9/11 Cult Watch

[orz]

that is probably true. but most of the people I see at the war rallies don't look like they're young enough hippies to be attending their first. the "truth" movement is very much a part of that, although not in an "organized" sense.

Yeah, more like a turning up and annoying all the real anti-war protestors sense.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Back to examining the source of the op article.
I'd bet all my money this site is an MI5 limited hang-out despite their putting at the bottom of one page-
"THIS WEB-SITE IS DEFINITELY NOT A LIMITED HANG-OUT."
(Their fonts. They doth protest too much.)

Most of their alleged links to '9/11 resources' are "NOT LIVE YET."
Gee, it's only been over 6 years...

Here's their lame ass 9/11 page with nothing but info on al-Queda and more warnings against "conspiracy theories." I'm surprised Peter Dale Scott is mentioned but then it is only in a very limited way.

Apparently the people behind this website have never heard of Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Richard Gage, etc.

Must be that physical evidence is a "conspiracy theory" and so shunned.

Note that they do include CIA-CFR spook, Lawrence Wright on their reading list.
Shameless spook promotion.
****

http://www.911cultwatch.org.uk/911cult_009.htm

As stated on the home-page, this is not a total guide to all research materials available, but is worthwhile in terms of pointing you (9/11 believers, critics and the curious alike) towards sources performing the following functions, in general (but not exclusively) from perspectives that are either critical of the 9/11 cult, or agnostic on the subject--in other words merely outlining facts/events without conspiracy theories in mind. Our list is necessarily selective. We aim to:

1) Draw attention to the deep background to 9/11, particularly the origins and nature of Al Qaeda, seen from various angles.

2) Look at the technical/narrative details of what actually happened on 9/11

3) Comment on the activities and especially arguments of the 9/11 Truth cult in broader perspective.

Where relevant, web-based resources will be cited, but a curse of the internet is that for many, if something is not on the internet, or was pre-internet, it is discounted in various ways. Especially remiss concerning a topic where many interesting first-hand memoirs have been written, that only fleetingly, like comets, impinge on the consciousness of net-heads. This page will be updated and extended as time goes by--suggestions welcome. The use of three red asterisks after a source below (***) indicates that for legal reasons it is difficult/impossible to get in the UK: US booksellers are useful here. A majority of these books (all as far as we know) seem to have been stamped on, using the UK's libel laws/the threat of them. In every case so far, the litigious parties are powerful Saudis. For reasons that will be obvious if you read them--even if such elementary logic has eluded the razor-blunt minds of 9/11 cultists.


THE BACKGROUND TO 9/11

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed 'The War on Freedom:How & Why America was Attacked 11/9/01' Tree of Life Joshua Tree California (2002) ISBN 0-930852-40-0: an important early work, placing 9/11 properly within the context of US foreign policy. While drawing negative inferences about the lack of an adequate US military response before/on 9/11, a world away from loony-tune rubbish about pods/holograms etc.

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed 'Subverting 'Terrorism'--Muslim Problem or Covert Operations Nightmare? Institute For Policy Development & Research Working Paper London (2006): carefully argued and meticulously referenced attempt to locate Al Qaeda as a Saudi/US construct. Doesn't quite prove his case about Al Qaeda representing a global 'strategy of tension', but worthy of detailed study

Abdel Bari Atwan 'The Secret History of Al-Qaida' Saqi Books London (2006) ISBN 0-86356-760-6: while weak on the subterranean links between Al-Qaeda and the CIA etc, captures well enough the reality and self-image of the network

Jean-Charles Brisard & Guillaume Dasquie 'Forbidden Truth: US-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden' Thunders Mouth Press/Nation Books New York (2002) ISBN 1-56025-414-9: written by authors with extensive contacts in French intelligence, this fascinating book explores in substantiated detail the close relationship between the US government, spooks, the Taliban & Bin Laden. Along the way some key documents, including CIA/FBI & State Department files on Bin Laden are reproduced. As too the first ever arrest warrant on him (prompted by LIbya). Essential source. ***

Jason Burke 'Al Qaeda: the true story of Radical Islam' Penguin London (2004) ISBN 0-141-01912-3: a mixed bag. On the one hand, very weak on original links between Al Qaeda & the CIA, for example. On the other, good in explaining how Al Qaeda is now a franchise, or idea, as much as solid network. In that sense, the banner can be (is) taken up by many with no formal connection to Bin Laden/his lieutenants.

Steve Coll 'Ghost Wars--the Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan & Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10 2001' Penguin London (2004) ISBN 0-141-02080-6: all the complex detail missing from Burke (for example) on this topic. Particularly good on the complex politics of Pakistan & Afghanistan, rightly placing the latter country at the forefront of understanding Al Qaeda

John K Cooley 'Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America & International Terrorism' Pluto London (1999) ISBN 0-7453-1328-0: another essential source, all the more so in that Cooley outlines the woeful consequences of US covert foreign policy, in alliance with the Saudis, before 9/11 itself. Hence, he cannot be accused of merely being wise after the event.

Peter Dale Scott '9/11 in Historical Perspective: Flawed Assumptions': Briefing for US Congressional Staff (2005): concise (perhaps overly so) attempt to remind decision-makers of US role in Al Qaeda creation















Robert Dreyfuss 'Devils Game: How the US Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam' Metropolitan Books New York (2005) ISBN 0-8050-7652-2: absolutely essential background text, showing with chapter and verse how for many years the US helped prop up/sponsor 'Islamic Militancy'. This is important not just to confound simplistic jihadist propaganda (of Bin Laden's sort) but also to explain the historical context within which 'blowback' (a la 9/11) becomes perfectly comprehensible. A book to make everybody uncomfortable!

Rachel Ehrenfeld 'Funding Evil:How Terrorism is Financed--and How to Stop it' Bonus Books Chicago (2005) ISBN 1-56625-231-8: aspects of this book are almost cartoonish in their politically illiterate stereotyping. However...it struck a raw nerve with the Saudis for disclosing 'intelligence insider' material (foreword by R James Woolsey ex-CIA Director after all). Some grains of wheat among the chaff. ***

Yosri Fouda & Nick Fielding 'Masterminds of Terror' Mainstream Edinburgh (2003) ISBN 1-84018-724-7
some fascinating background material on the Al Qaeda operatives Ramzi Binalshibh and Khaild Shaikh Mohammed involved in planning 9/11 & creating the broader network.

Bruce Lawrence (ed) 'Messages to the World: the Statements of Osama Bin Laden' Verso London (2005) ISBN 1-84467-045-7: another essential text, explaining Bin Laden's world view from his own mouth, and along the way ('Towers of Lebanon' 29/10/04) claiming Al Qaeda responsibility for 9/11.

John Miller & Michael Stone 'The Cell--Inside the 9/11 Plot & why the FBI & CIA Failed to Stop It' Hyperion New York (2003) ISBN 0-7868-8782-6: a standard, but nonetheless informative, inside track account of the obstacles placed in the way of those investigating Al Qaeda activities in the US.

Michael Moore 'The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader' Penguin London (2004) ISBN 0-141-02138-1: the book of the film that catalysed interest in 9/11 for many. Despite its populist style, makes some useful points about the Saudi: Bush connection--presumably why the fruitloops now view Moore himself with suspicion

'Rebuilding Americas Defenses' Project For a New American Century Washington DC (2000): as important for what it doesn't say as it does. Imperialist strategy--certainly, and brutal in places. But a text advocating a 'New Pearl Harbour', as Griffin et al. claim? Not at all (see p.51)

Mohamed Sifaoui 'Inside Al Qaeda' Granta London (2003) ISBN 1-86207-682-0: an interesting first person account from an Algerian journalist who infiltrated Al Qaeda's European network. An important corrective to fantasists deluded enough to believe such didn't/doesn't exist.

Craig Unger 'House of Bush: House of Saud' Gibson Square London (2005) ISBN 1903933625: superb and vital text on the murky relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Saudis--and how this facilitated the construction of Al Qaeda. Far too empirical for conspiracy theorists ***

Lawrence Wright 'The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda's Road to 9/11' Penguin London (2006) ISBN 0-713-99973-X: fascinating detail on many of the key players both from Al Qaeda and their antagonists, such as the tragic John O'Neill of the FBI. Some useful theorising on inter-agency rivalry too.

TO BE CONTINUED (VERY SOON) WITH REFERENCE TO THE EVENTS OF 9/11: WATCH THIS SPACE

[OP ED]

Let me put it this way: "19 Arab Radicals in Caves" do NOT possess the ability to carry out the attack [even the official story] without significant foreign intelligence aid.

Call that racist, I call it reality.

"Arab radicals in caves" = no google hits. "Arabs in caves" over 5,000. Scoffing at the caricature of Arab troglodytes, yes, that is racist.

You know these guys weren't living in caves. They were cultured and Westernized. Connected. Going there is dangerous to the covert players. Saying they were "Arabs in caves" divorces them from the operational structure, and saves the operation.

The part you placed it bold is my point. That even in the cover story we're talking about folks with training/connections/ties/financing from inside the beast, not outside. That "the arabs in caves" is the myth is obvious, but that calling it such can be decried as racism shows the subtlty of the cover-story in its ability to divert conversation into sand traps.

I tend to see the entire semantics area of this as a gigantic, well-designed trap to divert attention. That there are REAL elements of ACTUAL racism involved in SOME places, is most certainly true, but I'd expect it to be very rare in the mainstream CT crowd, mainly because exposure of high-level control mechanisms often convinces people that racism is part of their strategy and not a pathway to truth.

Also, the word "radical" on my part was just my misquoting. I think term 'radical' is also misleading. I was a kid in the eighties and nineties, the ninja turtles are also "radical".

When I use the word "arab" I'll try to be careful not to hurt anyone's feelings. I tend to use it as a term to indicate the "official" account's goal of radicalizing/demonizing [polarizing opinions] about Aram Muslims in general. If this is misunderstood, I apologize for not being more clear.

As far as google goes, Jeff, if Hugh is right [and he probably is about Googlebot hi-jacking, as it seems obvious enough to actually do] about your search engine, it probably gave you what it wanted to give you, not what actually represents even mainstream internet opinion. Just something to keep in mind, eh?

[Jeff]

Apparently the people behind this website have never heard of Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Richard Gage, etc.

Oh, I'm sure they have.

Coming from anyone else, Hugh, I'd assume sarcasm. They approvingly cite Peter Dale Scott and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, whose War on Freedom is called "an important early work, placing 9/11 properly within the context of US foreign policy."

[OP ED]

that is probably true. but most of the people I see at the war rallies don't look like they're young enough hippies to be attending their first. the "truth" movement is very much a part of that, although not in an "organized" sense.

Yeah, more like a turning up and annoying all the real anti-war protestors sense.

If you say so. I was actually referring to some of the "real" protestors, as you call them. I think CT memes are deeply embedded in American culture [ask someone at an anti-war rally who killed JFK, and he probably won't tell you "Lee Harvey Oswald" unless someone is videotaping you], especially in the leftist protest culture. I don't think these people join internet "movements" because I'd imagine most of them don't see the point in it. They keep their minds and options open, but most of them are aware that we're daily being fucked.

Ask a Cherokee if they think that CT theories are ridiculous and see if they tell you "americans wouldn't kill americans".

I guess it depends on what you mean by "real" and by "truth movement" more than anything.

[orz]

Oh fair enough, I was more referring to the UK where the truth movement is really not making a good impression on the old guard of anti-war/anarchist/hippie/leftist types, hence, well, the site we're discussing for one thing.

I'd bet all my money

My god I wish you would.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

[.....They approvingly cite Peter Dale Scott and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, whose War on Freedom is called "an important early work, placing 9/11 properly within the context of US foreign policy."

Only to point at al-Queda. al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.
That's their entire 9/11 focus. al-Queda.
And they use a good dozen or so disinfo talking points to do it.

Notice that PD Scott's book, with 'The Road to 9/11' in the title is not mentioned but Lawrence Wright's decoy titled book is.

Oh, they see plenty of 'conspiracy theory' when it comes to their original 1997 focus, MI5 attacking animal rights/Green activists.

http://www.borderland.co.uk/preview_009.htm

As a result of information gained and contacts made while researching the above two publications, the developing secret state campaign against the animal rights/Green movement was explored in Turning Up the Heat:MI5 After the Cold War.

Bottom line: spooks or not, that website and its '9/11 criticism' are fucked except for outing Shayler as poison.

[Jeff]

[.....They approvingly cite Peter Dale Scott and Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, whose War on Freedom is called "an important early work, placing 9/11 properly within the context of US foreign policy."

Only to point at al-Queda. al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.al-Queda.
That's their entire 9/11 focus. al-Queda.

"placing 9/11 properly within the context of US foreign policy"

How can you quote that, and then the line below contradict it?

I know, Hugh. You'll say al Qaeda doesn't exist, and any mention of it is either limited hangout or spookery. Even when Nafeez Ahmed places it in a context similar to the anti-Castro Cubans re JFK.

[IanEye]

Bottom line: spooks or not, that website and its '9/11 criticism' are fucked except for outing Shayler as poison.

Hugh, the brevity and impact of this sentence is quite powerful.

You should get an Andy Rooney gig, a sort of Mass Media "the 'keyword highjacking ' of the week" type of thing.

a Zen koan.

"with the same Corporate 'blanket exposure" of GMA or 30 Rock...." - sayeth the Eye

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Bottom line: spooks or not, that website and its '9/11 criticism' are fucked except for outing Shayler as poison.

Hugh, the brevity and impact of this sentence is quite powerful.

.....]

Jeff's efforts to save the credibility of this source are unexplainable.
Out come straw men arguments ascribed to me while he ignores the anti-conspiricist swill spewed by the site.

I was gonna wash my hands...

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
I know, Hugh. You'll say al Qaeda doesn't exist, and any mention of it is either limited hangout or spookery. Even when Nafeez Ahmed places it in a context similar to the anti-Castro Cubans re JFK.

I've never ever said al Queda doesnt' exist.
I did state (clearly) that the '9/11 cultwatch' site was all about al-Queada and nothing else, zero mention of physical evidence and the researchers documenting it.

That's derived from the site's own words and the books listed with blurbs.

But you have said that physical evidence is "neither physical nor evidence."
That's quite a remarkable statement.

[orz]

I did state (clearly) that the '9/11 cultwatch' site was all about al-Queada and nothing else,

No, it's about watching the cult-like behaviour of the 9/11 truth movement. Hence the name.

[isachar]

Bottom line: spooks or not, that website and its '9/11 criticism' are fucked except for outing Shayler as poison.

Hugh, the brevity and impact of this sentence is quite powerful.

.....]

Jeff's efforts to save the credibility of this source are unexplainable.
Out come straw men arguments ascribed to me while he ignores the anti-conspiricist swill spewed by the site.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Hugh, Jeff IS anti-conspiricist when it comes to this subject. That's the whole point. He rarely misses an opportunity to cast aspersions on and to denigrate credible and cogent work done by many among those who reject the official fairy tale, while never being terribly specific about those parts of the official fairty tale he rejects - if any. But, we can be assured he rejects any possibility of CD through any means and, by implication fully supports the transparently phony NIST report which is forms the New Testament of the Two Volume Old and New Testament Official Fairy Tale (the Old Testament of course being the equally phony 911 Whitewash Commission).

As I attempted to explain over on the other thread where this subject is now being discussed, the NIST report uses a computer simulation - using highly optimized inputs and assumptions - to calculate what temperatures must have been inside (and they only go for air temps, NOT temp of steel) to supposedly cause a collapse. It then ASSUMES these were the actual temperatures that were pervasive within the Towers, and then declares these assumed temps and pervasiveness to be the cause of the collapse. It does this in the absence of any supporting physical evidence or actual attempts to reconstruct the fires in laboratory conditions.

Now, someone such as Jeff with his powers of perception and observation is damn well smart enough to know this is total crap. And if he isn't then it doesn't reflect very highly on him.

But he pushes the nonsense of the official fairy tale at every opportunity, and rarely fails to use this forum and his blog to denigrate anyone who dares to point out that the official fairty tale as it relates to the collapse of the WTC towers is utter horseshit.

Now, I don't know for sure what did cause the towers to collapse - though I've developed some ideas of which I'm reasonably confident - but I know absolutely the official fairy tale is one steaming pile of rigorously righteous horsecrap. But it isn't necessary for us to know for sure, now is it? That isn't the threshhold. The relevant threshhold is that the official story relies on a demonstrably false methodology that rises to the level of a hoax and fraud.

Knowing this, it isn't too terribly difficult to figure out the broad outlines of the various crimes that transpired and led up to that day.

False flag aided and abetted by official coverup. Maximize real time drama for maximizing trauma.

Again. And the suckers fall for it virtually every time.

Same basic MO as jfk, tonkin gulf, iran-contra, cia-drug running, rfk, mlk.

[orz]

official fairy tale official fairy tale official fairy tale official fairy tale official fairy tale

[Jeff]

Isachar, you and your band of New Truthers have replaced the actual events, crimes and context of 9/11 with your own fairy tales of Holy Collapse Hypotheses. Good luck with that justice thing.