9-11 Synthetic Error: The Meltdown of Webster G Tarpley

[Killtown]

[Dogsmilk]

[Dogsmilk]

Larry has now added a disclaimer about no-plane theory by the link.
It's interesting how he remains happy to have the 1st link people are pointed to take people to a site that will muckrake 'moderate' truthers and push no-plane theory. The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Larry seems to be telling us he finds no-planers more palatable than truthers par se. He may as well go the whole hog and promote 911Movement. There are some interesting bedfellows emerging. This, however, seems to be consistent with his modus operandi of trying to gather dirt on individuals rather than discussing his theoretical position. He's on several occasions turned up to attack Shayler/Machon but seems totally disinterested in putting forward his own beliefs re 911. One wonders what he's up to - but I think he becomes more interchangeable with Killtown by the day.

[Dogsmilk]

[Larry O'Hara]

[ian neal]

So why do you link to Nico's site right next to screwloosechange? You do know who Nico is, don't you? No probably not.

[Dogsmilk]

[Mark Gobell]

Awesome links page you have over there Doctor . . .

[Dogsmilk]

Just to clarify my point about how Larry 'no-planes' O'Hara and chums seem to be wasting their time, I thought I'd consider the alleged reasons for the existence of 911 Cultwatch.

1/They act like a cult, and an aggressive one. The unannounced 9/11 Truth meeting at the October 2005 Anarchist Bookfair in London was marked by physical violence (jostling and digging critics in the ribs), concerted attempts to drown out critics and a nasty intimidatory atmosphere overall. A valuable insight--click for details. At the demonstration outside the (Manchester) Labour Party Conference in September 2006, David Shayler (see below) threw his considerable weight about, forcibly seizing the 'free' microphone from one demonstrator who tried to draw attention to NFB's critique of the movement. While veterans of sharp exchanges, even we have been taken aback by the volume and vitriolic nature of the abusive email exchanges coming our way from this cult.

Does not define in what way 'they' act like a cult. 'They' are apparently a cult because they act like one. Circular argument.
Subjective account of some dispute involving a few people. "Jostling" and "digging" in this case hardly sounds like the Aum cult in action.
Any movement attracts a mixture of personalities. To label the truth movement as an 'aggressive cult' would need to demonstrate that truthers as a body tend towards violent and aggressive actions as the norm. A few online keyboard warriors aside, I suspect Dr No-planes would be hard pressed to find endemic aggression.
This, of course, has nothing to do with the actual claims of the truth movement.

2/2) Disgracefully, prominent positions within the UK & Ireland 9/11 Truth Movement are occupied by ex-MI5 officers David Shayler & Annie Machon. Schnews memorably terms Shayler the 9/11 cult 'Poster Boy'--with his ready media access, Shayler is a big domestic draw as an (undoubtedly) impressive public speaker. Machon is the grandly-titled 'Secretary, UK & Ireland 9/11 Truth Campaign', and as such a 'gatekeeper' at the heart of the campaign. NFB have long analysed this pair's ever-shifting stories, and repeated lies. It is a moot question just whose agenda they are working to--including the distinct possibility of alignment with one or other state fraction--see here on this. In Notes From the Borderland issue 7 Heidi Svenson & Paul Stott wrote a critical article on the pair's role in the 9/11 Campaign, also available on this current site--here. To date, the main cultist answer has been abuse, and claims there is nothing to respond to. However, Machon has another line--on the British 9/11 Truth Campaign forum 26/9/06 she attacked Schnews (8/9/06 issue 559) and others in the "anarchist fringe" claiming it was "anybody's guess" as to why we dislike Machon/Shayler, raising the possibility such critics "may be" part of an "MI5 disinformation campaign designed to cause division, just as the campaign is beginning to bite". It takes the biscuit, that lying red-baiting spooks, who have not told the truth about their own murky pasts, implyothers work for the secret state. Shayler made similar (unsubstantiated) claims about the Stop the War Coalition too (see NFB 7 article). Machon says, with unintentional irony "I would hope that our record speaks for itself". It does indeed. Some 9/11 activists are waking up--scroll down to the comments section here.

