A Political Map

Limited Hang Outs - Best Evidence - Discrediting Disinformation

Official Story Limited Hang Out Best Evidence Disinformation

what we are supposed to believe but rarely is completely true even if parts are real

the fall back to the official story, looks like a disclosure but serves to shut down further inquiry. Incompetence theories distract from understanding malice. Limited hang outs are like using Newton's Laws to describe the way the universe works at the subatomic level. Newtonian physics is useful for building a bridge, but is an incomplete description of reality.

usually a difficult process to determine, subject to conflicting interpretations and incomplete data. Fake debates between limited hang outs and disinformation are used to distract from best evidence.

many scandals have claims surrounding them that use false evidence to discredit real conclusions. Some disinformation campaigns have extreme and moderate versions (a fall back from the most ridiculous statements)



The US Geological Service and a few industry experts predict the peak of oil extraction will be in the 2030's, although most of those claiming that late date for Peak Oil are quietly dropping those projections (Peak seems much more imminent).

Many economists think that free market economics will mitigate any energy shortage (by making difficult to extract energy sources possible). They ignore geological limits to growth. Energy creates money (not the other way around).

Some oil industry officials admit that Peak Oil is here or near, but claim we can make technological changes that will not require us to change the way we live.

Liberal politicians and foundation funded environmental groups suggest we need to reduce our carbon footprint in the coming decades, a timeline that happens to coincide with expected decline of fossil fuel extraction. Focusing solely on carbon while ignoring depletion is a way to sell the paradigm that technological changes, not reducing consumption, will be sufficient.

The environmentalist Apollo Alliance says that we can solve our dependence on oil imports with hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid cars, which is probably an example of good intentions but poor math.

The real plan for Peak regarding "Apollo" is not the succesful landings on the Moon, but Apollo 13, which suffered disaster between Earth and the Moon, with the astronauts barely surviving. Spaceship Earth is in the position of that doomed craft due to ecological overshoot. Mitigation would require unprecedented cooperative effort.

Liberals blame oil companies for price gouging but most don’t suggest taxing their profits (or nationalization) to fund Amtrak or relocalization of food production.

The Bush regime blamed environmentalists for blocking drilling and refinery construction, which ignores geological reality (few companies will invest in new refineries as oil supplies decline).

Many blame OPEC for rising prices, but OPEC can no longer control pricing by varying output levels. The US seizure of Iraqi oil makes it part of OPEC.

Peak Oil partly explains the behavior of the Bush regime and the US empire -- why they stole the 2000 election, allowed (and assisted) 9/11, enacted the Patriot Act, created Homeland Security and invaded the Middle East oil fields.

A few voices claim that Peak Oil is not real and is merely an oil company conspiracy to hike profits and gain more control. These claims assume that oil is "abiotic" (not a fossil fuel), although this pseudo-theory is not based on evidence, predates our understanding of plate tectonics (critical for understanding the time scale of petroleum geology), and is a distraction from many other limits to endless growth. The real conspiracy is that the public is being excluded from decisions on what to do with the remaining oil (solar panels or battleships?).

Richard Heinberg provides a nice rebuttal of Greg Palast's accusations that Peak Oil is just oil company propaganda.

Matt Simmons, a friend of George W. Bush and participant in Richard Cheney's "Energy Task Force," is truthful about the Saudi oil reserves but promotes nuclear power, "clean" coal, and more drilling (the Cheney energy policy).

"Powerdown" strategies are the real solutions to Peak Oil.

The oil industry and the Republicans suggest that if more offshore oil drilling is approved, somehow the price of oil will go down. However, this ignores the fact that the offshore areas around the US that have most of the oil (in the Gulf of Mexico) never had any moratoriums on drilling.

The Democrats urge a focus on "energy independence" but ignore any suggestions to change the way we live. Instead, they urge more drilling in the lower 48 states (which peaked in 1970), claiming it would increase production (they oppose some offshore drilling in areas it is not already happening). In their view, technological changes will mitigate dependence on foreign oil. The Democrats and their environmental groups profess objection to new drilling in northeast Alaska (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).

Early in the oil era Texas oil interests controlled the price of petroleum. Later, OPEC nations controlled the price by raising and lowering their exports. Now, as we pass Peak Oil, it is difficult for any interests to control the price, since supplies cannot keep up with demand and there is no "elasticity" in the global oil system any more. No oil exporter can ramp up production to compensate for another exporter reducing their production.
Campaigns for more US drilling ignore the fact that US oil production peaked in 1970 and the best oil fields have already been extracted. In 1998, Clinton / Gore approved new drilling in northwest Alaska. Alaska's North Slope "peaked" in 1988, and by 2006 the Alaskan pipeline flow dropped by two-thirds.

There is a growing array of fantastic claims that huge reserves of oil are being kept secret so oil companies can unjustly profit. While few want to defend the ethics of oil companies, the truth is that the world's largest oil fields (in the Persian / Arabian Gulf) have been exaggerated.

There are two flavors to the official story. The more ridiculed version is the claim that climate change is not happening, or if it is the shift might be solely due to natural variations. This is essentially the argument from certain industries (Exxon-Mobil in particular) that are some of the worst polluters.

