Deciphering The
911 Distractions
The government's lies are obvious, but some
skeptics are far more subtle...

By John Kaminski
People ask me about 9/11, understandably enough, since I've written many articles about it, and I do a lot of radio interviews - all for free - to try to warn people that the government's explanation is not true.
I invariably tell them that the most damning pieces of evidence are the government's own provable lies, which include the failure to conduct a legitimate investigation into the events of that tragic day, the instantaneous blaming of terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, and the preposterously phony commission that took its place in history along with the Warren Commission as a glaring political swindle.
The best piece of evidence that shows the U.S. government was involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 disasters is simply the responses uttered by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and military chief of staff Myers immediately after the attacks.
They all feigned surprise, and said they hadn't realized this kind of disaster could happen.
Yet, their lies were exposed mere hours later when the FBI released the 19 names of the alleged hijackers, indicating the government had been tracking these individuals for months. If they didn't know it could happen, how did they know the names of the hijackers?
These lies were further amplified more recently with the revelation outlined by "October Surprise" author Barbara Honegger
(See the bottom of
that the government was running various drills on Sept. 11, 2001 using airplanes as weapons, so when top government officials denied they knew of the threat of fuel-laden planes slamming into buildings could actually happen, they were actually running multiple drills to prevent this very thing from happening - ON THAT VERY DAY. How's that for chutzpah?
So, despite the total mainstream media news blackout on these facts, and the apparent unwillingness of a majority of Americans (especially elected officials and law enforcement officers) to confront their government over these obvious lies, virtually everyone else in the world knows the real story, that the U.S. government has lied continually about what happened on 9/11, and this is what gave birth to the worldwide 9/11 skeptics movement.
Three other obvious items also have contributed to this widespread disbelief in anything the American government says about terrorism in general or 9/11 in particular:
1. In addition to the failure to objectively investigate what happened on 9/11, President Bush and his sycophants did everything possible to stonewall investigators they themselves appointed from gathering relevant information, AND, ordered the destruction and/or suppression of evidence (primarily audio and video evidence) extremely germane to an accurate judgment of what actually happened.
2. To this day, the American government has never produced a shred of evidence (other than fabricated and unconvincing so-called intelligence on the order of some of the infamous Iraq fictions) linking either Osama bin Laden or so-called Islamic terrorists to the attacks.
3. The military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that followed 9/11 and were advertised as a response to 9/11 "terror" were actually planned PRIOR to 9/11.
So, despite all the coverups and the cynical blackout of these skeptical contentions by mainstream media, the whole world knows what the American people do not - that the American government is undoubtedly responsible for the mass murders of 9/11, the lives of nearly 3,000 American citizens sacrificed for the secretive financial planning of those who wished to foment a permanent war against the Muslims and profit mightily from this evil enterprise.
That this conclusion has not swept through the collective American mind and resulted in mass arrests of rich bureaucrats in Washington is primarily due to two factors:
* The corporate censorship of the Zionist-controlled mainstream media, which are as complicit as treasonous government officials in suppressing facts that would reveal the real story ...
* And the American people themselves, who have been dumbed down into a frightened coma by the combination of a mind-dulling educational system in which critical thinking is discouraged; a food supply infected with debilitating additives that diminish alertness; a medical system eager to administer vaccines that create hidden afflictions that has been corrupted by pharmaceutical giants eager to peddle mind-numbing antidepressants; and mind-controlling, hateful religions which preach fear and advocate the mass murder of strangers as a way to demonstrate one's righteousness.
And that brings us to today.
At this very moment, a larger number of Americans than ever before is ready to embrace the idea that something is very wrong with their government's explanation about the curious disasters in New York, Washington, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and how these disasters have been exploited into a convenient excuse to attack oil-producing nations around the world as well as curtail traditional civil liberties at home.
But what happens when these finally brave individuals go looking for alternative information about the unspeakable tragedy and cynical deception that followed?
Total confusion is what.
Those who finally screw up their courage and say, "What I have heard is not right," are met with a bewildering array of competing theories, endless arguments over technical minutia, and even some claims that rely on high-tech film analysis that other skeptics, equally qualified and ardent in their belief about government lies, dismiss as suspicious fiction.
What is a person who seeks real answers to do?
Since I am person in that category, I have lately advised sticking to the core issues that can be proven (rather than striving for a mind-blowing smoking gun that no one could deny). Too many skeptics are claiming they have "the" smoking gun, only to be ridiculed by others who say they don't.
I myself have been subject to this ridicule, simply for advocating sticking to the provable lies of the situation. My attitude led one well-known so-called film analyst, Phil Jayhan of the infamous missile theory featured in a very popular video now making the rounds, to declaim that I didn't care about the people who died on 9/11.