As far as I can tell, the most substantial claim that can be mustered is that the pair appear to have changed their minds, Shayler backtracked on when he became '911 aware' and Shayler made allegations about STW. Correct me if I'm wrong. As it is, Shayler's recent behaviour has made him persona non grata for many truthers, so he's now effectively irrelevant. Annie is hardly 'leader'. Indeed, contrary to actual cults, the truth movement has never rallied behind anyone in particular. Dismissing the truth movement because you have a problem with a couple of people in it is like dismissing the entire anti-war movement because you have issues with George Galloway. This is about a personal grudge stemming from the pair's activities while in MI5 and has no bearing on the actual claims of the truth movement.

3/ A growing distaste at bizarre conspiracy theories the 9/11 cult propagate, in particular anti-semitism. Claims by Shayler (New Statesman 11/9/06) that 9/11 was a 'Zionist' conspiracy are two-a-penny--yet we rarely hear the phrase 'Saudi conspiracy' with far more evidence for such. Lurking in the wings are the usual racist snake-oil salesmen (or in David Icke's case lizards) eager to blame the 'Jews'. The venomous & often anti-semitic reaction to criticism by Jewish journalist Jon Ronson in November 2006 exemplifies this. A relevant subtext is the sheer disbelief non-US citizens could have organised 9/11 without US government assistance--racism by another (subtle) name.

So if some Nazis are found to be supportive of green or animal rights issues, this therefore implicates everyone who's into green or animal rights issues? Of course not. It's unquestionably true there are hardcore Nazis who think 911 was a Jewish job (see Stormfront for further details) and other people who are not Nazis but nevertheless believe the Zionists have incredible power. Though there are many (me included) that do not. However, just because someone thinks 'the Zionists' rule the world or whatever does not automatically make them racist, anti-semitic or whatever - to do so is often a crude generalisation that doesn't try to understand where the individualis coming from or what influences have led to this belief.
This is essentially attributing to the entire truth movement a set of beliefs that some hold to a greater or lesser degree. Basically smear tatics and no different to saying:
Some Nazis support animal rights therefore the animal rights movement is a Nazi movement.
This again has nothing to do with core concerns of the truth movement as a whole.
It is notable Dr no-planes and his crew seemingly can't be bothered to actually challenge anti-semitic views (apart from a couple of one-off posts), but would rather sit in their ivory tower making sweeping generalisations.
The notion that the 19 couldn't have done it alone frequently invokes such notions as the alleged stand-down of the USAF etc - it's not unreasonable or racist to suiggest such actions were perhaps beyond their means.

4/Revulsion at the fact that increasingly (or intrinsically) ludicrous theories put about by the 9/11 cult & their home-grown shadow, the 7/7 cult, have the effect of letting spooks and others responsible off the hook in terms of accounting for their activities. In this category come Shayler's recent argument that no planes hit the World Trade Centre (or Pentagon) 9/11/01--instead it was holograms/ missiles/pre-placed explosives. Not only does this impute omniscient powers to the state in terms of carrying operations out effectively, it also implies they have the ability to keep the thousands involved quiet--amazing! The UK equivalent is the claim that the London 7/7/05 bombers didn't actually travel from Luton, didn't carry (or make) any bombs, and the 'suicide videos' they made weren't them anyway. None of this seems true to us, on current evidence. Amid the fog of 'hologram' hoaxes and other fruitloopery, secret state agencies and governments can thus evade hard questions--about why the Pakistani ISI head transferred $100,000 to 9/11 pilot Mohammed Atta, inadequate emergency procedures in New York & London, or the role of apparent MI6 asset Haroon Aswat in 7/7 for instance. NFB has a particular interest in retaining, and enlarging, the space for radical 'parapolitical' analysis of state malfeasance--and are concerned growing fruitcake influence chokes off the space for publicising actual real-life scandals which 9/11 cultists are indifferent to--the 1999 London nail-bombings and Tony Lecomber conspiracy to murder plot of recent--2006--provenance.

Since the TM doesn't endorse any particular claim, anything and everything may be discussed. If people think certain ideas are invalid are others deserve more attention, they are perfectly free to raise them for discussion (unlike you'd find in a cult). It's interesting that the Atta wire transfer is mentioned - I've previously seen this totally dismissed on JREF as crackpot conspiracy theory, whereas both that and Haroon Aswat are frequently mentioned by truthers.
Quite how the truth movement will be discouraged from adopting the 'wrong' theories by people with 'milder' ideas slagging it off is beyond me.