George W. Bush was ridiculed by countless commentators for stonewalling on taking action for climate change - in particular, for withdrawing from the relatively toothless Kyoto treaty. But Bush's "ranch" in Crawford, Texas has rainwater capture, passive solar design and energy efficiency technologies. Bush also installed solar electric and hot water panels on the White House during his first term. The fact that Bush knows water catchment and solar energy are good things would translate into national policy if there was any compassion. Instead, the attitude is these are good things if you can afford them. Bush's policy of officially ignoring the problem while taking personal actions to mitigate impacts suggests he is a selfish survivalist.

The more damaging version of the official story is the admission that climate change is real and caused by our activities - but that technological shifts will be sufficient to solve the problem and there is no need to change the financial and political systems that led to the crisis. The best example of this approach is Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth," which has a good description of the basic science of global warming. However, the film fails to address corporate or government responsibility in causing the problem or lifestyle shifts that would be needed in the wealthy parts of the world to address the crisis. Gore also neglects to mention in the film that he supported numerous policies that made the problem worse when he was in the White House such as the NAFTA treaty, World Trade Organization, energy deregulation and the largest expansion of the Interstate Highway System since President Eisenhower.

Greenpeace protest at
coal burning center

"global warming starts here"

The mass media, politicians and most environmental groups do not want to ask why our society largely ignored the warnings about climate change. Few of them also consider how Peak Oil and global warming are two ways of looking at the same problem of overconsumption, since our monetary system is predicated on ever increasing growth.

The best analyses of Peak Oil and of global warming each conclude that the problem would have to be addressed a decade or two before it manifests at full strength - yet both problems are here, now. Perhaps the truth is that the shadow government (corporations and the military industrial complex) did not want to deal with these problems because the solutions are inherently decentralized and would require relaxation of centralized power control systems. Since we missed the opportunity to solve these issues as gently as possible, governments are instituting a global surveillance police state to suppress dissent as the oil that runs the show becomes more scarce and expensive, and climate change reduces available food and water supplies.

The Hollywood disaster movie "The Day After Tomorrow" exaggerated the speed of likely climate change scenarios. Hyperbole is a poor substitute for science.

The US military has conducted experiments to alter the weather for several decades, and even boasts about efforts to "control the weather in 2020." An international treaty banning weather modification as a weapon of war was signed in 1976 -- so this is not a hypothetical technology that only exists in paranoid fantasies.

But it would be very misleading to suggest that deliberate weather modification is the primary source for some of the shifts in global climate. Some less-than-reliable websites and other new sources that promote a variety of other not-quite-real claims about political topics argue that weather technology is the culprit, not our use of toxic technologies to power the "American Way of Life" and its imitators around the world. (One prominent 9/11 "truth" activist is on record that there was no need to be concerned about climate change since the military controls the weather!)

The weather is changed through technology every time a car is turned on or a light bulb is connected to the power grid. While corporations and governments bear the largest responsibility for the problem, billions of individual actions need to shift, too.

Mainstream media (corporate funded):

Television networks, large US newspapers, AM radio, NPR and PBS mislead via selective presentation, distortion and distractions (sex, pop culture, consumerism, sports).

Mainstream media has extensive ties to CIA and the profit motive distorts their integrity on the most critical stories.


"alternative" media (some are funded by foundations):

Democracy Now!, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive, FAIR, Counterpunch, largely ignore Peak Oil in their analyses and refuse to mention the war games of 9/11 that paralyzed the air defenses over New York and Washington. 90% of their work is good, but they ignore the 10% that is the most important part.

Mother Jones published a major article on how Bush supposedly won in Ohio in 2004 that ignored most of the evidence of vote fraud and the corruption of the election in many other states (Ohio was not the only stolen election in 2004).

The refusal of the "left" media to examine evidence for 9/11 foreknowledge parallels similar avoidance of the coup against President Kennedy -- this refusal to investigate helped the plotters succeed.

Independent media that strives for accuracy and is not funded by governments, corporations or philanthropic foundations (often with oil company investments) is the most reliable, and yet the most difficult to find. No news service covers all issues or all aspects of any issue -- it is important to read a wide variety of sources and be cautious.

Neither the mainstream nor "alternative" media focused on the best evidence for 9/11 complicity or permaculture solutions to Peak Oil. Instead, the media's 9/11 strategy was highlight hoaxes to avoid the real story.

Independent media that strives for accuracy and is not funded by governments, corporations or philanthropic foundations (often with oil company investments) is the most reliable, and yet the most difficult to find. No news service covers all issues or all aspects of any issue -- it is important to read a wide variety of sources and be cautious.

Disinformation that discredits real evidence:

The internet has the best sources for news ignored by mainstream and "alternative" publications. However, there are websites that resemble news sources but are just electronic vacuum cleaners that post a mix of real and fake that are hard to differentiate. The establishment likes to control the extremes, and probably sponsors some "conspiracy" sites to misdirect government critics.

Open forum websites where anyone can post anything often attract disinformation if controversial topics are discussed. The indymedia network allows anonymous postings from anywhere in the world, which allows hoaxers to post nonsense and personal attacks on their forums. Global Research, a Canadian website with lots of material on 9/11 complicity and related scandals, has a forum where unknown agents posted extremely offensive Holocaust Denial material -- which was used by mainstream media to smear the website's sponsor. The Wikipedia encyclopedia has also allowed anyone to publish anything without a vetting process to check facts -- Wikipedia has now been forced to require a modest effort at verification. Editorial peer review is not censorship.

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
- George W. Bush, September 1, 2005

The National Hurricane Center warned FEMA and Bush that Katrina was likely to flood New Orleans.

Officially, Hurricane Katrina killed over 1,000, but it is impossible to confirm any figures. Service Corporation International funeral company was hired by FEMA to dispose of bodies -- SCI has ties to Bush and has been caught in body dumping scandals.

A limited hang out is admitting to a small crime to avoid the full scandal. The illusion of incompetence is a key part of the cover-ups of Katrina, 9/11, the Iraq War and related crimes.

The contracts to "rebuild" New Orleans and the oil infrastructure are going to Halliburton, Bechtel and other companies that are "rebuilding" Iraq. New Orleans citizens are not receiving these contracts, just like ordinary Iraqis are not earning money from the alleged rebuilding of their country.

This profiteering has been called "disaster capitalism" and its organizers are very competent at their crimes. Another term is "collapsitalism."

This is the plan to profit from climate change and Peak Oil: make money creating the problem, and make more money from the misery.

FEMA is a police state agency focused on “continuity of government.”

FEMA blocked aid shipments and unplugged local governmental communication systems (which is malicious, not incompetent).

FEMA now has experience evacuating an entire city, implementing martial law and is building semi-permanent camps for former citizens of New Orleans.

If there is a nuclear attack on a US city, or a bird flu pandemic, FEMA’s treatment of New Orleans shows how the federal government will deal with it.

FEMA's response to Katrina reveals the plan for coping with Peak Oil: deliberately ignore the warnings about the crisis, let the poor drown, and suppress grassroots mitigation efforts. This disaster shows the US is now a “failed state.”


An early version of this map was under construction when Hurricane Katrina wrecked New Orleans. That disaster perfectly fit the paradigm of "Official Story / Limited Hang Out / Best Evidence / Disinformation to Discredit."

Media coverage of violence in New Orleans after the storm was greatly exaggerated and was used as the excuse for decreasing outside assistance to the survivors at their most vulnerable point.

A few websites with a history of hoaxes (unintentional or deliberate) claim the levees were demolished -- the first was a white supremacist (Hal Turner) with a track record of violent threats (not investigative reporting). While Louisiana has a history of levees being breached during floods (ruin your neighbor to save yourself), the levees broke at the height of the storm, as predicted by many media articles for many years. It is unlikely the levees were deliberately breached, but it is true that New Orleans, if rebuilt, will have been ethnically cleansed of its poorest citizens.

It is true that the US Air Force has researched weather manipulation for decades and boasts of a desire to control the weather by 2025 (exactly how much success they have had with this research is not publicly known). However, weather modification claims about Katrina distract from the fact that these superhurricanes show that climate change is here.

If anybody could have predicted this economic crisis, I would have liked to have met them.
-- Ellen Weiss, National Public Radio senior vice president for news
Public Broadcasting System PBS News Hour December 11, 2008

This is the dominant approach in the media, the government elites, and the financial world (even though there is a lot of evidence that at least some of them privately knew this was imminent but kept quiet in public while planning their exit strategies and wargaming how to manage and manipulate the crisis).

We need to consider social and environmental concerns in our economic planning. The Triple Bottom Line approach or "Three E's" model is allowing us to think about sustainability. "Smart Growth" is a mantra for these efforts.

The more liberal parts of the Democratic Party and their affiliated non governmental (sic) organizations echo this paradigm. It is certainly a more pleasant approach than the official story, but it is still inadequate for explaining our predicament.

The economy is a subset of the environment, they are not co-equal concepts. Without an environment there cannot be an economy. The global crash of the financial system was triggered partly because we have reached the limits to endless growth on a finite planet. The End of Growth has been reached.

This approach is not welcome in the Democratic Party nor the environmental movement, at least not the part dependent on foundation funding. Among the experts promoting this view are the late, great M. King Hubbert and former World Bank economist Herman Daly.

One reason why Climate Change now gets official media attention and Peak Oil does not is that it is easier to imagine economic "growth" continuing with strategies solely focused on mitigating the climate crisis (although "growth" and overdevelopment are root causes of that crisis). But it is harder to pretend that this growth could continue if Peak Oil means that the powering of industrial civilization is going to inexorably decline. Growth is also used as an illusion to dissipate concerns about economic inequality -- "a rising tide lifts all boats." In reality, economic justice would require some redistribution of wealth, not increased extraction of natural resources that are in decline from overshoot.

ultra right wing critiques of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy - many are rooted in accurate understanding, but mixed up with misinformation about environmental calamities, the role of Jewish bankers supposedly running the world, the Amero Conspiracy Theory, etc. Some of these promoters are sincere but slightly skewed in their analyses, others are deliberate efforts to discredit deep critiques of the status quo. Even the worst of these approaches have parts of the analysis that are accurate, but the good parts are often hard to find through the not-so-good.

"President" Bush won the 2000 and 2004 elections and it is a coincidence that the "problems" with voting machines and voter lists were accidents even though the "mistakes" all helped Bush/Cheney.

The corporate media says we can trust voting machines but ignore the companies links to organized crime and extreme fundamentalists who think the Earth is about 6,000 years old.

Recommendations for "paper trails" for voting machines are a poor substitute for banning these rigged machines. Paper trails merely mean that the machines will give out a margin of victory larger than the level that triggers recounts. Giving voters a receipt for their ballot does not require that their ballots are counted in a verifiable method.

Hillary Clinton, has business ties to the Bush crime family (via Arkansas financier Jackson Stephens and the Mena, Arkansas scandal) and was on the board of Wal-Mart.

Barack Obama's ties to the National Security State were more subtle than the Clintons, but he is also sponsored by Wall Street and has war criminal advisors.

Kerry won in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.

Vote Fraud is a deeper problem than Diebold voting machines.

Election rigging includes the Kennedy assassinations, the 1980 October Surprise (which toppled Carter) and the "plane crashes" of Senator Paul Wellstone (2002) and Governor Mel Carnahan (2000 -- he ran against then Senator Ashcroft).

The Democratic Party died in Dallas on November 22, 1963 -- their refusal to demand a real investigation and prosecution of the conspirators led toward their permanent minority status.

Why elections are allowed to be stolen is more important than the details of phony voting machines.

Some racist publications have promoted (mostly accurate) information about election rigging in efforts to boost their own credibility with dissidents. These efforts include the American Free Press and votefraud.org, which promote Holocaust Denial. We don’t need racists to prove that Presidential elections are rigged.

The Socialist Workers Party, a small sectarian "left" political party, was massively infiltrated by the federal secret police during the 1960s (this was verified in a protracted legal suit against the government). Did the government want to disrupt these sorts of groups, or keep them afloat (via members dues) in order to have multiple, competing, irrelevant organizations representing the "left" end of the ideological spectrum?

The Democrats and Republicans are united in avoiding the topic of impeachment as a remedy for war crime.

Replacing Bush with Obama did not transform the military-industrial complex into a force for peace and sanity.

Representatives Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich each introduced bills to impeach Bush and Cheney and did not find support from their Democratic colleagues.

MoveOn.org recommended that Bush be "censured" by Congress for misleading the country into the Iraq war, the same remedy that Congress passed in its prosecution of Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. "Censure" is not specified in the Constitution. Their recommendation happened at the same time as their home town of Berkeley, California was considering a City Council resolution to endorse impeachment of Bush. Lying about the war is just the tip of the iceberg.

"The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
-- Constitution of the United States

In 1987, only Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Texas) was the only sponsor of a bill to impeach Reagan for Iran-Contra. He was the only Representative to propose it for the first President Bush in 1991 for deploying a half million troops to Saudi Arabia without Congressional authorization.

Congress is afraid to challenge the secret, actual government.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton for lying about sex dissuaded many Democrats from thinking that impeachment is a legitimate tool for addressing abuses of power.

President Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment after a House committee voted for three counts of impeachment (Nixon had lost Congressional support for staying in office). These counts related to the Watergate burglary and obstruction of justice, but a fourth count about Nixon's illegal bombing of Cambodia was not passed. The message: burglary and lying is worse than bombing countries.

The Warren Commission report claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed President Kennedy. This claim is predicated in part on the "single bullet theory" created by Commission attorney Arlen Specter (a theory that must be true for the official story to be correct).

Each time these major scandals are exxon-erated by the politicial system as a "coincidence" it emboldens the perpetrators to do them again.

The fall-back story suggests that the mafia and/or anti-Castro Cubans were responsible. Lee Harvey Oswald spent a lot of time in the months before the assassination pretending to be a leftist in solidarity with the Cuban communist government while associating with anti-Castro cubans and other groups connected to the CIA. It is odd that a supposed "loner" had so many interesting and well connected associates.

A variation on this theme is that the Warren Commission had to coverup the involvement of Castro's Cuba and the Soviet Union, and therefore the coverup prevented a nuclear war between the US and the USSR (since the American public would have demanded revenge). In this view, the Warren Commission coverup was necessary to avoid World War Three.

To explain the Kennedy assassination, one must ask: Who had the power to change the motorcade route (to bring it near the Texas Book Depository and the "grassy knoll")? Who had the power to cover up the crime? Who benefitted?

President Kennedy had changed his mind on the Cold War, had stopped nuclear testing in the atmosphere, and signed an order to start withdrawing troops from Vietnam. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, and the CIA shattered Kennedy into a thousand pieces.

The assassination was a coup d'etat against democracy.

"The 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term 'conspiracy theorist' came to be shorthand for 'discredited whacko' in the invisible guidebook of mainstream media. "Suddenly, it's not hard to understand why the obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper attention in accepted media channels.
"If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you have honest scientific inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat drowns in the chaff."
-- Sander Hicks, author of "The Big Wedding"

Michael Collins Piper, a Holocaust denier who writes for the neo-Nazi Barnes Review, claims that Israel killed JFK due to Kennedy's opposition to Israel acquisition of nuclear weapons (among other reasons). While it is possible (?) that they had a role, the Israeli secret services did not control the route of the Presidential limo and did not operate the coverup afterwards. The poor quality of Mr. Piper's work can be seen by his claims that the Auschwitz extermination camp did not have gas chambers (www.barnesreview.org/auschwitz.htm)

Bush claimed that al-Qaeda attacked us because they hate our freedoms. Condi Rice claimed that they had no idea planes could be used as weapons, even though "Bojinka" (a precursor plot) was stopped in 1995.

"Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert documents a 2001 Rand Corporation report that noted the FBI and CIA only had minor communication difficulties regarding counter-terrorism intelligence that did not disrupt their effectiveness and were easily solved.

The concept of "blowback" -- al-Qaeda attacked us because they hate US foreign policies.

Fahrenheit 9/11 claims Bush was supposedly incompetent, too blinded by Saudi money to act on warnings that 9/11 was imminent -- which ignores evidence that this "incompetence" was a deliberate decision.

Liberal "alternative" media that pretend 9/11 was a surprise attack argue the Bush regime merely "hijacked catastrophe" to get war. These pundits include Norman Solomon, David Corn of The Nation, Alexander Cockburn, and Noam Chomsky.

The liberal pundits who attacked journalists daring to "connect the dots" about 9/11 foreknowledge information in the months after 9/11 provided enormous help to the Bush administration at its most vulnerable point. It is hard to say whether these people were intentionally trying to censor for covert purposes, or whether their reluctance is rooted in psychological inability to address these core issues. If these media experts had brought together a consortium of journalists in the months after 9/11 to sift through the evidence, separating the good from the bad, it is almost certain that Bush would not have been able to have the political capital to invade Iraq, steal another election, and likely would have been impeached by now.

the American Reichstag Fire

the Achilles Heel of the Bush regime

9/11 was allowed and assisted to create the pretext for Homeland Security and Peak Oil wars.

Foreknowledge is proven beyond reasonable doubt - the only question is the precise amount of technical assistance from the Cheney administration to ensure that the attacks happened as desired. Why is more important than how.

The Bush regime deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, suppressed FBI investigations (the agents had figured out what was coming), and ignored warnings from allied countries. A few corporate, military and political elites seem to have been given quiet warnings not to fly that day or to get out of the way (these claims are documented by the mainstream media sources).

Stock trades were placed on United, American and other impacted companies just before 9/11, and large trades like those are monitored by CIA. This scandal was covered widely in the international press until some of the "put options" were linked to a company with CIA connections by Michael Ruppert's publication From the Wilderness about a month after 9/11.

The Air Force and CIA scheduled war game exercises that morning that paralyzed the air defenses.

It is likely that remote control technology was used to "hijack the hijackers" to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector (instead of the crowded parts of the Pentagon).

The "no plane hit the Pentagon" science fiction stories ignore the facts. The "no plane" hoaxes imply that the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane, the crash and the rubble afterwards are lying co-conspirators covering up for Cheney. The physical evidence confirms the eyewitness reports -- the impact zone was as wide as a Boeing 757. These "no plane" speculations distract from real evidence, and discredit 9/11 skepticism inside the Beltway, both by the majority of the citizens (most voted against Bush) and the political and military elites (who were not part of the cabal that facilitated 9/11).

There are many other disinformation efforts to "muddy the waters" around these issues that discourage most Bush opponents reluctant to investigate the evidence for complicity.

The US State Department maintains a website for "Identifying Misinformation" that highlights 9/11 hoaxes regarding missiles allegedly fired at the Pentagon but ignores the quality work of John Judge, Michael Ruppert, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Daniel Hopsicker and Peter Dale Scott, among others. It seems obvious that the State Department is promoting the sloppy (fake?) efforts to allege 9/11 complicity while avoiding serious efforts to establish the truth. 9/11 skeptics who don't believe the official story should recognize this is an effort by the government to select which "conspiracy theories" should be considered representative of the 9/11 truth movement.

As more citizens have admitted that 9/11 was allowed to happen, the media have shifted from ignoring the claims of complicity to focusing on the most speculative and outrageous claims - an effort to discredit the entire topic of inquiry.

The excuse for the "USA Patriot Act" and the Homeland Security behemoth is the lie that 9/11 was caused because of inter-agency communication failures and they need unlimited powers and increased budgets to prevent another 9/11. However, planning for the department began during the Clinton adminstration, it was a bipartisan effort of the national security state.

The ACLU and many other Patriot Act opponents pretend that post 9/11 fascist laws and policies can be rescinded without talking about how 9/11 was deliberately allowed to happen.

Some public figures expressing outrage about the Bush regime's torture scandal pretend that this is merely a post-9/11 issue that is unique to this administration. Torture is nothing new in US history -- the CIA used torture in the Vietnam War, and taught torture tactics to client states in Latin America. Any history of US torture must include lynching and the abuses inflicted on the First Nations (native Americans).

Bill of Rights - R.I.P.

Massive computer databases, transportation checkpoints, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), and the Total Information Awareness program are components of a long-planned Orwellian surveillance society. The novels "1984," "Brave New World" and the film "Brazil" hint at the ultimate destination.

These problems did not suddenly arise in January 2001 or even after 9/11 and they did not end when Bush was replaced by Obama. They are the logical consequence of a society of "not see's" ignoring decades of sustained efforts to sabotage democratic decision making. Dictatorship needs denial.

Claims that the United Nations plans to take over the US distract from the slow-motion coup d'etat against democracy.

There are not enough troops to implement a Nazi style system, but there is enough energy to impose a form of "partial martial law" to suppress dissent.

The Bush regime claimed that Iraq had "Weapons of Mass Destruction." that posed urgent threats. They also implied that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Now, they pretend the war will bring democracy and stability to Iraq.

Both George Bush and Barack Obama falsely proclaimed the US involvement in Iraq was over. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" but the majority of US casualties happened afterwards. The real US war on Iraq was not the invasion and toppling of Saddam Hussein, but the guerrilla war that attacked the occupation forces. Obama has also declared the US war on Iraq to be over, but the many military bases will remain indefinitely, US troops continue to be stationed in Iraq and the US "contractors" (mercenaries) will remain there, too.

Some peace activists merely claim the US attack on Iraq was aimed at the wrong country, since the 9/11 plot supposedly was hatched in Afghanistan.

Congressional critics claim that the pre-war intelligence was incompetent, which avoids the fact the lies were deliberate.

The Democratic Party is the "good cop" to the Republican Party's "bad cop." Replacing Bush and Cheney with Obama and Biden did not get the empire to leave Iraq and stop surrounding the Middle East oil fields.

The "War on Terror" is a sequential war to control the remaining oil supplies as we pass Peak Oil.

The Project for a New American Century, which includes Cheney and Bush, stated in 2000 that the US needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to mobilize for what the neo-conservatives call World War IV (World War III was the "Cold War").

The occupation of Iraq did not end with the change of regime from Bush to Obama. US military bases in Iraq are permanent installations. It is unlikely the US will leave Iraq only when the oil is gone or the US military is pushed out militarily.

US occupation of Iraq gave the US a massively increased presence in the Persian / Arabian Gulf, the location of a majority of the remaining oil.

"Rapture theology" propaganda aimed at religious fundamentalists is not Christianity, but a dirty trick to provide justification for endless wars (under the guise that it is “Armageddon”) and imply that climate change is God's will, not Exxon’s fault.

Claims that the war is merely waged to benefit Israel forget that the US largely controls Israel as a client state.


The neo-cons deliberately wanted to shatter Iraq - their invasion was not a "failure" nor "incompetent." The long-term goal is to redraw the Middle East map -- if they can break apart Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia into new countries, it would be easier to centralize control of the world's largest supplies of oil.

Initially, the official story implied that Muslim terrorists were behind the anthrax attacks, possibly eminating from Iraq. However, there was never an explanation why they would target the Democratic leadership in the Senate, the Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, and leaders of the mass media.

The FBI later accused a Fort Detrick employee of being the perpetrator and then had to admit that he was not actually responsible (after ruining his reputation and encouraging the media to hound him). Subsequently, another scientist, Bruce Ivins, was accused of being the anthrax terrorist. Under pressure from the government and media, he committed suicide, and then the FBI declared the case was closed after his death. It is likely his colleagues at Fort Detrick did not believe he really was guilty since many of them attended his funeral -- how many would have paid their last respects if they thought he was responsible?

no limited hang outs known - most of the media and political organizations have conveniently forgotten the timing and targetting of these attacks

The anthrax attacks originated from the CIA / Army laboratories at Fort Detrick, Maryland. To understand who probably perpetrated the attacks, one must examine the timing -- just as the Democrats were questioning the details of the USA Patriot Act. Would Muslim terrorists have wanted to target the leadership of the opposition party just as the administration was trying to gut the Bill of Rights via passage of the Patriot Act?

The attacks were the most serious terrorist assualt on the US Congress in its history, yet investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators is not a media story any more.

A few ultraconservative voices on the internet claim that the Israelis sent the anthrax, but it is unlikely the choice of targets was the decision of the Mossad. While Israel has attacked the US -- the 1967 strafing of the U.S.S. Liberty spy ship -- it is extremely unlikely the US would have stayed silent toward Israeli militarists if they had actually attacked the US Capitol with anthrax. The "Israel did it" crowd are hijacking sentiment about this attack to further their anti-Semitism.

The US government claims that uranium-238 tipped weapons are not very harmful, even though radioactivity is widely acknowledged to cause cancer and other health problems, and uranium is chemically toxic.

no known limited hang out -- the alternative media and the peace movements are generally supportive of the best evidence about uranium tipped weaponry

So-called "depleted" uranium is called this because the much of the uranium-235 isotope useful for nuclear power fuel and weapons has been separated, "depleted" does not mean that its biological hazards have been mitigated one iota. DU burns on impact, converting the uranium into lots of particles that are easily inhaled and can cause lung cancers. Uranium-238 has a half-life roughly as long as the Earth has been in existence. DU tipped weapons are the real "dirty bombs" and are a war crime to manufacture and use.

Two sources of accurate information about DU on American veterans and Iraqi civilians are the National Gulf War Resources Center at www.ngwrc.org and the Military Toxics Project at www.miltoxproj.org

The best films on uranium poisoning in Iraq are Hidden Wars of Desert Storm and The Oil Factor, both from Free Will Productions (filmed on location in Iraq).

The film "Beyond Treason" was made by The Power Hour, the group that made the hoax film "911 In Plane Site."

Jack Cohen-Joppa of the Nuclear Resister has a good rebuttal to their sloppy work on DU issues, which discredits serious evidence of uranium toxicity. One of the researchers they showcase (Leuren Moret) promotes the white supremacist, Holocaust denying American Free Press in her articles about DU. Depleted uranium is toxic and there is no need to exaggerate, use sloppy math or promote neo-Nazis to explain these hazards.


al-Qaeda attacked us because they hate our freedoms (is this why many of our freedoms are being eroded?)

al-Qaeda attacked us because they hate US foreign policies. This is partly true but it does not explain the suppression of the warnings that 9/11 was about to happen or the CIA's plane into building exercise as the planes went off-course.

al-Qaeda, which was vastly exaggerated in size, attacked us - but the attack was allowed to happen and probably given critical technical assistance to ensure its success (without the knowledge of the patsies)

no Arabs were involved or were on the planes

Israel did it (a different claim that Israel had foreknowledge, or even played a role)

Bush and Rice say that they had no idea planes could be used as weapons

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 suggested that the Bush regime was too blinded by its business ties to the Saudis to pay attention to the warnings.

warnings came from at least 15 allied countries, multiple FBI investigations and other sources of intelligence that the attacks were imminent. It's possible these warnings were partly recognition of the "legend" of 9/11 being sown in advance of the events.

the claim that "focusing on foreknowledge is a distraction" - when in reality, allowing 9/11 to happen through conscious pseudo-negligence would be the largest crime in US history - even if the "wilder" claims (demolition, remote control) are not true

there was supposedly a "wall" between the FBI, the CIA and other agencies that allowed clues to the attacks to be overlooked - merging these agencies into a supersized police and intelligence system will make sure it never happens again

some civil liberties groups think that the Patriot Act and other abuses can be undone without dealing with the fact that 9/11 was not a surprise attack

FBI whistleblowers have spoken about their experiences that show how valuable clues were deliberately suppressed by management, it was not a case of simple incompetence.

“Crossing the Rubicon” by Michael Ruppert documents a 2001 Rand Corporation report that noted these agencies only had very minor communication difficulties regarding counter-terrorism intelligence.

this issue has been ignored by the hoaxers

the military tried their hardest, but were caught off guard by the terrorists, and only managed to show up slightly too late to stop the crashes

most of those advocating limited hang outs accept the incompetence theories, but few have looked in detail at the evidence for a stand down of the Air Force during 9/11. The commanders in charge of the NORAD air defenses was promoted to run the new Northern Command (NORTHCOM), the Pentagon's Homeland Security division created in 2002. If 9/11 had been a failure instead of deliberately allowed to happen, those in charge of the nation's defenses would have been court-martialed.


The 9/11 Commission blamed the FAA for screwing up the response to the hijackings, yet FAA safely landed more than 4,000 planes at airports that were not expecting them immediately after the attacks began. FAA is not responsible for the Air Force’s inaction.

this issue has been ignored by the hoaxers. A few of them have cited this fact to gain credibility (bona fides) before inserting their poison pills of disinformation.

generally ignored by the official story, when pressed, the claim is made that some of the war games helped speed the response to the situation. The media and the official Commission report did not dare prepare a list of all of the war games underway on 9/11, even though all of them have been mentioned in some sort of official context or mainstream media article. The 9/11 Commission Report only mentioned two of the wargames in the report's footnotes and did not conduct any serious investigation into them. There was no mention of the CIA's "plane into building" exercise at the National Reconnaissance Office headquarters near Dulles Airport as 9/11 began. The information on the CIA's exercise was revealed in August 2002 by the CIA itself and was reported by Associated Press. It is hard to accept a "coincidence theory" that the CIA just happened to start a "plane into building" exercise at one of the nation's most sensitive intelligence operations centers as the hijackings started.

The limited hang out paradigm has been noticeably absent regarding the 9/11 war games.

Michael Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon"has the deepest analysis of the how the war games facilitated the attacks by paralyzing the air defenses. An excellent summary is: Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney by Michael Kane

Paul Thompson's Center for Cooperative Research has the most complete list of 9/11 war games and exercises.

The 9/11 war games are part of a pattern where exercise simulations have been used to mask real world events. The 1990 "Internal Look" exercise simulated Iraq's invasion of Kuwait at the exact moment that Iraq invaded Kuwait (Cheney was Secretary of Defense).

Navy employee Barbara Honegger, who is active in 9/11 conspiracy issues, offers the piggy back theory -- the hijackers found out about the overlapping war games and timed their attack to take advantage of the confusion. This could be a way to keep military officers from whistleblowing, since the claim that al-Qaeda supposedly compromised US operational security procedures could be very effective at keeping insiders from explaining what they know about the exercises. Honegger has since claimed that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was really Osama and that the Pentagon was hit several minutes before it was struck by the plane (probably false leads designed to soak up time and energy on a wild goose chase).


Team 8 (a website from people who previously pushed the "pod" hoax, now focused on the war games issues)


fake news from Alex Jones / Infowars
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ january2005/040105defenseshield.htm
9/11 Whispers: Washington Defense Shield Deactivated Due To Wargames?

Hani Hanjour, who flunked flight school, flew the plane into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon.

The mainstream corporate media and the "alternative" media are united in highlighting the false claims that the 9/11 plane crashes were faked somehow in order to discredit the understanding that 9/11 was deliberately allowed to happen by elements in the Bush regime and that efforts to stop it were intentionally obstructed to make sure that it happened to provide the pretext for the Peak Oil Wars.

Some coincidence theorists claim that it was a one-in-five chance that the nearly empty part of the Pentagon was hit, even though the flight maneuvers were world class precision flying and it is impossible to believe that a terrorist intent on causing as much damage as possible would have flown around the Pentagon to ensure that the one area with the fewest victims would be hit.

The "Pentagon Missile" hoax was created by Donald Rumsfeld to discredit the idea of complicity for the political and military elites inside the Beltway. It doesn't really matter what grassroots dissidents think about the plane crash, since 9/11 "truthers" don't have political or financial power over the way Washington works. The disinformation about Flight 77 deters those who have this power -- Congress, Wall Street, the Military, Media leaders, etc. -- from daring to speak out about problems with the 9/11 official story.

It is likely, but unprovable, that some form of remote control technology was used to steer Flight 77 into the nearly empty, recently reconstructed part of the Pentagon. Even an expert pilot substituted for flight school dropout and alleged terrorist Hani Hanjour would not have made the amazing flight pattern to minimize casualties on the ground by hitting the nearly empty part of the Pentagon.

Whether or not remote control was used, the real issues of Flight 77 are:

  • the CIA's "plane into building" exercise at the National Reconnaissance Office, immediately south of Dulles Airport as Flight 77 was taking off on its fatal flight
  • the NORAD and Strategic Command war game exercises underway as 9/11 happened
  • why the plane was not intercepted (even after the second tower was hit),
  • how it hit the nearly empty part of the Pentagon
  • why planes scrambled from Norfolk flew the wrong way (over the ocean) and were too late to protect the headquarters of the Trillion Dollar Air Force.

A variety of theories that claim Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, even though hundreds of people saw the plane and the "physical evidence" is consistent with a 757.

These theories are needed to discredit conspiracy speculations inside the Beltway, both by the majority of the citizens (most voted against Bush) and the political and military elites (who were not part of the cabal that facilitated 9/11)

the "heroes" took down the plane

no limited hang outs

Flight 93 was probably shot down. The best collection of information documenting this is the website www.flight93crash.com - it has not been updated in years, but it did manage to save a number of early news articles and eyewitness accounts.

There are several different theories why it was shot down.

Wayne Madsen claims that NSA officers were barred from listening to intercepts of Air Force fighter planes at the moment of shootdown:
"Before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, NSA operations personnel clearly heard on the intercom system monitoring military and civilian communications that the "fighters are engaged" with the doomed United aircraft. NSOC personnel were then quickly dismissed from the tactical area of the NSOC where the intercom system was located leaving only a few senior personnel in place." - Wayne Madsen

The American Free Press, a white supremacist publication that also publishes the Holocaust denial promoting Barnes Review, first floated the claim in September 2004 that the crash of Flight 93 did not happen. There are also claims from people pushing other "no planes" hoaxes that Flight 93 really landed in Cleveland.

The web site physics911 claims that the passengers didn't really make phone calls to their loved ones because cell phones are not reliable on planes (although the air phones on the planes definitely do work). These hoaxes imply that the victims' voices were simulated by military psychological warfare teams - a great way to alienate the victims' families and ensure that they will not form alliances with the skeptics investigating complicity evidence.

the official story is straight forward and well known to everyone

no limited hang outs

there is no evidence that Flight 11 and 175 did not hit the towers -- all claims that they did not seem to be deliberately distributed to discredit and distract from real evidence

pods - the idea that Flight 175 had a "pod" underneath the wing that fired a missile at the South Tower (in reality, just a blurred photo of the normal "fairing" that connects the wing to the fuselage) popularized by the film "In Plane Site" and "debunked" by Popular Mechanics (which used a 9/11 truth website's graphics to point out the claim was not true)

flash - blurry video promulgated three years after 9/11 that purports to show a detonation on the plane's nose when it contacted the building - fun with photoshop! also from "In Plane Site"

the "webfairy" theory (no plane hit the north tower, it was really a missile masked by a King Kong sized hologram)

smaller planes: "the holes were too small for 767" (this is easily debunked by looking at the size and shape of the impact holes)

no windows on the plane (and therefore a military tanker plane) even though plane wreckage in the rubble clearly showed the fuselage had windows and there's zero evidence for this claim - also from "In Plane Site"

The towers fell from a combination of the impact destroying part of the supporting columns and fires reducing the strength of the steel. The extra weight of the plane (and collapsed floors) probably contributed to the collapse.

Building 7 was ignored by the 9/11 Commission report, but the official story claims that part of a tower made a large gash on the building, and diesel fires from an emergency generator caused the building to collapse.

The firefighters watched the towers and WTC buckle before they fell down.

If the towers were not demolished via controlled demolition (but merely destroyed by conscious allowing of 9/11 to happen), then the construction standards scandal is not a limited hang out.

demolition theories are not needed to prove that 9/11 was allowed and assisted

The firefighters watched the twin towers and WTC 7 bulging and leaning before they fell down.

There is no chain of custody for the claims that is usable in any court.

It is likely the claim that thermite (which is not an explosive) was found in alleged dust samples is just burned aluminum residues from the cladding on the towers.

The real scandal of the collapse of the towers were the faulty construction standards that were used. An excellent compilation by the Progressive Review documents numerous examples.

There is an enormous amount of erroneous material circulating on the internet making false claims for demolition. Many of these fake claims are marketed as "physical evidence" but they are just hoaxes.

North Tower fires had gone out (Bush II official Morgan Reynolds) - numerous photos refute this

kerosene fires can't melt steel (the best claims for demolition acknowledge this)

Building 6 explosion

a giant explosion cloud at the base of the towers brought them down (In Plane Site, among others) This is the exact opposite method of controlled demolition (a large detonation at the base would have risked toppling the towers).

"Pull It" quote ("bait" left by Larry Silverstein to distract the skeptics)

explosion in the basement of the towers (if true, probably just jet fuel that cascaded down the elevator shaft) - peddled by William Rodriguez, whose "RICO" lawsuit against Bush contains significant disinformation - controlled demolitions of skyscrapers do NOT involve detonations in the basements an hour before collapse

the towers were destroyed with nuclear explosives - probably the most ridiculous nonsense that anyone has offered

we're waiting for the "No Buildings" theories ...