It's good to know where people stand. Now there's no chance I'll ever believe anything he says again, and it also makes it easier for me to decide about the veracity of the film footage he has collected.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. Sorry to take so long to unfold this. I've spent many months thinking about these things. Most of all, I don't want to disparage someone who doesn't deserve it. I am not a principal 9/11 researcher. I am only a writer and an average citizen trying to figure things out. It is with these mundane qualifications that I, above all, try to keep my eye on the ball.
Number one is: try to catch the real perps. Every other revelation must be subordinate to that goal. Many so-called 9/11 skeptics have admitted by their actions that this is not their goal. They would rather promote their particular theories than work toward catching the culprits.
OK, on with the analysis.
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" provided the first real crack in the mainstream media mindlock about the coverup, and brought President Bush's odd behavior to the attention of millions who wouldn't otherwise have been forced to peruse it. This alone was of inestimable value. But as time went on, critics noticed that Moore really didn't touch on any of the core 9/11 issues, and worse, that he deflected attention toward the Saudis and away from the Israelis. I think today the prevailing opinion of the film is that it is merely Democratic campaign propaganda which nevertheless at least brought attention to the rapid erosion of American civil liberties, but didn't really get to the meat of the 9/11 lies.
A subsequent video, "9/11 In Plane Site," has take over the lead in popularity from the Moore film among those who wish to know about the real facts of 9/11, and I shall return to this subject in a moment.
At present (late October 2004), the highest hopes for revealing the true 9/11 story are vested in the new book, "Crossing the Rubicon," by Mike Ruppert, who since day one after the tragedy has established himself as the No. 1 9/11 researcher through his From The Wilderness website. Perhaps because of competitive jealousy, perhaps through legitimate concern, Ruppert has become the target of criticism from many other 9/11 researchers because of his decision to link his research focus to Peak Oil, a concept that insists the real problem is that the world is running out of oil, and that will create unprecedented chaos and disaster in the very near future. It is an issue which many people do not regard as legitimately connected to 9/11. Hence, some people feel Ruppert is creating a distraction where none need exist.
This was certainly the case at a major 9/11 conference held recently in San Francisco, which Ruppert's dominating presence managed to turn into a conference on Peak Oil. Few deny that Peak Oil is an important subject to talk about. But many, including me, don't see its relevance to catching the 9/11 crooks, and hence regard it as a distraction from the investigation.
Nevertheless, many people hold out hope that Ruppert's fingering of Vice President Dick Cheney as the mastermind of the confusion that allowed the terrorists to accomplish their evil objectives on 9/11 will lead to his prosecution for dereliction of duty and abetting the terrorist enterprise.
However, others believe this line of inquiry is, in itself, a limited hangout, because, in addition to maintaining the fiction that actual hijackers flew the planes, it focuses on allowing the events to happen rather than Cheney, Bush et all being responsible for the whole attack scenario themselves.
So who can tell? Is Ruppert's effort a legitimate attempt to uncover the real truth or a sophisticated labyrinth meant to limit damage and deflect culpability?
And you can't say "only time will tell" because we're still debating what happened in the assassinations of both Lincoln and Kennedy. The fact is: sometimes we never do find out what happened.
A second hopeful sign in the public arena lately is the lawsuit filed by San Francisco lawyer Stanley Hilton alleging that President Bush and numerous other public officials conspired to let the 9/11 attacks happen. This action is seeking billions of dollars in damages on behalf of relatives of the 14 victims, and asserts Bush and his pals stood to profit billions from the changed political atmosphere of the United States that enabled them to wage profitable wars wherever and whenever they wanted.
The Hilton lawsuit contains many legitimate criticisms of the 9/11 non-investigation and coverup that all make very interesting reading for the unenlightened (see for a basic roundup,
but like Ruppert's angle of attack, it begs the question of who planned it, and hence has similarly been critiqued as a limited hangout meant to conceal the real planners of the event even as it aims to sacrifice some truly big names to the wheels of justice.
So, both of these well-known endeavors fail to address the heart of the matter: who really did it? Who were the fat cats who run Bush and Cheney (and Kerry and Edwards, for that matter) from the deep, dark shadows of incredible wealth that put together this demonic plan to change the character of American civilization from nominally insular innocence to outwardly aggressive depravity?
Though the efforts by Ruppert and Hilton are generating a lot of hope amongst those who believe in their hearts that America has become an evil corporate cyborg eliminating as many actually honest humans as possible, the deeper possibility exists that they are exotic, extremely well-thought-out parts of the greater coverup designed to sacrifice a few high-level patsies in order to protect the demonic billionaires who thought the whole thing up in the first place.