5/Fundamentally, the 9/11 & 7/7 cults have a pernicious effect on political discourse. By focussing primarily on a small group of decision-makers in a predominantly ahistorical way, they serve to trivialise, and disempower, the very popular masses that are ultimately the agents of radical social change--if that is to happen. As the excellent Schnews article says"World power is not a neat pyramidal structure with aliens, Jews or a cabal of men with a secret handshake at the top...There is one conspiracy that doesn't lurk in smoky rooms behind closed doors--its called global capitalism". Some US comrades have correctly described 9/11 conspiracy obsessives as examples of "arrested radicalisation". It is true many now drawn towards the 9/11 & 7/7 cults would in the past have become Leftists--and it is vital the Left/Greens do not ignore the genuine issues posed by 9/11--but as supplementary to political practice, not substituting for it. Ultimately, the 9/11 obsession of many people in the UK is not a manifestation of critical thought, but cultural and political subordination to the US--whereby events there are considered more important than equivalents in the UK or the rest of the world. A post-Cold War echo of Soviet Union worship. Earlier Al-Qaeda attacks, such as the 1998 Nairobi US Embassy bombing, get barely a look in, conspiracy-wise. Not just because most killed (213/4,600 injured) were non-white, but the carnage took place outside the imperial (US) heartland. So little to interest white middle-class Western conspiracy theorists. 7/7, however, functions as a useful add-on to the main event--9/11. Though added to the lexicon of 9/11 cult issues in the US, this is done in a patronising way--see the 'Bullhorn Bull-*' Alex Jones' film.

Good for you; I tend to agree there isn't a single vast conspiracy and that people can be effective agents for social change. Other people think there is a vast conspiracy. Personally, I can argue with people who have been influenced by what I percieve as ill-informed right wing theories touted by the likes of Alex Jones and share an interest in 911 and agree where I find some common ground. After all, if we're going to make a better world, it won't happen by just ignoring people we don't agree with, will it? We may disagree on the exact causes, but many people agree something is deeply wrong with this country. But let's all sit in our cosy 'radical' corner and just bemoan the woeful political awareness of the bewildered idiots who just don't understand, eh? That'll show 'em! After all, Class War are going to make it all better any day now, aren't they?
But again - what's this got to do with having questions about 911 par se? In the animal rights movement you might get some conservative voting middle class housewife who's got a thing about live exports and some hardcore green anarchist vegan - would it be useful if the latter refused to communicate with the former because she has the 'wrong' worldview in other areas?
You may well argue 911 is too central to the Western mind (though do you have any evidence Nairobi is ignored because the victims were non-white? If not, that's simply a smear, particularly as non-white people post on this very forum. Also, do you have any evidence that truthers tend to be middle class? What research underpins this assertion?). That's not unique to the TM. If you think that is the case, there is nothing to stop you drawing attention to it and bringing pertinent isues regarding other atrocities to the table. Again, this has no bearing on the actual claims of the truth movement.
7/7, of course, does have a significant interest for 'conspiracy theorists' in this country. It even has its own forum! Nevertheless, what happens within America does have significant bearing on us all given its enormous power and British subservience to Washington. In that sense, domestic issues in America do have significance for us all.

But basically, these five points could just as easily read:
We don't like some of the people in the truth movement, don't like some of their politics and don't agree with all their claims. So we just slag them off instead. Since there are already lots of debunking sites, we won't bother with all that, we'll just obsess over David Shayler and Annie Machon.
And, rather like Killtown, any argument will be taken terrifically personally and Larry will moan about 'abuse' any time someone makes a cutting remark.

How productive. Forward to a better world, eh comrades?

With this recent WT stuff, don't you think you'd actually get further by dropping the posturing about 'addicted' truthers and OTT whining about Q & A? Do you not think that detracts from the points you're trying to make?

[chek]

[Dogsmilk]

Well if you're going to direct people in that direction...

I'm betting he won't see the funny side.

[Larry O'Hara]

[chrisc]

As noted above the link to Nico Haupt's site, from the 9/11 CultWatch blog now has a disclaimer of sorts, "Whilst we do not endorse the site owners no-plane theory rubbish, his views on fellow cultists make this site essential.":



Compare to the way they previously linked to Nico:



It is interesting to ponder when the link to Nico's site was added, the last Internet Archive copy from Jul 09, 2007 doesn't have a link to Nico's site, so for how long has this site been essential?

In the reply to this change being pointed out Lary O'Hara said:

[Dogsmilk]

[Dogsmilk]

Bump - Larry is still totally unable to explain himself.

[Mark Gobell]

It's a shame really.

Dr O'Hara appears to an intelligent chap.

He has a valuable insight to the machinations of the secret state, subterfuge, MI5, 6 and probably 7.

He heads up an organisation that publishes a periodical that espouses exposure of same, produces multimedia resources in support of that goal.

A revenue stream that relies on this insight.

Sustainable?

Credible?

Let's see . . .

The pain?
Undeniable.

The dream?
Commendable.

The vision?
Uncertain.

The people?
Probably well meaning.

The power?
Indiscernible.

The change?
Unknown.

The debate?
Non existent.

[chek]

So did you just start smoking crack today Mark, or what?

[Mark Gobell]

I've decided to let that comment stand as it is Chek.

[TonyGosling]

I'm afraid you have let yourself down here Mark. Larry now seems to quite like David Shayler, saving his most poisonous venom for Annie Machon.

Disinfo merchants, if Larry is one, concious or otherwise, have to be deeply insightful on subjects that don't matter too much, but strike venomously to discredit key issues and campaigners.

Take the BBC Conspiracy Files series earlier this year, which did a reasonable job on the David Kelly death & Oklahoma while utterly trashing Diana and 911, classic COINTELPRO IMHO. The last of these two are the issues the rogue network is most desperate to cover up.

They didn't even dare to broach 7/7 not because it is such a can of worms of course but because 'it might upset the families of the victims'. What has really upset the survivors and families of the victims it seems to me is the 7/7 cover up.

[TonyGosling]

Just to let people know I asked Webster about this very topic while he was in the UK and recorded his answer - it took him about 15 minutes to reply!

See this new thread here
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=12304

[Stefan]

So basically the excuse for the Nico Haupt worship of the Shayler-Machon-Hate cultists is "we don't care if he thinks no planes hit the world trade centre, all news footage of 9/11 is computer generated and is generally phsycotic - we disagree with him on that - BUT he insults the 9/11 truth movement - and so do we - therefore we are kindred spirits"

Pretty pathetic really.

Well here's one for you - Nico Haupt is a nasty piece of work.

Now since you worship Haupt because he insults us and you disagree with us, even though you disagree with him ------- Will you now worship me because I insult Haupt and you disagre with Haupt, even though you disagree with me?

You guys are already pretty oval in your thinking, why not go the whole hog and make a perfect circle?

[chek]

[marky 54]

sorry if im mistaken but did'nt the "cult watch" website start because they were supposidly sick of people making outlandish claims?

am i wrong?

if im not wrong is'nt it a bit hypocritical they would support someone who promotes no planes/tv fakery and who makes outlandish claims and is part of a community where some in it totally fabricate evidence to prove 9/11 was an inside job.

they smear those here who try to work only from known facts or reports whilst totally supporting fabrications and lies, as has been proved with a number of claims coming from tv fakery and no planes.

[John White]

[Mark Gobell]

So which one you chaps is riding the pale horse?

I think it's a shame that Larry O'Hara chooses not to debate.

[marky 54]

[ian neal]

There was a very telling comment from Paul Stott of NFB that their focus is on the theorists and not the theories. Why is this I wonder?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=91032&highlight=theo rists#91032

Here NFB share much in common with other more mainstream critics of shooting the least credible messengers whilst ignoring the message and the many more credible voices within the movement such as for example the Jersey Girls, etc.

[Mark Gobell]

Maybe the message was lost.

The intended point was a simple, no, simplistic, attempt to look at motivation.

No pain. No gain.

So the steps from pain to gain need to be looked at.

That was all.

Oh and the multimedia thang was a cruel attempt at irony. Honest. I've seen the DVD. Contributed to the revenue stream by doing so. Geddit?

No crack pipes either. Honest.

Anyway . . .

I spoke with WGT in Dublin in Sept 2006 and one of the questions I asked was:

Some people have claimed that it wasn't an inside job. It was an external job. Some have fingered Mossad. What do you think?

WGT: Mossad could not have stood down the air force.

This is where I've been stuck ever since.

Who could have stood down the air force?

And how?

[chek]

[Mark Gobell]

Cheers Chek.

I've my own views on the June 2001 change and what it meant. I've yet to see anything of substance that convinces me otherwise.

Ptech and Singh and PROMIS I know as much of as there is.

The question still stands imo.

USAAF is a massive chain of command with well established protocols.

Plural.

Mineta notwithstanding.