De meerderheid is overal en altijd loyaal aan een groep, slechts weinigen zijn loyaal aan een principe. Eén van de laatstgenoemden is de van origine Canadese intellectueel, professor Henry A. Giroux. Op de website Truthout van 26 februari 2014 zette hij het volgende uiteen:
The notion of the ‘Deep State’ as outlined by Mike Lofgren may be useful in pointing to a new configuration of power in the US in which corporate sovereignty replaces political sovereignty, but it is not enough to simply expose the hidden institutions and structures of power.
What we have in the US today is fundamentally a new mode of politics, one wedded to a notion of ‘power unaccompanied by accountability of any kind,' and this poses a deep and dire threat to democracy itself, because such power is difficult to understand, analyze and counter.
I would suggest that what needs to be addressed is some sense of how this unique authoritarian conjuncture of power and politics came into place. More specifically, there is no mention by Lofgren of the collapse of the social state that began in the 1970s with the rise of neoliberal capitalism, a far more dangerous form of market fundamentalism than we had seen in the first Gilded Age. Nor is there a sustained analysis of what is new about this ideology.
How, for instance, are the wars abroad related increasingly to the diverse forms of domestic terrorism that have emerged at home? What is new and distinctive about a society marked by militaristic violence, exemplified by its war on… any viable exhibition of dissent? Why at this particular moment in history is an aggressive war being waged on not only whistle blowers, but also journalists, students, artists, intellectuals and the institutions that support them?
Moreover, Lofgren needs to say more about a growing culture of cruelty brought about by the death of concessions in politics — a politics now governed by the ultra-rich and mega corporations that has no allegiance to local politics and produces a culture infused with a self-righteous coldness that takes delight in the suffering of others. Power is now separated from politics and floats, unchecked and uncaring.
Neoliberalism is a new form of hybrid global financial authoritarianism. It is connected to the Deep State and marked by its savage willingness in the name of accumulation, privatization, deregulation, dispossession and power to make disposable a wide range of groups extending from low income youth and poor minorities to elements of the middle class that have lost jobs, social protections and hope.
Then, there is the central question, how does the Deep State function to encourage particular types of individualistic, competitive, acquisitive and entrepreneurial behavior in its citizens?
Dit zijn wezenlijke vragen die de ‘corporate media’ weigeren te stellen, wanneer zij met veel drukdoenerij verkondigen dat tot aan de komst van president Trump ‘the US, despite all its own flaws and criminal conflicts, still stood as a force for good,’ een bewering van Ian Buruma. Daarentegen maakte de kritische intellectueel Giroux zijn publiek erop attent dat:
there are signs of resistance to the Deep State and its demands. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, the House narrowly failed to pass an amendment that would have defunded the NSA’s warrantless collection of data from US persons. Shortly thereafter, the president (Barack Obama. svh), advocating yet another military intervention in the Middle East, this time in Syria, met with such overwhelming congressional skepticism that he changed the subject by grasping at a diplomatic lifeline thrown to him by Vladimir Putin (De Russische president stelde begin september 2013 namens Damascus voor om de Syrische chemische wapens te laten vernietigen, een aanbod dat de VS snel accepteerde. svh). Henry Giroux wees er vervolgens op dat:
there is another more structural reason the Deep State may have peaked in the extent of its dominance. While it seems to float above the constitutional state, its essentially parasitic, extractive nature means that it is still tethered (gebonden. svh) to the formal proceedings of governance. The Deep State thrives when there is tolerable functionality in the day-to-day operations of the federal government. As long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (that is, secret) budgets get rubber-stamped (automatisch goedkeuren. svh), special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved without controversy, as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid state will mesh noiselessly. But when one house of Congress is taken over by tea party… life for the ruling class becomes more trying.
If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock (impasse. svh): Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda.