Which leads us back to the popular video, "9/11 In Plane Site," which has probably recruited more people to the 9/11 skeptics cause than any other single maneuver. But the big question - and the giant shadow that it casts over the whole 9/11 skeptics movement - is: Is it real? And more importantly? What happens if it isn't?
Effective disinformation always contains large amounts of factual truth contaminated with small but devastating germs of falsehood, which when discovered, undermine the credibility of all the facts in the package.
According to some observers, notably Brian Salter of the respected website, "9/11 In Plane Site" contains a factual inaccuracy in a segment known as "the plume footage." Narrator Dave Von Kleist states in the film that this plume of smoke began rising from the base of the Twin Towers BEFORE either of the towers began to fall. Salter, using the previous work of researcher Jim Hoffman, noted that the film had been fudged, and that in fact, the South Tower had already begun to fall.
Von Kleist, when confronted with this news at a recent 9/11 skeptics conference in New York City, told several different stories about the issue to different people. A few days later, he cobbled together a defense of his footage on his website, but has since refused to respond to anyone with questions about the incident.
In addition, Salter's produced a story that regards Jayhan's spectacular video analysis of missiles apparently being fired from the planes that hit the towers as subject to interpretation.
When the subject was brought up in a recent e-mail debate triggered by a question asked by's webmaster Peter Meyer, it resulted in an incredibly abusive barrage of insults from all those 9/11 skeptics who are committed to the "no-plane theory" (which theorizes that based on their intense video analysis that no planes hit the Twin Towers on 9/11). Principally, these irate no-planers include The Webfairy, Gerard Holmgren, and Scott Loughrey, all of whom have distinguished themselves with various discoveries of the 9/11 puzzle. Jayhan is not a no-planer, because he believes the planes fired missiles.
The incredible scattershot barrage of accusations against all those who merely asked questions was culminated by Jayhan's remark that I didn't care about the 9/11 victims because I disagreed with what he was saying, and was typical of the level of abuse being spewed by all of them. So on the basis of their personal behavior, I would tend to distrust anything any of them said.
However, we all say things in the heat of proving our arguments that we wish we hadn't, so I don't base my opinion of the evidence they have produced (and in Holmgren's case, it is undeniably compelling and apparently authentic, particularly in regard to proving at least two of the 9/11 flights never really existed) on how stupidly or rudely they behave when challenged.
What remains at issue is the plume footage in "9/11 In Plane Site" and the apparently false claim made by Von Kleist. My concern about the film has always been that if part of it is proven false, will all those who are converted to 9/11 skepticism as a result of the film abandon their judgments when they realize they were not told the truth?
That has always been my concern about the film. As some of you may remember from my previous review, I enthusiastically endorsed the Pentagon segment of the film and left it up to the viewer to decide about the rest of it.
Now, after VonKleist's initial dissembling and subsequent silence, I would advise the film be viewed paying particular attention to his claim about the plume and the especially subjective interpretation of the planes firing missiles.
That I don't believe any of those parts should not be accepted by viewers. I would like you to decide for yourselves.
So ... the principal reason I have reaped so much scorn from those who prefer their own exotic interpretations of what happened on 9/11 is that I have suddenly gone conservative in what I choose to believe about that fateful day.
No, not conservative as in "neocon" or "fundamental Zionist." Conservative as in wanting to point only those 9/11 questions which I know can be proven, or as Peter Meyer asked in that original e-mail, the "incontestable" 9/11 issues.
First and foremost, as I outlined above, are the government lies, the heaps of them which prove to any reasonable skeptic that uncountable officials have simply not told the truth about that sad day, and that numerous crimes have been committed, including obstruction of justice, treason, and mass murder.
Second, I believe the government has failed to produce any evidence that the so-called hijackers were responsible for the tragedy, that there is no evidence they were even on the planes and no demonstrable proof they could fly such planes if they were, and that since they undoubtedly used false IDs, there is no way to affix blame on any country (except the one that specializes in stealing people's identities), so that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were monstrous mistakes, as is blaming the Saudis.
Third, I like the phrase "the time the towers took to fall." When you realize that debris ejected off to the side of the falling Twin Towers fell at the same rate as the towers themselves, you realize there was no resistance to the towers falling, which means they were demolished. Otherwise, they wouldn't have come down so smoothly; each floor, as well as the very strong 47 core columns, would not have collapsed evenly had they not been blown up. Combined with the mysterious, on-demand collapse of WTC7 later in the day, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind the Twin Towers were demolished and the plane crashes were merely staged to cover up the demolition and then conveniently used an excuse for the corporate power elite to make war on the whole world.
Fourth, the clearest path to me to determining who was responsible for this horrible celebration of greed is identifying the pre-9/11 investors who reaped billions with their savvy financial bets based on foreknowledge of the events to come. That the FBI has declared these investments not to be suspicious is simply more evidence that the FBI does not work for the American people, but for the billionaires who control the government, the media, and the jeopardized lives of everyone in the world.
And fifth is the great unspoken "elephant in the living room." It is the aspect of 9/11 least mentioned, and recently prohibited by law from even being discussed.
Yes, Israeli involvement. Jewish influence on the political process, undeniable, yet mostly unspoken out of fear of financial ruin, or being murdered. Israel is the country running around the world, killing tourists and stealing their IDs. Israel is the country that gets billions in U.S. foreign aid every year and never pays back a penny. Israel is the country that controls the American media, so that you don't get any news about its continuing butchery of Palestinian children, or Zionist fingerprints on the church bombings and bloody beheadings in Iraq. Israel is the country that completely owns George W. Bush and John Kerry.
So ... in deciphering the 9/11 distractions, I prefer to stick to the core issues, that I can tell people right off the top of my head and convince them that the government has not told the truth.
You can keep your missiles and holograms (and your shallow insults, too). The government lied and the world is in grave jeopardy as a result of it.
It's easy to prove that 9/11 was an inside job devised, executed, and then covered up by the highest levels of the American government. We don't need exotic film footage that may or may not have been doctored to prove it. My great worry is, as with the VonKleist video, that when aspects of these theories are disproven, it will actually hurt the 9/11 skeptics movement much more it could possibly help it.
Enough ordinary evidence already exists to indict and convict thousands. America's wholly corrupt judicial system is another question entirely.
The real problem now is an American populace that is hell-bent on denying what I've just said. This continuing denial on the part of those who refuse to listen and understand will take both them and us to exactly where their denial is headed - straight to the hell of widespread slavery, poverty, disease, more acts of suspicious terror, and ultimately to World War III and the end of human society as we know it.
John Kaminski is the author of numerous Internet essays, many about 9/11, that have been collected into several anthologies. The most recent collection is titled "The Perfect Enemy," which is available at
From Robert Meloy
Another Great Essay, John! ("Deciphering 911 Deception") I always make it a point to read your articles, whenever they are posted on (or anywhere else I may see them.)
You are such an important and skilled writer on these vital subjects that I hate to see you (unwittingly) repeat the misconception outlined below -- a deception perpetuated by the mainstream press & franchised bar attorneys -- a deception much akin to their continual references to America as a "democracy" (two wolves & a sheep voting on what to have for lunch):
Instead of 'civil liberties', I always refer to Natural Rights (aka Inherent rights, Fundamental Rights, or Unalienable Rights (as found in the paramount organic law of nature and nature's God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not the 'inalienable rights' phrase which they snuck through into the Constitution.
The difference? Both refer to Natural Rights (not "civil rights" or "civil liberties") of Man (white, black, all races) - i.e., fundamental, inherent rights of Man.
However, "IN-alienable" rights can be WAIVED. Remember, the 13th ammendment doesn't just prohibit slavery - it ALSO prohibits "INvoluntary servitude". It says: "NEITHER slavery NOR involuntary servitude shall exist in the United States."
This implies the hint of voluntary servitude itself "arising under" by presumed implicit consent. Notice A.P., etc., always refer to civil liberties ("granted" to legal fictions, "artificial persons" or creatures of the state, who are SUBJECT to its control -- the King of England has subjects, not us. Men & women, by contrast, are born of a woman's womb they are not "creations of the state") -- never does the mainstream press refer to unalienable rights or natural rights, inherent to natural persons, but forever inapplicable to artificial persons.
"Legal entities" GOT no rights - only privelages contingent on franchise fees & conditions. What they've done is turn Law upside-down, so that natural people are dirt & corporations (selectively applied, of course) have sacred, unassailable rights (de facto, not de jure).
The Constitution is an outgrowth of the organic law of the land - the law that CREATES, both written & unwritten. The phrase "jury of his peers", for example, is not found anywhere in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. Where does it come from? The Northwest Ordinance which, like the Declaration & Articles of Confederation, are still very much as in effect as the Constitution. The NW Ordinance is for those of us west of the Ohio River, & came about right before the Constitution (which nowhere contains MY signature as a party to the compact -- see Lysander Spooner.)




This Site Served by TheHostPros