Ubiquitous Propaganda: Our Perception in Chains

By now some of you may have read or heard about the embarrassing exposure of the Netflix promotion in Toronto, where Netflix confessed to engaging paid actors to excitedly hype Netflix’s debut in Canada. The actors were coached in the pretense of just being casual passers-by and regular, average-guy-and-gal, Dick-and-Jane members of the demos. InformationWeek, for example, headlined the story (first reported in The Globe and Mail)Netflix Apologizes for Misleading Media“.

Gee. Misleading the media. Is that it? I wouldn’t even bother to comment here on this minutiae if it weren’t so illustrative of the more wide-spread problems of late modern consciousness, (and for being somewhat exemplary of Robert Parry’s article on “America’s Decoupling from Reality” that has become a point of controversy on The Chrysalis, too).

That the media, misled, should find this particular, (and relatively minor) pretense and deception surprising and news-worthy is really the only real news-worthy thing about the incident, because this sort of thing goes on all the time and even on a grander scale than this. There are very many “how-to” manuals (and I’ve read quite a few of them. They are all direct descendents of Edward Bernays‘ crucial 1928 book Propaganda) containing recipes and formulae for generating just such faux events and fake news: buzz, spin, disinformation, “guerilla marketing” and other such examples of hyperventilating, hyperbolic speech-acts designed for the daily production (and our consumption) of marketeers, advertisers, public relations professionals, political hacks, propagandists, and other sundry sorts of confidence men and women to follow: books like Emanuel Rosen’s The Anatomy of Buzz or (especially) Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind by Al Ries and Jack Trout.

(And there you go — I’ve already created a blog “buzz” for Ries’ and Trout’s book just as they intended).

This sort of stuff is ubiquitous. This info-pollution — which it truly resembles — saturates and permeates the Late Modern air(waves) like smog, obscuring our attempts at gaining fresh insight into reality, suffocating the perspecuity of our reason, and confounding and confusing our perceptual clarity and mental hygiene (let’s call this process “de-mentation”, as in de-mented). “Buzz”, “spin”, “hype”, “disinformation”, or (one of my favourite euphemisms for propaganda) “public diplomacy” are, nonetheless, only the rivulets of what is more broadly called “perception management” — the Mother-of-All-Propaganda-Objectives. But all these are also instances of what the “speech-thinker” Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy diagnosed as “diseased speech” — killer of societies and civilisations.

True enough. It is all diseased speech. And this diseased speech is the most publicly manifest symptom of what historian Jean Gebser referred to as the latter-day “deficient mode of the mental-rational structure of consciousness” or decay of the Modern Era. Diseased speech is the general symptom of the decline of an Era. A deficit being the result of a deficiency, there is in this instance a deficit in sincerity, authenticity, and clarity generally characteristic of the circulating public speech of Late Modernity. This deficit manifests as duplicity, hypocrisy, dissembling, pretense, mendacity, and prevarication — all of which are, indeed, the modus operandi and characteristic psychopathic traits of the thorough-going narcissist and of narcissistic personality disorder.

So, we probably shouldn’t be surprised by the recent spate of books on the problem of narcissism that began (more recently) with Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (a pioneering and worthwhile book, in that regard, but in my opinion far from adequate in its assessment of narcissism as being something unique to “America in the Age of Diminishing Expectations”, rather than as being something general to the human condition. In fact, in focussing merely on the “American” experience, Lasch was demonstrating something of the general problem of narcissism himself! You mean, Christopher, that Canadians, or Iranians, or Russians, or Arabs, etc aren’t narcissistic? Of course, maybe that omission itself inadvertently proves Lasch’s very point — that he himself was so narcissistically “Americo-centric” that he couldn’t recognise narcissism as the general problem of being human, just as Morris Berman could only write about a Dark Age America. It’s all very ironic. Even America’s own native critics of American self-absorption are now engaged as self-absorbed  nativistic American critics. The problem, though, is not a geographical or territorial one, but one of an entire Era in decline.)

There really isn’t enough space, even on WordPress, for what I could write about “perception management” and the dementation of the Late Modern Mind as being the very meaning of Gebser’s “deficiency” — as a deficit in a necessary and vital human faculty or competency (deficiency being, in some ways, the negation of both efficiency and, especially, of sufficiency. And what is “sufficiency”? It is, in fact, another word for “sustainability”).

In other words, the situation is completely unsustainable. And unsustainability is the hallmark of an Era in the throes of decline and fall.

That’s the lesson or insight that our media might have taken from this particular episode if it had examined the complete context of the incident as one episode amongst very many of the falsification of reality. But, perhaps it was only noticed or highlighted as extraordinary event because Netflix attempted to generate “buzz” and hype, but was found out, without actually paying for it as advertising revenue stream — such advertising, editorial commercialisation, or infomercial articles being, today, the normal protocol and commercially acceptable format and forum for the conduct of “public diplomacy” and perception management. Maybe the loud indignation over Netflix’s manoeuvre was simply resentment at the fact that Netflix had tried to pull one over on the media gatekeepers and tried to get a free-bee?

Is that why InformationWeek described it as an act of misleading the media and not, as was the real objective, misleading the consumers of the mediated message? Does this mean that, it is OK to mislead the public (as long as one follows proper protocols and pays for privileged access to the mediated public), but not OK to mislead the media as the jealously guarded access to public perception? If Netflix had paid actors to pretend to be Dick-and-Jane types (or the famously white-coated medical and scientific types) and then paid the media access agency to publicly broadcast this pretense (as happens every hour of every day), it wouldn’t even have been news-worthy at all.

Can you imagine as an alternative headline in the mainstream media: “Advertisers mislead public”?;  or “Goverment pays media to disinform public”?

4 responses to “Ubiquitous Propaganda: Our Perception in Chains”

  1. alex jay says :

    “I wouldn’t even bother to comment here on this minutiae if it weren’t so illustrative of the more wide-spread problems of late modern consciousness, (and for being somewhat exemplary of Robert Parry’s article on “America’s Decoupling from Reality” that has become a point of controversy on The Chrysalis, too).”

    What’s the controversy? Mr. Parry is “decoupling from reality” on two key examples he uses/abuses in his, otherwise, sound analysis: 1) 9/11 and 2) his Bilderberg load of hogwash, defelecting the history (only recently acknowledged – I might add – since as of about 10 years ago, they didn’t even exist except in the minds of conspiracy theorists according to the gatekeepers of the public’s perception) to make an ad hominem attack (Estulin) on one of the many who have exposed this sinister bunch of Prince Bernhard’s Nazi globalist sociopaths. However, Parry’s uninformed/unresearched take on the Bilderbergers is a sideshow in comparison to the officially accepted tripe about 9/11.

    So as a treat (I’ve tried very hard to refrain from bringing the subject up – even though solving the conundrum could explain a lot of the zeitgeist concerns you explore – on your blog site, because you deal with subjects on far higher octave levels in consciousness … and I feel churlish lowering the bar … but you have waved a red flag to this bull, by continuing to cite Mr. Parry’s bullshit, by giving the man your Houskeeping Seal of Approval. So, please digest the following and tell me that 9/11 wasn’t the greatest con-job in the history of a supposedly intelligent species? (Oh, these are only a few questions to ponder, I have mucho others)

    Get ready to be bored with reality – not Mr. Parry’s virtual version …

    Listed below are just some of the many prominent military, government, scientific and legal officials who have all questioned the official 9/11 story.


    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

    The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

    Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

    9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

    9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

    9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

    Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

    9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest“.

    The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”


    According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).

    Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”

    Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”

    Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11

    Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11

    Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation

    Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”

    Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job


    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt” (bio)

    Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

    “If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot-I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to-if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!“

    U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

    “there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control … Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State.’ “

    President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11

    U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.”

    Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious

    Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said “Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism.”

    Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon

    U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:

    “I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ….

    Those of us in the military took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.

    We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!”

    U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:

    “This isn’t about party, it isn’t about Bush Bashing. It’s about our country, our constitution, and our future. …

    Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.

    If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or … to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ….

    Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can’t handle it? …”

    U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story”.

    The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility

    Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:

    Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)

    Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)

    Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)

    Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)


    Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers“. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.

    A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.

    A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and see this).

    20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).

    A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that“the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .

    The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”

    Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.

    The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said “9/11 should have and could have been prevented”

    A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).


    A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition

    A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:

    “I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.“

    The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.”

    The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was “very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers’] conceptual design parameters” (Richard F. Humenn), stated that “the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down.”

    Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:

    “The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].”

    A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

    A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition

    An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)

    A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded

    A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that “The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.”

    A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11

    A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, “WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don’t have to be a woodcutter to grasp this” (translated)

    A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers “were brought down by planted explosives.”

    A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California – Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.

    The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.

    A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said “The official explanation that I’ve heard doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized”


    A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

    Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

    Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California

    Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California

    Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England

    Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia

    Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado

    David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland

    Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California

    Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona

    David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

    Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

    Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

    Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

    Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

    William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

    An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)


    Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence “Terry” Brunner) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government’s version of 9/11., and asks whether the Neocons were behind 9/11.

    Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.

    Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government’s version of 9/11.

    Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:

    “When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality… But one grows up. … And with the lawyer’s training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade… After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government.”


    A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being “disrespectful to the victims and their families”.

    However, half of the victim’s families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.

    Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).

    And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.


    Finally, those who attack people who question the government’s version of 9/11 as “crazy” may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:

    Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD

    Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz

    Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD

    Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk

    Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward

    Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino

    Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther

    Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner

    Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor

    Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris

    Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech

    Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser


    The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 — literally thousands — to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:

    The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission

    Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew “like the back of my hand” and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview)

    Perhaps “the premiere collapse expert in the country”, who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a “very, very respected expert on building collapse”, the head of the New York Fire Department’s Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously “commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide” thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6).

    Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11

    Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says “The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.”

    Former Minnesota Governor (Jesse Ventura) questions the government’s account of 9/11 and asks whether the World Trade Center was demolished

    Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required) (Sibel Edmonds), said “If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up”. She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Some of her allegations have been confirmed in the British press.

    I’ve just pasted the above from a selective volume of countless documents, so they should all have quotation marks … forgive me … but we must plod on.

    Interlude …. (yawn)

    Now … let’s consider the coincidences …

    Days before the attack, Rumsfeld was quizzed by a Cogressional hearing on where 1.3 trillion bucks had vanished from the Pentagon’s accounts. Donny Boy’s answer: Duh? So, how was it Scott, that these clever Arab Top Guns managed to, not only fly a commercial airliner on Cessna pilot licence (which most veteran commercial pilots reckon is virtually impossible), but … but … just happen to fly into a section under construction at the time – few people around (mostly expendible Pentagon accountants) – that was the Pentagon’s accounting dept. destroying all the records. How conventient to get rid of all the accounts at a time Congress is looking for £1.3 trillion missing. What synchronicity … coincidence even?

    What about Building 7 (yeah, the one that went down like Gallelio’s canon balls off the Tower of Pisa)? Oh, it just happened to house all the files of the SEC on Enron and the World.com scam-artists et al: Poof! All gone. Coincidence?

    Besides the put options – trading at 100 times over average – days before on American and United Airlines (no others airlines – somebody/s must have had their tarot cards read), there were also put options (oh, put options are the things you do when you have a good feeling that stocks will go down) on Merryl Lynch and two other financial “terrorists” ; ) (I’m doing this off the top of my head and can’t be bothered to check sources at the moment).

    And then …

    What about the security companies responsible for the airports and the World Trade Centres? Boy you can’t believe the characters in charge: it’s like a Who’s Who of never mind – do your own reaearch. And the people behind the software companies that were responsible for integrating the FAA with Norad etc. etc.

    Then what about the luckiest businessman in the world, Mr.Larry Silverstein, that manages to have some judges and officials for the port authority change the law to give him a private lease, even though he is one of the lowest bidders, in conjunction with his Shopping Mall Australian Magnate chum (of the same faith, of course) on an asbestos ridden property that would have cost him as much money to rectify in order to bring up to building regulation standards then bringing the buildings down and starting from scratch. Of course, collecting 4 odd billion dollars on the insurance – with a terorist clause only included a few weeks before the event. Ahh yes, serendipity once again, he must have read his horoscope. Coincidence?

    Oh heck … I’m getting bored … and I doubt this will even reach the post as it’s too long. But Scott, it’s your fault for playing your Parry card – go back to Neitzche, or Gebser, or Buddha or anybody else. He’s no different than any other eclectic charlatan playing both sides of the same mendacious journalistic push-me-pull-you psy-ops agenda.

    Moral of the story: keep’em confused

    • Scott says :

      gee, alex. Maybe I should give you access to the blog as a poster. That’s a hell of a long comment 🙂

      “I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.“ — Dr. Lynn Margulis

      I would suggest that this excerpt is about the most sensible thing said here.

      There is a way in which the conspiracy theory of 9/11 feeds into the psy-op campaign itself. The assumption behind the conspiracy theory behind 9/11 is, that the security of America is completely under control; that this control is systematic, effective, efficient, and invincible; that if it proved a manifest failure in 9/11 then either, a) someone let it happen or b) someone caused it to happen. It cannot be otherwise if the assumption is that things and events are under control. The thesis, however, credits human beings with more rationality, lucidity, and control than they actually have. (And, of course, they must demonstrate the appearance of having this control in order to preserve their legitimacy and authority).

      But there is an alternative thesis that also accounts for all the “cover-ups”.

      For decades, American governments (with a little help from Hollywood) and the military-industrial-government-media-energy complex have painted a picture of the US as proudly invincible. In some ways, that has been in itself an elaborate psy-op and a campaign of perception management. The myth of invincibility and of effective power is economical and efficient in preserving one’s claim to global pre-eminence and hegemony. It means less “blood and treasure” has to be expended in aggressively asserting empire at home or abroad if the broad perception is that any resistance to power would be futile. The demoralisation of potential resistors, enemies, or competing empires in advance would be greatly (and economically) enhanced by the perception of imperial invincibility.

      The shock of 9/11 was that, in fact, “the emperor had no clothes” and that it was all ostentatious display a la the Wizard of Oz. The vaunted defensive counter-measures didn’t work. The dogmas about “National Security” proved impotent. The supposed omni-vigilance of the “intelligence” agencies (and FBI) proved to be little better than anything that might be exercised by a troop of bumbling boy-scouts, and certainly not as cunningly effective as Hollywood or the media or government propaganda so often mythologised. And, of course, all these agencies and their operatives reveled in the media’s reflected, heroic glory of their own cunning, power, and invincibility against all enemies. The propagandists had become the victims of their own propaganda.

      That the empire was practically brought to its knees by a few men with box cutters popped the bubble of invincibility and narcissistic self-regard (and that is true whether it was conspiracy or not). The “cover-up” and the reluctance of witnesses to be forth-right in their testimony could well be no more conspiratorial than the usual human propensity to defensiveness and covering one’s ass when in difficulty, defending the public credibility of their jobs and institutions they work for, or, ultimately, perhaps preventing public insight into the fact that the myth of invincibility and “national security” is itself an elaborate psy-op that also happens to justify pouring billions of dollars annually into a military-industrial-government-intelligence-media complex that is ineffective against even a few determined men with box-cutters. In which case, the conspiracy is the cover-up, rather than the actual event itself. Let’s call this: “the Emperor has no clothes” versus “the Hidden Hand” theory of 9/11.

      By all means, let’s follow Margulis’ recommendation and have a thorough investigation of 9/11. But I’m not really interested in spinning my wheels in idle speculation when I don’t even happen to believe that 9/11 is some kind of defining historical moment or event in the greater scheme of things. That too is hype. At present, 9/11 — much like history generally — is more like a Rorschach inkblot into which people can read all sorts of things (I believe that the National Inquirer or some such rag discovered the face of the Devil in the billowing smoke from the Twin Towers, too. It even had a photograph to prove it). But there may be more to the reluctance of officialdom to hold a thorough inquiry into 9/11 than meets the eye.

      It would be a great deal easier to believe that a few wicked and criminal men in high places, operating in secret, conspired against their own country and countrymen rather than expose the institutions and instruments of authority themselves as criminally ineffective, ie, the entirety of the military-industrial-government-media complex as a house of cards. Phew! A few men in high places convicted and sent to prison would actually salvage the situation for the Grand Complex itself. Men who failed their country is a better narrative than these institutions being unable to justify themselves and their exorbitant appetite for the commanding heights, along with taxpayers dollars paid for “national security”. For the time being, I’m opting for the “Emperor has no clothes” thesis, that the real conspiracy and cover-up is to protect the Grand Complex from exposure as a mere house of cards, one that exists largely as a chimera and mirage of effective security only to justify vacuuming up American taxpayer’s dollars as “captive audience”, so to speak, which would otherwise loose its political legitimacy and its claim to authority and to rule if it was exposed as nothing more than a psy-op itself.

      The institutions of power are crucially dependent for their existence on people believing in that power, whether they love or fear and hate that power is immaterial. Otherwise, they have no power. This is the issue of intentionality. Any institution that hopes to survive must capture that public perception and that intentionality, even if it is fear. If that intentionality is widely withdrawn (the institution is seen as “empty”, irrelevant, or null and void) it ceases to exist effectively. It can no longer command, and this is called “delegitimisation”. We might also say that the negation of intention is detention, in the sense that I draw away from the institution my regard, whether that regard is positive or negative doesn’t matter. Love or hate (fear) both constitute regard and are intentional and constitutive. This is the meaning of “the Emperor’s new clothes”. If you see, instead, that there’s nothing there (transparency or emptiness), the intentionality that sustains it’s existence is withdrawn, and it becomes a no-thing.

      Alex, you haven’t entertained the possibility that this is exactly what our “conspirators” fear, and is what makes them reluctant to be forthright in their testimony.

      • alex jay says :

        “Alex, you haven’t entertained the possibility that this is exactly what our “conspirators” fear, and is what makes them reluctant to be forthright in their testimony.”

        Oh yes I have … but I dismissed it. It wasn’t a question of either fear or reluctance; it was a pre-planned, calculated and hubristic confidence (time for Nemesis to make an appearance) that they could get away with it. Simple as that … and for good reason. Afterall, the JFK whitewash set the precedent for a licence to “get away with murder”; Tricky Dick only got caught because he was too stupid – or overconfident – to document everything on tape, and the findings of the only seriously conducted expose of the rotten-to-the-core state of American criminality in government by the Church investigation, soon after, developed amnesia – steered to the shore of Lethe – by a fawning corp-controlled TV and fawning press tailor-made for the 20 minute attention span of the “great” American public (that’s usually the timespan before a commercial break). The uncovered Iran-Contra criminal/unconstitutional enterprise resulted in a few wrist-slaps and no come-backs on that great Hollywood creation enjoying his jelly-babies in the White House. So … why would anyone with a mafia code (“to get along, you have to go along”) like the Bush administration need to fear any danger in executing the crime of the century, bearing in mind, the track record of an American apathy to 40 years of being run by a criminal corporate cartel applying a revolving door policy between tweedle dum and tweedle dee? Nothing to see here so just move on … commercial break – is that pizza ready?

        You, naturally, have a tendency to psychoanalyse events into a grand narrative of subtle undercurrents driving things from a cultural-historical perspective – ala Gebser, Rosenstock-Hussey at al. That’s fine, for someone who takes a holistic approach from Olympus : ). Unfortunately, you’re a bit ahead of the times on a consciousness plane, while the majority of humanity are still trying to work out who to vote for on “American Idol”. And, I think, you have to take it in that context, if you want to get a handle on the simplicity involved in designing, manufacturing, marketing and reaping the profits of something like 9/11. You don’t have to be an Einstein – or a Scott Preston, for that matter – to figure out “Que Bono” … sadly, for them to get away with it, sticks in my craw – as it should do to all those who still have a scintilla of justice lurking in the background of their Bernays’ punched-out mental faculties.

        Bring on the Furies, I say!

        Since it might well be postulated that the system – any system – depends on its survival by projecting its indispensability (the best of all possible worlds scenerio) employing any form of trickery to deceive the masses in order to preserve the power structure of the elites controlling the system as the dominant beneficiaries – i.e. “the emperor has no clothes” theory, it makes the exposure of the emperor’s nakedness that much more essential by breaking the mirror of delusion enabling us to wake up from our narcissistic stupour. By that, I mean your definition of “narcissistic” and not the conventional misusage. I dismiss the “hidden hand” theory, both in reference to this topic as well as Adam Smith’s. All human actions have a motive, and the only thing that is “hidden” is the motive and the actor/s. That is not to preclude unintended consequences. But, cause and effect remain intact. And, in all human endeavours, there is always a “rational actor” (actors constitute a conspiracy) as the cause.

        As far as 9/11: I know the motives and I’m very confident that I can spot most of the actors in the line-up. As far as your “emperor has no clothes theory”: well now, that would apply to Obama and his handlers by perpetuating this decadent system … he’s only a pawn (“functionary”, if you like – but then all successful participants in the system are just that – the Faustian bargain).

        Meanwhile, he’s got a wonderful and lucrative life ahead of him with directorships, self-indulgent eclectic fantasy memoirs, lecture tours, global ambassadorships etc. Gee! Just like Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. Political service has devolved into a Machiavellian “means justifying the ends” for personal material gratification. Therefore, the once vocational roll of a civil servant has become an apprenticeship entry on a CV to capture a more lucrative – and less stressful – role as a corporate lacky to the real power base. Afterall, as Nathan Rotschild infamously remarked (paraphrase): if I control the issuance of money, I care not who makes the laws.

        Isn’t the “System” wonderful? It does look after its own … and, if you’re naked, only the bloggers will tell you … but then, you only pay attention to your sweet Echos like BBC, NBC,CBS,ABC,CBC, the NY Times and Washington Post. Afterall, you have been introduced and supped some wine with the proprietors, editors, tenured journalists and anchormen at Beltway cocktail parties or at a Bilderberg bash perhaps? And … you always wanted to be accepted in the neo-aristocracy with the chance of receiving your VIP pass to one of the security tunnels when the Continuity of Government (COG – Rumsfeld and Cheney’s little Dr. Strangelove creation) has to declare martial law after the attack of “terrorist” Girl Scouts selling organic cookies – mustn’t upset Monsanto.

        Where was I? Sort of lost the plot on the topic and going off on a tangent … oh well.

        No Scott, I’m sorry, but it remains imperative that we get to the bottom of this travesty. If we had done it after JFK’s assassination properly and brought the real culprits to justice, I venture to say that all subsequent tainted administrations (i.e. all of them) would have had to at least be looking over their shoulders, instead of sticking it in the face of a public that the elites (controllers) view with derision and contempt.

        That’s why the buck has to stop – in order for a chance to start anew irrespective of where that might lead (can’t be that much worse than the abyss we stare into at present) – with getting to the bottom of 9/11. All the souls of those still marginally inoculated against the tide of this Huxleyian/Orwellian dystopian nightmare that we witness unfolding on a 24/7 basis need a counter-shock to the “Shock Doctrine” initiated by the (un)”hidden hands” of 9/11.

        Once again – a very rare occassion – I agree to disagree. In other words, I agree with much of your theory, in general, but not on the nitty-gritty imperative need to get to the bottom of 9/11 now … and discuss the more salient holistic implications for the march of humanity, after we’ve dealt with the cancerous criminals responsible, to wake up the US and their Hollywoodised acolytes in the so-called “cilvilised” world (G8/or G20/or whatever globalist central control politburo) so that the spirit can be free to find its true vocation – without the interference of the assholes that are running this prison Earth.

        • Scott Preston says :

          All I can say in response is, let the inquiry begin. If there are too many questions left unanswered in people’s minds, only a full and transparent inquiry would dispel the doubts and fill in the disputed gaps in the narrative. But, that said, it is not likely to ultimately satisfy too many, since witnesses aren’t likely to be given leave to testify on issues that might compromise the US security system. And so, for many, there would still be the sense that “somebody is hiding something”, even if the reasons for that were reasonable and transparent in themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: