inaction used by those who don't have the stomach to engage in real political fights.

A group that has been snowballing for the past few years, exposing hundreds of anomalies with the official 9/11 story, composing dozens of documentary films and started hundreds of sites, and gets poll approvals of over a third of Americans and higher in other countries, to the point that you feel the obligation to write two incensed articles filled with personal attacks and (deservedly) get hundreds of vitriolic emails in response, is what you think sees itself as 'powerless'?

Let me give you an example. The column I wrote about Loose Change two weeks ago generated 777 posts on the Guardian Comment is Free website, which is almost a record. Most of them were furious. The response from a producer of the film, published last week, attracted 467. On the same day the Guardian published my article about a genuine, demonstrable conspiracy: a spy network feeding confidential information from an arms control campaign to Britain's biggest weapons manufacturer, BAE Systems. It drew 60 responses. The members of the 9/11 cult weren't interested. If they had been, they might have had to do something. The great virtue of a fake conspiracy is that it calls on you to do nothing.

And I suppose that the thousands of people who have been protesting in New York and London facing police with machine guns is what you call doing nothing?

Poor Monbiot, nobody reads your articles anymore because you won't cover about the real issues, so you have to pen hit pieces bashing our investigations and calling us a 'cult' to get attention. Maybe people haven't looked at your story for the simple reasons that the public already knows about corporate espionage, especially Bush and Blair's wiretaps and elsewhere, and about the corruption of arms manufacturers. That particular incident also did not directly result in the deaths of thousands of people, and justified the casualties of millions of people in imperial wars.

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do. A squirrel sees a larger squirrel stealing its horde of nuts. Instead of attacking its rival, it sinks its teeth into a tree and starts ripping it to pieces. Faced with the mountainous challenge of the real issues we must confront, the chickens in the "truth" movement focus instead on a fairytale, knowing that nothing they do or say will count, knowing that because the perpetrators don't exist, they can't fight back. They demonstrate their courage by repeatedly bayoneting a scarecrow.

A laughably hypocritical accusation, given your own whitewash of the 9/11 issue in favour of your other pet issues which are already being discussed at length by establishment academics. Apparently it doesn't occur to you that a government willing to kill 3,000 of its own people might be a far scarier, more urgent and dangerous problem than 'inequality', which has been a problem since the beginning of civilisation.

By the way, false flag operations is one of the tools used by the elite to maintain their positions of power; if we are to combat 'inequality' and the war in Iraq, then it might be a good idea to address some of the root. But you don't really care about that, do you, because you're not the one holding signs and facing armed police officers and putting your credibility and reputation at stake; you hate us because you're more interested in holding on to your cushy job penning establishment-approved articles than finding the truth, and you're complaining because we're taking your spotlight instead of playing along.

Many of those who posted responses on Comment is Free contend that Loose Change (which was neatly demolished in the BBC's film The Conspiracy Files on Sunday night) is a poor representation of the conspiracists' case. They urge us instead to visit websites like, and, and to read articles by the theology professor David Ray Griffin and the physicist Steven E Jones.

Thanks for pointing out to us that BBC demolished Loose Change. Too bad it got exposed as a poorly researched hit piece by three or four articles (including our own) a day after and even before the film went on air. Guy Smith, the producer of the show, had to defend himself on Alex Jones' show and got his ass handed to him.

Concerned that I might have missed something, I have now done all those things, and have come across exactly the same concatenation of ill-attested nonsense as I saw in Loose Change. In all these cases you will find wild supposition raised to the status of incontrovertible fact, rumour and confusion transformed into evidence, selective editing, the citation of fake experts, the dismissal of real ones. Doubtless I will now be told that these are not the true believers: I will need to dive into another vat of tripe to get to the heart of the conspiracy.

Apparently those dozens of professors and government insiders, including the top Bin Laden expert who now publicly states that the Osama confession video was a fake. But only the ones supporting your biases towards the 9/11 events, apparently, are 'real' experts.