Maar wanneer de onderlinge politieke haat blijft toenemen, zoals sinds het presidentschap van Bill Clinton het geval is, begint het radarwerk van de staat en haar vermeende democratie almaar stroever te functioneren. Het voorlopige dieptepunt c.q. hoogtepunt was dat in januari 2019 de ‘Deep State’ haar militair-industrieel complex te hulp moest schieten door een ondergeschikte publiekelijk de president te laten terugfluiten nadat deze had beslist Amerikaanse troepen uit het Midden Oosten terug te trekken.
Het systeem werkt alleen optimaal wanneer de macht zoveel mogelijk onzichtbaar blijft voor de overgrote meerderheid van de burgers. Zodra zij te veel in het oog loopt nadert het einde, dat is nu eenmaal een historische wetmatigheid. Dan werkt ook de propaganda niet meer, want de eerste vereiste van deze techniek is dat de mens niet beseft met propaganda te maken te hebben. De massa dient niet te weten hoe de trucs van een goochelaar werken, wanneer het magische van de macht verdwijnt, wendt het publiek zich teleurgesteld af en wil het zijn geld terug. In die periode leven wij thans. Wanneer er, zoals nu, teveel boeken verschijnen over bijvoorbeeld het complot achter de moord op president Kennedy, zijn broer Robert, hun tijdgenoot Martin Luther King, en over de ondeugdelijkheid van de officiële lezing betreffende de aanslagen van 11 september 2001, dan is de geloofwaardigheid van de macht dusdanig aangetast dat het systeem zijn langste tijd heeft gehad. Giroux:
So, for the foreseeable future, the Deep State must restrain its appetite for taxpayer dollars… Even Wall Street’s rentier operations have been affected: After helping finance the tea party to advance its own plutocratic ambitions, America’s Big Money is now regretting the Frankenstein’s monster it has created. Like children playing with dynamite, the tea party and its compulsion to drive the nation into credit default has alarmed the grown-ups commanding the heights of capital; the latter are now telling the politicians they thought they had hired to knock it off.
The House vote to defund the NSA’s illegal surveillance programs was equally illustrative of the disruptive nature of the tea party insurgency. Civil liberties Democrats alone would never have come so close to victory; tea party stalwart Justin Amash (R-MI), who has also upset the business community for his debt-limit fundamentalism, was the lead Republican sponsor of the NSA amendment, and most of the Republicans who voted with him were aligned with the tea party.
Mark Crispin Miller, hoogleraar Mediastudies aan de New York University zette dan ook uiteen:
There is a certain desperation at the top. Things are definitely going to an end. This is an unsustainable system, economically, environmentally and in many other ways. The sins of the elites against all the rest of us are so many and so egregious (flagrant. svh) that they are showing a kind of frenzy in their attempts to silence those who dare to tell the truth.
What we are seeing now is a very interesting thing: people can still find the other sides of the story by going online, they can go to social media — even though Facebooks and YouTube, Twitter and Google are now doing everything they can to make that kind of information hard to find. I characterize this the following way: I have a lot of Chinese students at New York University. They are well aware how censorship works. In China it is overt and explicit. There is a all-powerful party that dominates the state and nobody is in the dark about the fact that the internet is being policed, they have a enormous force to control it. We don’t have this here. We have a First Amendment (waarin ondermeer de vrijheid van meningsuiting is vastgelegd. svh). So it takes a lot more sophistication, it acquires a kind of inexplicit, gradual, piecemeal silencing of inconvenient voices. What our elites are trying to do is ultimately no different from what China is doing. But the elites here have to do it in a way it looks sort of democratic, it looks tolerant to free speech, and it looks even necessary to save us from the nazi’s, or from Russia, or whatever it is. And demonizing dissidents as conspiracy-theorists is part of that.
