Friday, March 14, 2008

“The Real Spitzer Scandal” 'A' 9/11 Eliot Spitzer Scandal....

The Spitzer scandals continue.

On the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attack, * this exclusive story:NY Governor Eliot Spitzer filed an amicus brief on 1/15/03 on behalf of the World Trade Center’s controversial lease-holder, the real estate magnate Larry Silverstein.

This document shows that Eliot Spitzer, as Attorney General, helped Silverstein get the whopping $4.5 billion windfall for the 9/11 attacks.

The record is clear: Spitzer helped reverse a lower court’s decision, by making credible Silverstein’s argument that the two different plane crashes on 9/11/01 should be compensated as two different terrorist attacks. This amicus brief has never been reported before today, in print or online. It was discovered in the court archives on the 17th floor of the 2nd Circuit Court (NYC), and released by attorney Carl Person.

“I was surprised to see that Eliot Spitzer had used his position as attorney general to support one private litigant over another. Normally, this is not done.” The story also covers Governor Eliot Spitzer’s recent scandals with police spying on rival Joe Bruno, the Roger Stone voice mail threat, as well as new information and interviews regarding the Eliot Spitzer links to "CIA" Kroll executives Michael Cherkasky and Jerome Hauer. In an original interview with Jerome Hauer, probing his documented links to anthrax suspect Steven Hatfill. Hauer is widely believed to be the source of the White House’s foreknowledge about the anthrax attacks on 9/11/01....and more.!

In 2004, Eliot Spitzer was asked to investigate 9/11 by 66% of New Yorkers. Those pleas were ignored. 51% of the USA wants Bush and Cheney investigated for 9/11, according to a poll last week....

“The Real Spitzer Scandal” is also online, free and in full, at

Hicks’ original interview with “bio-terror expert” Jerome Hauer is at

The Eliot Spitzer/Silverstein Amicus Brief is at:

The story was reported and written by Sander Hicks, with reporting help from Igor Kossov and Kempshall McAndrew.

"..More About Disinformation..."

One of the characteristics of 9/11 disinformation a lot of people have a hard time grasping is that much of it is designed specifically to convince people of US government complicity in 9/11. This might seem like a contradiction, until one understands that 9/11 disinfo is part of a broader system of mass manipulation where the opposing perspective plays an essential role. The basic idea is to control both sides of the debate, and frame it in a way that makes the opposing side ineffective (not necessarily unbelievable). In the end it doesn't matter whether even a majority of the people believe the US government was complicit in 9/11 (this is already the case).

What matters is only that the perpetrators can never successfully be prosecuted. Thus they pollute the body of evidence with red herrings and false lines of inquiry. If, in the process, they happen to cause some people to disbelieve the official story (as in the case with the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax), all the better, because the end result is a weakening of any legal case that might be brought against them.

There is an important quote by E. Martin Schotz from his book, History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy. It is: "One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known." Conspiracy theories, in other words, provide the perfect cover for real conspiracies. When anything can be believed because the available information is a convoluted mix of truth, falsehood and probability; when the actual truth itself is convoluted, involving deception, mystery and illusion; then one is ultimately left to their own emotions to decide. And emotions, of course, can be easily manipulated. What do you want to believe? After all, it's up to you. You'll never know the truth, or at least you'll never be able to prove it in a court of law. Do you really want to be marginalized and ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist? You get the idea.

The World Trade Center Collapse: A Necessary Illusion

In my two years of 9/11 truth activism, I never emphasized the physical evidence. I always knew it was a dead end that would suck the movement's energy and accomplish nothing. But let me be straight up for a moment, if a bit speculative, because thinking about these things is helpful. They demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives. I have no doubt about this, just as I have no doubt that the planes were flown by remote control. I also believe that hijackers did, in fact, board the planes (despite the articles claiming some of those named are still alive). I think the hijackers were trained US operatives (patsies), and that they likely did not know they were going to die.

I also think the most probable explanation for the shoot-down of flight 93 is that the passengers did, in fact, storm the cockpit, only to discover that the plane was being flown by remote control. And so in order to prevent any of them from calling their loved ones and blabbing (yes, phones can work on planes), they had to shoot it down. Or perhaps the hijackers themselves learned their real fate and allowed the passengers into the cockpit to try to regain control of the aircraft. We'll never really know, and this is the idea. "Anything can be believed," and so it is equally plausible, as others have speculated, that the shoot-down of Flight 93 was planned from the beginning.

But the World Trade Center demolition is obvious, which leads to an important question: why did they do it? Wouldn't simply crashing the planes into the buildings have been enough? Why bring them down completely? The typical responses here apply: They needed their "New Pearl Harbor," a mass casualty event to shock the public into supporting a retaliatory war. They also needed a spectacle that wouldn't be easily forgotten. These explanations are true enough. Another often cited and plausible one is that they needed to make the lie obvious enough that the people who mattered (government, corporate, and military leaders, for example) would know that they--the secret government within the government--did this and got away with it. This sends a powerful message of invincibility to anyone who might be thinking of opposing them. And the fact that they demolished building 7 later that evening in a classic-style demolition sure seems to support that argument. It's as if they were saying, "just in case you didn't get it the first time, we'll show you one even more obvious."

“The Real Spitzer Scandal” 'A' 9/11 Eliot Spitzer Scandal....

But there is another reason they demolished the World Trade Center towers, in my opinion the most important reason, which is that they needed the lie to be incredible. As Hitler and Goebbels understood, the bigger and more incredible the lie, the more people will believe it, because they will have to make a bigger psychological leap in order to disbelieve it. Mass manipulation of this kind plays on the natural desire many people have to conform, and it is much more difficult, psychologically, for the conforming individual to disbelieve a popularly-held incredible lie than a mundane one, for to do so would set one widely apart from the herd.

To put this another way, imagine if they had merely crashed four planes into the ocean. How much easier it would be then for people to speculate that the government may have done this as a pretext for war. To do so would not require a really incredible contradiction of the official story, marginalizing oneself from the mainstream. It would not be so easy to dismiss such claims as "outrageous conspiracy theory," and ridicule would be less effective. What is important to remember here is that propaganda of this sort is not designed to fool critical thinkers, but to provide conforming individuals with a reason not to start thinking critically. Thus the total destruction of the World Trade Center in such a dramatic yet obvious way was, in my opinion, an essential, psychological component of the operation."