The 9/11 truthers remind me of nothing so much as the climate change deniers, cherry-picking their evidence, seizing any excuse for ignoring the arguments of their opponents. Witness the respondents to my Loose Change column who maintain that the magazine Popular Mechanics, which has ripped the demolition theories apart, is a government front. They know this because one of its editors, Benjamin Chertoff, is the brother/nephew/first cousin of the US homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff. (They are, as far as Benjamin can discover, unrelated, but what does he know?)

Actually, we don't ignore Popular Mechanics because it's a government front, but because it's been debunked over and over again.

Benjamin may say all he wants that he doesn't believe he's related to Michael Chertoff, but his mother doesn't agree with him.

Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the new world order, I would say that, wouldn't I? It's all part of the plot.

Whatever the Levellers and the alleged 'millenarian fantasies' were, contrarily to your chicken little scare tactics, it does not look like the 9/11 truth movement is ready to die soon, considering that the numbers of sites debunking the 9/11 official story are growing exponentially and far surpass the number of sites supporting it.

We don't need you to sarcastically admit to being an agent of the New World Order, because not merely your support of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, but also the sophistic nature of your hit piece, exposes you as a propagandist. But we would say that, wouldn't we, because after all we're just a bunch of 'conspiracy idiots'.

EDIT: it turns out that Monbiot had a rather different opinion of the 9/11 events in 2001:

"The more evidence US intelligence presents...the less credible the story becomes.

"First there was the car. A man had informed the police, we were told, that he'd had a furious argument with some suspicious looking Moslems in the parking lot at Boston airport. He led the investigators to the car, in which they found a copy of the Koran and a flight manual in Arabic (Flight manuals are 'always' in English), showing that these were the fundamentalists who had hijacked the planes.

"Now flying an aeroplane is not one of these things you learn in the back of a car on the way to the airport. Either you know how to do it or you don't.
"Leaving the Koran unattended, a Moslem friend tells me, is considered sinful.

"And if you were about to perpetrate one of the biggest terrorist outrages the world has ever seen, would you draw attention to yourself by arguing over a parking place?

"Then there is the passport. The security services claim that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was extracted from the rubble of the World Trade Centre. This definitive identification might help them to track the rest of the network.

"We are being asked to believe that a paper document from the cockpit of the first plane - the epicentre of an inferno which vapourised steel - survived the fireball and fell to the ground almost intact."When presented with material like this, I can't help suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the theory first, then sought the facts required to fit it...


So this, Monbiot, makes you worse than a New World Order asset or an accessory after the fact, but a coward, a traitor and a collaborator. Like Doug Thompson and Noam Chomsky, you have now lost your credibility and you have deserved it. When the New World Order gets toppled (because unlike you, we are not cowards), you will be held to account for aiding the Bush and Blair regimes.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Debunking the BBC's 9-11 Conspiracy Files

Following up BBC's 'questionnaire' branding people believing in government conspiracies as paranoid sociopaths, BBC released yesterday, sharply breaking with its reputation of neutrality and balanced journalism, an astounding piece of propaganda that defamed the investigative efforts of thousands of people questioning the government-sanctioned version of the events of 9/11.

In order to counter this shameful, ridiculous spectacle of journalistic monstrosity, I-Am-Wolfman and I have spent some evenings to put together an analysis to address this filthy litany of disinformation:

To give you an idea of this monumental farce of a hit piece, here is a lengthy excerpt of the analysis, courtesy of my trusty colleague:

The programme began with the narrator saying the theories were offensive to those families affected by 9-11 - a logical fallacy called an 'appeal to emotion'.

The programme shows us bent WTC steel columns and damaged vehicles in a warehouse, then proceeds onto the official story, whilst showing the alleged hijackers on CCTV at an unnamed airport. Then casualties were discussed, videos of shocked people were shown, and emotional phonecalls were aired. This is all emotional manipulation, and it is not related to pure theory, as it does not prove or disprove anything. This did not dissuade the BBC however.

There were scientists used to support the official story, but no counter-scientists shown, such as Professor Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin PhD and others [19]. It was continually stated that blaming the government was scapegoating, yet it is precisely that act which was carried out by the mainstream media and the authorities when blaming Bin Laden.

When Fetzer and Avery were shown talking to the camera, they were overwhelmingly depicted as single-minded and emotional, with a forcible attitude of 'you're either with us or against us', which was intended to subliminally turn the viewer off them - and thus discredit their points.

Before Avery began talking, they called him a college 'dropout', and said he made his money selling Loose Change. Avery is shown saying he does not care what the debunkers say - we believe this clip to be out of context, and that Avery was disagreeing with something else.

Fetzer was always pictured close-up when talking, to make the viewer uncomfortable and to ensure his gestures were exaggerated beyond what was reasonable - a technique that could be used to subliminally turn the viewers off him. There was no explanation made of Fetzer's conflicts with other prominent members of the truth movement regarding his more unusual theories.

Avery and Fetzer were used the most. Alex Jones was not, despite the fact that Alex Jones is one of the more eloquent, respected, and knowledgeable people on these matters.

It was almost half an hour before we got to see Alex Jones, who was introduced when he was yelling to an audience about the New World Order. The BBC said he was like an 'evangelist' -- this was another underhanded technique where the BBC tried to associate alternative thought with religious fundamentalism.

Contrarily to the libelous claims of the Blair Broadcasting Corporation, it is the BBC that befouled the memory of the 9/11 victims by endorsing a demonstrably fraudulent account of the events, disculpating and protecting whom half of the victims consider to be the prime suspects, with strawmen known to be strawmen and omissions admitted to be omissions, as demonstrated by their refusal to cover real evidence despite having been presented it by their interviewee Alex Jones, making themselves accessories after the fact of a sinister hoax. Needless to say, we are not impressed by the insults of the BBC, nor by their treasonous behaviour and their hypocritical accusations towards us and the 9/11 Truth community.

Official BBC moron Mike Rudin responds to accusations of being a government agent:

Oh and by the way, in answer to one comment, no I am not and have never been a spy.

Those assurances aside, it remains all the same that a government con artist would not have operated otherwise.

By the way, we also shamelessly admit to being the authors behind Debunking Maddox. If you don't believe me, you can check the signature of the post; I tried to edit it and Google forced me to upgrade the Blogger account, which I was unable to do without transferring it to my own account.

More articles dealing with BBC's drivel:

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

George Monbiot joins the anti-9/11 truthers

It never ceases to amaze me how often I keep seeing the same anti-conspiracy canards over and over again, be they about 9/11 or JFK or any other topic. The wording and the logic is so repetitive it makes me wonder whether the people penning those articles really are part of a conspiracy as they claim to be believed by the people they call 'conspiracy theorists'.

The fact of the matter is that notwithstanding the sighs heaved by the people who believe that espousing a different theory than that promoted by the government is a symptom of mass delusion, the logic that they believe ought to quiet the dissenting voices does not stand up to close examination.

So thus I must address this logic which falls amazingly short of the usual level of intelligence of a professional journalist:,,2006831,00.html

There is a virus sweeping the world. It infects opponents of the Bush government, sucks their brains out through their eyes and turns them into gibbering idiots. First cultivated in a laboratory in the US, the strain reached these shores a few months ago. In the past fortnight, it has become an epidemic. Scarcely a day now passes without someone possessed by this sickness, eyes rolling, lips flecked with foam, trying to infect me.

Monbiot starts right off with propaganda tactics and ad hominem attacks. The 'virus' analogy is supposed to spin the snowball effect of the 9/11 truth movement as a mass delusion, a black hole to which people are being helplessly and irresistibly attracted. According to Monbiot, opponents to the Bush regime are irrational thinkers who would accept anything to fuel their hatred, a talking point familiar for being overused by Bush worshippers, especially to deny now proven facts such as US torture and CIA prison camps in Europe. Of course, such a point of view leaves totally out of the question that people may be able to think for themselves; apparently they need to be saved from 'bad' ideas by expert thinkers like George Monbiot.

The disease is called Loose Change. It is a film made by three young men that airs most of the standard conspiracy theories about the attacks of September 11 2001. Unlike the other 9/11 conspiracy films, Loose Change is sharp and swift, with a thumping soundtrack, slick graphics and a calm and authoritative voiceover. Its makers claim that it has now been watched by 100 million people.

It would interesting to know what Monbiot defines as 'standard' conspiracy theories about 9/11. Theories can hardly be anything other than 'standard' because they are conclusions based on available evidence, not some sort of science fiction movies. Unless by 'standard' he means the ones promoting discredited theories such as the 'no-plane' and the 'missile pod' theories.

Even if you have seen or read no other accounts of 9/11, and your brain has not yet been liquidised, a few problems must occur to you. The first is the complete absence of scientific advice. At one point, the presenter asks: "So what brought down the twin towers? Let's ask the experts." But they don't ask the experts. The film-makers take some old quotes, edit them to remove any contradictions, then denounce all subsequent retractions as further evidence of conspiracy.

Note the hypocrisy of that last statement. In the same sentence, Monbiot claims that it's normal for officials to retract statements, but that the absence of contradictions means they were 'edited out'. In other words, 9/11 truthers conspire to falsify evidence, but saying that officials were pressured to retract their statements is conspiracy thinking.

Despite the known flaws of Loose Change, which are addressed in the linked article, there is no shortage of experts who believe that 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy (and contrarily to Monbiot's claims, they do not only include philosophy and theology professors).

The only people they interview are a janitor, a group of firemen, and a flight instructor. They let the janitor speak at length, but cut the firemen off in mid-sentence. The flight instructor speaks in short clips, which give the impression that his pupil, the hijacker Hani Hanjour, was incapable of hitting the Pentagon. Elsewhere he has said the opposite: he had "no doubt" that Hanjour could have done it.

Actually, Loose Change did not 'interview' those people, but used clips that were already available. On the other hand, it is not only Loose Change which is accused of manipulation. Firefighter Lou Cacchioli reportedly said in an interview that the 9/11 Commission twisted his words. That, coupled with the firefighters dying of asbestos poisoning after being lied about the safety of the air, might be the reason why despite the apparent mistake in Loose Change, there is vast support from the firefighters for the 9/11 truth movement.

To address Monbiot's comments about the comments of the flight instructor Marcel Bernard, here is the full quote:

There’s no doubt in my mind that once [Flight 77] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.

This alone, however, is not sufficient to invalidate the argument based on Hanjour's inability to fly an aircraft. There is more involved than getting Flight 77 going:

However, on 9/11, in piloting Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to do much more than simply point the plane at a target. Because Flight 77 at first seemed to overshoot its target, the Washington Post will note that “the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level... Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm...” [Washington Post, 9/12/2001]

It seems that for someone who fancies himself as the anti-conspiracy thought police, he has not done much research.

The next evident flaw is that the plot they propose must have involved tens of thousands of people. It could not have been executed without the help of demolition experts, the security firms guarding the World Trade Centre, Mayor Giuliani (who hastily disposed of the remains), much of the US air force, the Federal Aviation Administration and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, the relatives of the people "killed" in the plane crashes, the rest of the Pentagon's staff, the Los Alamos laboratories, the FBI, the CIA, and the investigators who picked through the rubble.

Yet another use of the 'tens of thousands of people involved' canard. Apparently it takes tens of thousands of people for a government with virtually unlimited resources to carry an attack on its own soil, but only 19 Arabs to bypass layers and layers of security.

Actually, there is no need for the entire personel of organisations to be directly involved. Scenario 404 is an example of a possible operation that would only have required a handful of people to carry out. For a short summary, only the top operatives giving orders or infiltrators are aware of the actual operation, where the people taking orders are compartmentalised. An example of this that Monbiot fails to mention is the military exercises that were conducted during the 9/11 attacks, which would provide sufficient cover to confuse the pilots and prevent them from stopping the attacks.

If there is one universal American characteristic, it is a confessional culture that permits no one with a good story to keep his mouth shut. People appear on the Jerry Springer Show to admit to carnal relations with their tractors. Yet none of the participants in this monumental crime has sought to blow the whistle - before, during or after the attacks. No one has volunteered to tell the greatest story ever told.

More propaganda, this time equating theories about 9/11 with rubbishy entertainment. Again, the underlying premise is based on the assumption that tens of thousands of people were involved, which is addressed above. Another problem, however, is that there are people who have been trying to blow the whistle, and hundreds of them. Unfortunately, the media is just as complacent when it comes to 9/11 as they were when the neocons were telling lies to sell the war in Iraq.

Read some conflicting accounts, and Loose Change's case crumbles faster than the twin towers. Hundreds of people saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Because it collided with one of the world's best-defended buildings at full speed, the plane was pulverised - even so, plane parts and body parts were in fact recovered. The wings and tail disintegrated when they hit the wall, which is why the holes weren't bigger.

The 'conflicting accounts' prove that a plane did crash into the Pentagon. They do not prove, however, that the people responsible were the alleged 19 hijackers.

The failure of the twin towers has been exhaustively documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Far from being impossible, the collapse turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel structures. As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapsing top stories generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest. Puffs of smoke were blown out of the structure by compression as the building fell.

The NIST report has been found to be deeply flawed.

Counterpunch, the radical leftwing magazine, commissioned its own expert - an aerospace and mechanical engineer - to test the official findings. He shows that the institute must have been right. He also demonstrates how Building 7 collapsed. Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel on to the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled, and the building imploded. Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions.

The Counterpunch article was debunked by Kevin Ryan. If Monbiot had done research, he would have found that the Popular Mechanics article is well-known in the 9/11 truth movement to be a strawman and has been debunked by many independent researchers.

So the critics - even Counterpunch - are labelled co-conspirators, and the plot expands until it comes to involve a substantial part of the world's population. There is no reasoning with this madness. People believe Loose Change because it proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable, small. Despite the great evil that runs it, it is more companionable than the chaos that really governs our lives, a world without destination or purpose. This neat story draws campaigners away from real issues - global warming, the Iraq war, nuclear weapons, privatisation, inequality - while permanently wrecking their credibility. Bush did capitalise on the attacks, and he did follow a pre-existing agenda, spelt out, as Loose Change says, by the Project for the New American Century. But by drowning this truth in an ocean of nonsense, the conspiracists ensure that it can never again be taken seriously.

As I said at the beginning of the article, the people the mainstream media likes to call 'conspiracy theorists' are accused of lumping anyone who disagree with them with the conspirators, which would supposedly increase the number of people involved with the conspiracy. Never mind the fact that most critics believe that the media is being an accessory after the fact; this assumes a free media, when in fact they are owned by a very small number of corporations with military interests. It would hardly be far-fetched to think that editorialists might be just a little encouraged to publish attacks on the 9/11 truth movement, since it is already admitted that the media was paid by the White House to publish pre-packaged government propaganda.

But wait! It looks like reporters DO collaborate with the CIA!

Monbiot makes the bizarre assertion that Loose Change proposes a 'closed world'. It puzzles me how a conspiracy that supposedly involved 'thousands' of people and would imply questioning the nature of the government and the introduction of theories of manipulation and power structures would be more 'comprehensible' than the one implying 19 hijackers who crash airplanes into buildings because they hate our freedoms. Supposedly, only operations involving Arabs would involve chaos, whereas a conspiracy that was so sloppily conducted that it is being exposed left and right would imply that the government controls everything. A claim that even Sovietologists would not have made.

Monbiot apparently does not believe that doing a real investigation of the 9/11 events and giving real answers to people, or that nearly 3,000 people being murdered by the government for an imperial agenda is a 'real' issue. Furthermore, his statement on the PNAC following a 'pre-existing' agenda fails to mention that their document had spelt out their intent to exploit a 'New Pearl Harbor' event a year before 9/11.

The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change.

The bromide that 'conspiracy theorists would be dead' is so unoriginal that even Maddox came up with it before Monbiot. I even wrote an article about this. Either as I said it means that the ACTP has a talking points list, or Monbiot is plagiarising Maddox.