What we are seeing now is a very interesting thing: people can still find the other sides of the story by going online, they can go to social media — even though Facebooks and YouTube, Twitter and Google are now doing everything they can to make that kind of information hard to find. I characterize this the following way: I have a lot of Chinese students at New York University. They are well aware how censorship works. In China it is overt and explicit. There is a all-powerful party that dominates the state and nobody is in the dark about the fact that the internet is being policed, they have a enormous force to control it. We don’t have this here. We have a First Amendment (waarin ondermeer de vrijheid van meningsuiting is vastgelegd. svh). So it takes a lot more sophistication, it acquires a kind of inexplicit, gradual, piecemeal silencing of inconvenient voices. What our elites are trying to do is ultimately no different from what China is doing. But the elites here have to do it in a way it looks sort of democratic, it looks tolerant to free speech, and it looks even necessary to save us from the nazi’s, or from Russia, or whatever it is. And demonizing dissidents as conspiracy-theorists is part of that.
Wat is een ‘conspiracy-theorist’? Welnu, dat is in het het bewustzijn van de commerciële pers een ieder die een visie heeft die niet strookt met de officiële versie van de werkelijkheid, zoals die door de elite wordt verordonneerd. Stel bijvoorbeeld dat een Amerikaanse marinier ooit eens zou hebben verklaard:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Zo iemand zou ogenblikkelijk door de mainstream-pers worden gestigmatiseerd als een ‘complot-gekkie,’ of een ‘complotdenker,’ dan wel een ‘alu-hoedje,’ etcetera. Als er één ding is wat de toorn oproept van mijn mainstream-collega’s dan is het wel het ter discussie stellen van hun heilige huisjes, hun illusies, hun propaganda, hun nepnieuws. Dit bleek opnieuw nadat ik op 21 juni 2017 mijn oude vriend Ian Buruma het volgende had gemaild:
Zo iemand zou ogenblikkelijk door de mainstream-pers worden gestigmatiseerd als een ‘complot-gekkie,’ of een ‘complotdenker,’ dan wel een ‘alu-hoedje,’ etcetera. Als er één ding is wat de toorn oproept van mijn mainstream-collega’s dan is het wel het ter discussie stellen van hun heilige huisjes, hun illusies, hun propaganda, hun nepnieuws. Dit bleek opnieuw nadat ik op 21 juni 2017 mijn oude vriend Ian Buruma het volgende had gemaild:
beste ian,
je schreef onlangs in nrc handelsblad:
Hopelijk brengt het einde van Pax Americana geen heftige militaire conflicten met zich mee (wat absoluut niet kan worden uitgesloten). Maar dan nog zullen we ons moeten voorbereiden op een tijd waarin we met weemoed terugkijken op het betrekkelijk goedaardige imperialisme uit Washington.
ik heb nu twee vragen:
1. hoe betrekkelijk is het begrip 'betrekkelijk' in jouw optiek? Dit is daarom zo belangrijk te weten omdat een alom gerespecteerde onderzoeksjournalist als Tim Weiner, die jarenlang voor The New York Times werkte, in zijn boek ‘Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA,’ 720 pagina’s lang het bloedspoor analyseert dat de CIA door de hele wereld trok. De recensent van The Washington Times kwalificeerde dit boek als:
'Een vernietigend rapport van een inlichtingendienst die meestal faalde bij het voorspellen van belangrijke politieke gebeurtenissen op de wereld, mensenrechten schond, Amerikanen bespioneerde, moordaanslagen op buitenlandse regeringsleiders beraamde en geld stak in klungelige doofpotacties dat hij niet toekwam aan zijn eigenlijke werk, het verzamelen en analyseren van informatie.'
De titel is afkomstig van president Eisenhower, die na acht jaar presidentschap
called into his office, the former legendary OSS officer and director of the CIA Allen Dulles, and said to him point- blank. ‘After eight years you have left me, a legacy of ashes.’
Concreet gesteld: zijn Vietnam, Afghanistan en Irak voorbeelden van 'het betrekkelijk goedaardige imperialisme uit Washington'? Of waren de door de VS gesteunde staatsgrepen in Perzië en Guatemala, Chili en Congo voorbeelden van die goedaardigheid? Zo nee, waren dit soort bloedige interventies slechts te verwaarlozen details in een verder goed bedoeld beleid?
