Further comments on 9/11 and Internet attacking
by Jon Rappoport
February 9, 2014
After I posted my piece about molten metal at the World Trade Center, I received an unusually large number of emails offering explanations.
My article was simply meant to point out an anomaly: melting dripping steel at the WTC, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, in some cases long after the attacks, did not mesh with the official scenario about how the buildings came down.
Soon after September 11th, 2001, I advised people to look at the explosion(s) itself, the impact, the profile of the damage, as one good starting point for investigation.
This was because I had done that in 1995, after the Oklahoma Bombing. It turned out that a truck bomb, exploded from the curb in front of the Murrah Building, could not have caused the pattern of damage that resulted.
Of course, after 9/11, numerous hypotheses about how the buildings had been taken down, were presented. This effort continues. It was thermite. It was cutter charges placed on columns inside the buildings. It was charges placed inside columns when the Trade Towers were originally built. It was mini-nukes. It was an energy weapon.
Because I am not, first and foremost, a 9/11 researcher, I reject none of these scenarios. I also know that with any hypothesis, trying to establish it with evidence can bump into facts not covered by the hypothesis.
“If hypothesis X is true, then how do you account for observations Q,R.S. And T. You can’t.”
It’s possible that more than one method of destruction was employed on 9/11. It’s possible that was done precisely to confuse independent researchers who would come along and try to develop one and only one explanation for how the Towers came down.
It’s also possible a multiple method of destruction was employed so that independent researchers would attack each other and accuse each other of lying, deceit, cover-ups, and so on.
If you read some of the back-and-forth among independent researchers, you’ll occasionally find these online attacks. They serve to drive people to distraction. They poison the atmosphere. They push people away.
It’s also possible that one and only one method was, in fact, used to take down the Towers—and I’m not talking about planes. But trying to establish what that one method was certainly isn’t helped by online attacks between these independents.
If you read independent research and then go to the comments sections, you’re really in the Wild West. People taking potshots at each other, name-calling, trolls changing the subject, etc.
In any major society-changing event, like 9/11 or the JFK murder, there will be false trails that dead-end. These trails are laid down by people paid to distract and divert. Yes, that makes things confusing.
“Let’s see. Is this a paid troll, or is it just a person whose highest aim in life is anonymously screaming at others?”
But no one said it would be easy. Keeping one’s eye on the ball (the actual investigation) is of paramount importance.
Investigation requires that certain bottom-line approaches are used. If you provisionally believe, for example, that the WTC was taken down by cutter charges placed in the buildings, and someone comes along and says, “But if that’s true, how do you explain the incredible amount of pulverized material found at the site,” you need to look at that. You need to determine a) if there was a tremendous amount of pulverized material, and b) if so, how it came to pass.
I’m just offering that as an example, not as the whole story. The whole story is quite complex.
You say, “What do we find at the WTC site after the 9/11 attacks? We find the following 21 things which seem to be important. What hypothesis can I frame about causation that will explain and account for those 21 things? Ah, here is one. Yes. Let me lay it out in detail…”
Then someone comes along and says, “Yes, but there are more than 21 important things. There are five more. Does your hypothesis account for them as well?”
And you need to consider that.
An independent investigator works from passion, but he also works from keeping a cool head.
In researching my first book (1988), AIDS INC. (included in The Matrix Revealed), I eventually decided there was no reason to conclude HIV caused what was being called AIDS. I had a number of reasons for that decision. But then I had to come up with an alternative explanation—and that explanation had to account for all the phenomena associated with AIDS.
I did that.
But of course, people came along and said, “Wait a minute, how about the hemophiliacs who are getting AIDS in their injections, how about Africans and green monkeys, how about the journal papers that say HIV is attacking T-cells…and so forth and so on.
These points were not always offered to me in the spirit of kindness and fellowship.
But I wrote them down and dealt with them, one by one.
And then, when I had covered the waterfront, my publisher went to press with the book.
And then, I was happy to ignore criticism (from independent researchers) if it was offered in bad faith… and as for mainstream critics who were parroting the official scenario, I attacked them mercilessly.
Jon Rappoport
The author of two explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED and EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