2. Wie zijn 'we' die met 'weemoed terugkijken' op zoveel 'betrekkelijk goedaardige imperialisme'? Toch niet de vele miljoenen slachtoffers van het uiterst gewelddadig Amerikaans imperialisme. Waarom tellen die — gekleurde doden en verminkten — niet mee in jouw beschouwing?
Ik hoop snel iets van je te vernemen, nu je op het punt staat The New York Review of Books te gaan leiden.
collegiale groet,
Stan
Die vragen schoten hem in het verkeerde keelgat, want al de dag erna begon hij zijn reactie niet met de beantwoording van mijn vragen, maar met het volgende:
Beste Stan — Leuk van je te horen. Ik hoop dat je het goed maakt. Ik heb af en toe een blik geslagen op je blog, en begrijp je standpunten denk ik goed. De drie kwaadaardigste en gevaarlijkste machten in de wereld zijn de VS, Israel, en Geert Mak. Dit is niet een nieuwe visie (behalve dan Mak, die we even kunnen laten vallen): voor de tweede wereld oorlog was vijandigheid ten opzichte van de VS en de Joden (Israel bestond toen natuurlijk nog niet) iets wat eerder te vinden was in extreem rechtse, en zelfs niet zo extreem rechtse kringen. Aan Joods en Amerikaanse materialisme zou de westerse beschaving ten onder gaan.
Ik neem niet aan dat je dit standpunt deelt. Jouw ideeën komen eerder uit een wat ouderwetse Amerikaanse hoek, Chomsky, Zinn et al. die door een oudere generatie serieus werden genomen...
Ik verheug me erop je weer eens te zien. Doe mijn hartelijke groeten aan Heikelien.
Hartelijke groet, Ian
Mijn uitgebreid gedocumenteerde kritiek op de Amerikaanse en Israelische terreur tegen burgers werd door Buruma meteen gestigmatiseerd als een frontale aanval op ‘Joods en Amerikaanse materialisme,’ waaraan ‘de westerse beschaving ten onder’ zou zijn ‘gegaan.’ Naar aanleiding van de hedendaagse politiek greep hij terug naar de nazi’s en de holocaust, in een poging een serieuze discussie onmogelijk te maken. Aangezien hij geen afdoend antwoord kon geven op mijn verhulde kritiek ging hijzelf ogenblikkelijk in de aanval en suggereerde dat ik een complotdenker was, net als ‘Chomsky, Zinn et al.,’ die ‘door een oudere generatie serieus werden genomen,’ maar vandaag de dag als ‘ouderwetse’ warhoofden terzijde moeten worden geschoven, inclusief al de feiten die zij in hun werk hebben aangevoerd. Met andere woorden: fundamentele kritiek moet niet serieus worden genomen omdat die gedateerd zou zijn. Dit is vanzelfsprekend geen argument. Het eerste dat hier opvalt is het gebrek aan logica, des opmerkelijker aangezien Ian Buruma keer op keer publiekelijk een beroep doet op het rationalisme van de Verlichting, dat, in zijn ogen, het Westen zo superieur maakt, met zijn mensenrechten, responsibility to protect, het verspreiden van democratie, humanitair ingrijpen, etc. Dit voert mij terug naar de eerder geciteerde uitspraak: ‘I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.’ Deze woorden heb ik niet verzonnen, maar komen uit de mond van de Amerikaanse hoge militair Smedley Butler:
Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, the highest rank authorized at that time, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. Butler is well known for having later become an outspoken critic of U.S. wars and their consequences, as well as exposing the Business Plot, a purported plan to overthrow the U.S. government.
By the end of his career, Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to twice receive the Medal of Honor, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
Wat voor de westerse commerciële pers doorgaat voor complottheorieën blijken in opvallend veel gevallen te berusten op de werkelijkheid. Vandaar dat Smedley Butler kon zeggen:
Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
Letwel, het betreft hier een Amerikaanse insider die uit eigen ervaring sprak, geen broodschrijver als de Nederlandse journalist Buruma die de officiële propaganda napraat. Smedley Butler was een alom gerespecteerde militair die de hoogste onderscheidingen kreeg voor zijn inzet:
The citation for the Army Distinguished Service Medal states:
The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress, July 9, 1918, takes pleasure in presenting the Army Distinguished Service Medal to Brigadier General Smedley Darlington Butler, United States Marine Corps, for exceptionally meritorious and distinguished services to the Government of the United States, in a duty of great responsibility during World War I.
De propaganda van de Nederlandse mainstream-pers over 'complotdenkers,' terwijl zijzelf het publiek voortdurend bestookt over complotterende Russen en Chinezen, heeft tot doel haar eigen 'fake news' te verhullen. Terwijl de Vlaamse NRC-hoofdredacteur Peter Vandermeersch het Nederlandse volk waarschuwt voor ‘nepnieuws’ dat ‘misschien wel het grootste gevaar voor het vertrouwen in journalistiek,’ is en ‘we’ nog maar ‘aan het begin van een tsunami aan nepnieuws’ staan, blijft zijn krant zelf ‘nepnieuws’ verspreiden. Hoewel anderen en ik NRC Handelsblad herhaaldelijk op ‘nepnieuws’ hebben betrapt heeft geen van ons ooit een inhoudelijke reactie van de krant gekregen. Maar hoe zou dit commerciële avondblad oordelen over het volgende bericht uit The New York Times van zaterdag 12 januari 2018:
F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia
WASHINGTON — In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.
The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.
The investigation the F.B.I. opened into Mr. Trump also had a criminal aspect, which has long been publicly known: whether his firing of Mr. Comey constituted obstruction of justice.
Wie had daartoe opdracht gegeven? En waarom werd dit tot nu toe geheim gehouden? Is hier geen enkele sprake van een complot van een groep binnen de FBI? Dit is overigens dezelfde organisatie, die zijn hele bestaan lang geheime criminele activiteiten ondernam, waarvan ondermeer het volgende bekend is:
COINTELPRO (Portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) (1956–1971) was a series of covert, and at times illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations. FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive, including the Communist Party USA, anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists of the civil rights movement or Black Power movement (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr., Nation of Islam, and the Black Panther Party), feminist organizations, the American Indian Movement (AIM), independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left. The program also targeted white supremacist groups including the Ku Klux Klan and nationalist groups including Irish Republicans and Cuban exiles. The FBI also financed, armed, and controlled an extreme right-wing group of former members of the Minutemen anti-communist para-military organization, transforming it into a group called the Secret Army Organization that targeted groups, activists, and leaders involved in the Anti-War Movement, using both intimidation and violent acts.
The FBI has used covert operations against domestic political groups since its inception; however, covert operations under the official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971. COINTELPRO tactics are still used to this day, and have been alleged to include discrediting targets through psychological warfare; smearing individuals and groups using forged documents and by planting false reports in the media; harassment; wrongful imprisonment; and illegal violence, including assassination. The FBI's stated motivation was ‘protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order.
By the mid-1970s four-fifths of Americans believed that more people than just Lee Harvey Oswald were involved and still around 60 percent believe as much,’en dat ‘The sheer numbers of people who refuse to believe the Warren Report’s official findings signal a chilling amount of distrust toward the Supreme Court and other US institutions.’ Overigens betreft het hier niet alleen een vermoeden, aangezien ‘[m]ore than fifteen years after the assassination, United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations issued its own verdict. After two years of investigations, the committee determined that Kennedy was likely killed by a conspiracy,
terwijl
Since the late 1970s, the government has been called upon to release documents pertaining the assassination. At almost every opportunity, it has failed to be transparent and has held back documents from public view
De Amerikaanse bevolking is veel minder bereid de officiële versie voor zoete koek te slikken dan de ‘corporate press,’ die de visie van de politieke elite klakkeloos doorgeeft. Hetzelfde geldt voor de aanslagen van 11 september 2001. Na een representatief onderzoek in mei 2006, dus na vijf jaar voortdurend blootgesteld te zijn geweest aan de officiële versie die de mainstream-media verspreidde, bleek 42 procent van de ondervraagde Amerikanen van mening te zijn:
that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up.
10% van de ondervraagden verklaarde ‘not sure’ te zijn. Ook de resultaten van de volgende vraag zijn opmerkelijk:
World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?
Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure
Even onthullend is de uitslag van de vraag:
Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?
Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure
Kortom, ondanks het feit dat de commerciële pers uitsluitend de officiële complottheorie van 9/11 tot vervelens toe had herhaald, en nauwelijks tot geen aandacht had besteed aan het onderzoekswerk van kritische Amerikanen, onder wie ingenieurs, architecten, artsen, piloten, brandweerlieden, getuigen, etc., bleek al binnen vijf jaar 45 procent van de Amerikanen voorstander te zijn van een heronderzoek van de aanslagen, en was 42 procent van oordeel dat het officiële onderzoek een ‘cover up’ was. Deze feiten leidden er niet toe dat de ‘vrije pers’eigen onderzoek ging doen. Ook hier zien we de toenemende kloof tussen de werkelijkheid van de ‘corporate press’ en die van de bevolking. Eén van de uitzonderingen is de Amerikaanse journalist Christopher Bollyn die over de ineenstorting van de Twin Towers schreef:
‘Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been a virtual silence in the mainstream media…
a veteran 51-year-old fire fighter, Louie Cacchioli, told People magazine that he had witnessed explosions in the South Tower: ‘I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.’
What is most peculiar about the eyewitness reports of explosions was that they were completely ignored by the mainstream news media, even when the reports came from their own reporters on the scene. Stephen Evans of the BBC, for example, was in the South Tower where he witnessed ‘a series of explosions’ and felt a ‘big explosion, from much, much lower.’ Yet the BBC, like the rest of the mainstream media failed to investigate or even discuss the evidence of explosions in the towers.
How did the editors of the mass media networks in the United States and Britain make the decision not to discuss the evidence of explosions even when the information came from their own reporters on the scene? Eyewitness reports and images of explosions were broadcast only once and then swept under the carpet. It soon became quite clear that the mass media was censoring any discussion of the evidence of explosions in the World Trade Center.
Within a few weeks I realized that the media and government were working together to deceive the public about what really had happened on 9-11 and that there was a conspiracy to promote a false version of events in order to gain public support for a previously planned war policy in the Middle East. The mass media engaged in a comprehensive propaganda campaign to instill fear in the public…
There has been no independent investigation of 9-11 done by the controlled media other than Carl Cameron's now deeply-buried four-part series on FOX News in December 2001. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZciLTNKUNc. svh)Think about this for a minute. The mass media in the land of the ‘free press’ has not done any independent investigation about the crime of the century…
As incomprehensible as it might seem, the Bush administration delayed and avoided an official investigation for as long as possible — at least until all of the evidence was destroyed. The steel from the World Trade Center was quickly shipped to Asia where it was melted down. The evidence from the crime scene was being destroyed as quickly as possible. This was clearly criminal, yet the highest authorities in the U.S. government and the Department of Justice were allowing it to happen.
MOLTEN METAL
I consider 9-11 to be an unsolved crime and have done what I could to investigate the crime using the available evidence. In the summer of 2002, for example, I wrote an article about the seismic data that showed unexplained spikes (uitschieters. svh) occurring at the beginning of each collapse.
In my research into the removal of the rubble, I learned from one of the contractors and a demolition expert that molten metal had been discovered at the bottom of the rubble pile in the lower basement levels. This molten metal was described to me as ‘molten steel’ by Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland.
The molten steel was found ‘three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,’ Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at WTC 7, the 47-story building owned by Larry Silverstein, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. Loizeaux said, ‘If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.’
The molten metal found beneath the rubble was clearly important evidence that could explain how the towers were brought down. Because each tower was held up by 47 huge box core columns, there had to be an explanation for what caused these columns to fall. The official explanation that fires had caused the floor trusses (stalen balken. svh) to give way failed to explain what happened to the core columns. To explain the extremely quick collapse of the core columns, the seismic spikes and molten metal seemed to be very important clues.
In zijn boek The War On Terror. The Plot To Rule The Middle East (2017) wijst Bollyn erop dat:
‘The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as “probable (vermoedelijke. svh) collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.’
Sterker nog: een artikel dat op 1 oktober 2016 door de Off Guardian werd gepubliceerd vermeld het volgende:
This video shows John Gross, a NIST engineer who played a central role in the investigation of the WTC collapses, claiming he has seen no evidence of molten steel or excessively high temperatures in the WTC rubble. His interview — in which he displays obvious signs of discomfort — is intercut with eyewitnesses at Ground Zero describing red-hot, white-hot, or specifically ‘molten’ steel in the rubble.
Such eye-witnesses are numerous, too numerous to all be quoted in the video, and they include firefighters, structural engineers and physicists. Dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl was one. Permitted to examine some of the structural steel before it was taken away for melting down, he reported many anomalies:
'If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted–it’s kind of like that…That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot–perhaps around 2,000 degrees'
Dr Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, professor of civil and environmental engineering UCal Berkeley.
And he was far from being a lone witness:
‘The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 F to more than 2,800 F.’
Jeffrey W. Vincoli CSP, CHCM et al.
‘Typically, when steel bends, it buckles and tears. The smooth bend on this piece shows the steel became malleable — a pretty good indication of how hot it was.’
Mark Wagner, architect.
It looked like an oven, just roaring inside… Firefighter, interviewed in video above.
Eight weeks later we still got fires burning… at one point I think they were about 2800 degrees firefighter, interviewed in video above.
Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the walls…
Ken Holden, director NY Dept of Design & Construction, excerpted in video above.
Ken Holden, director NY Dept of Design & Construction, excerpted in video above.
‘As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.’
Structural Engineers Association of Utah.
‘I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat.’
Chaplain Herb Trimpe.
'You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you’re in a foundry… like lava… from a volcano.’
FDNY Captain Ruvolo.
‘…descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.’
The Atlantic Monthly (In 2016 the periodical was named Magazine of the Year by the American Society of Magazine Editors. svh)
‘In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.’
Alison Geyh, PhD.
Alison Geyh, PhD.
‘Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster’
Ron Burger (getuige. svh)
‘Going below, it was smoky and really hot… The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.’
Richard Garlock, structural engineer for LERA (Consulting Structural Engineers. svh).
Are we supposed to conclude all these observers, including respected professionals, were mistaken? This is a vital question because ordinary fires can’t reach temperatures sufficient to produce the effects on steel observed by these witnesses. So, if their observations and recordings are true there is clearly some phenomenon going on at Ground Zero unaccounted for by simple office fires.
It’s not necessary to espouse a conspiracy theory in order to recognize more investigation is needed.
With the publication in 2009 of the scientific discovery of super-thermite in the dust of the destroyed Twin Towers, the government explanation of the key events of 9/11 lost all credibility. The Obama administration simply ignored the findings. Instead of addressing the evidence, President Obama increased the war effort in Afghanistan proving that the official story of 9/11 was created for the purpose of taking the nation to war.
This means the government and media have conspired to deceive the people about what really happened in order that the public would acquiesce to an artificial reality and an aggressive war agenda that were foisted (aangepraat. svh)on the nation based on a false narrative about 9/11. The fact that the War on Terror and key elements of the new security state, such as USA PATRIOT Act, had been prepared in advance and were hastily put into operation indicates that these policy changes were the real reasons the 9/11 attack were carried out…
the War on Terror had been planned decades in advance and was simply made operational by the terror attacks. Starting their long-planned war agenda in the Middle East was the primary goal for the real culprits behind the terrorism of 9/11. The fact that the government declared the terror atrocity to be ‘an act of war’ effectively precluded a proper criminal investigation rendering war as the chosen option to deliver justice.
Volgende keer meer hierover.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten