UPDATED with Pt 2 – 9/11 – Unanswered Questions

(2PM EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and Professor of English at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher. His most recent books are Drugs, Oil, and War (2005), The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (2007), The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11 and the Deep Politics of War (2008) and Mosaic Orpheus (poetry, 2009).

Scott has studied and written widely on what he calls the “deep state”, or “deep politics”  – terms he uses to describe the deeper level of machinations that go on in politics beyond the awareness of the majority of people, about the corrupted mindset in Washington that produces for profit government, intelligence gathering, foreign policy and wars.

Here Scott talks with Paul Jay of the Real News Network about the many unanswered questions over what happened and did not happen at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Real News Network – September 09, 2010

9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered

Peter Dale Scott: “I do know for a certainty that there has been a cover-up of 9/11”

Real News Network – September 11, 2010

9/11 and Continuity of Government

Peter Dale Scott: 9/11 Questions remain unanswered, Pt.2


Skip to comment form

    • Edger on September 10, 2010 at 16:12

    was of the most successful myth creating events I know of… one that rates right up there with religion competing for the all time bullshit story.

  1. … isn’t showing up for me.  Will check out later.

    Last I heard of the “official story,” it was done by the 9/11 commission who had received much of its information from “suspects” who were tortured.

    I believe their report has not been updated in any way — if I’m mistaken, please correct me.

    iow, the only “official” version we now have of what happened on 9/11 has been proven to be based on false or coerced information.

    Boggles the mind.

  2. Julian Assange two counts of rape?



    • Edger on September 10, 2010 at 20:03
  3. …He speaks only when he is sure of his facts.  I’ve known him and his family for 25 years and trust his word implicitly.

  4. I submit that the rise of complex written language in large, sedentary communities (albeit probably descipherable to a small number initially) required belief

    as an essential element of comprehension. I also should mention that personally, I do not consider three or four thousand years as a “long time” in terms of the development of critical thinking, a notion itself that is quite interesting.

    I believe in fact that art and architecture were originally tightly bound up with iconographic and phonemic language, making belief very difficult to suspend, almost as if one would be doubting their auditory and visual perception. How doubt arose, as well as to the extent of its effects is anybody’s guess. All language was originally chiseled in stone or clay giving it a quality of permanence, and perhaps an imbedded psychological quality as well that stayed on into the paper era. [perhaps as well into the T.V. era ?  Thus making the latest supreme court ruling on campaign spending a collosal reversion to the times of pharoah?]

    Over time, poverty and illiteracy kept most people from direct exposure to written language, thus making them totally dependent on literate sources. The masses knew about written language, but were probably passive with respect to constructing multiple alternatives to any event that they could not see directly with their own eyes. The Old and New Testaments are good examples.

    9/11 was a simple but powerful visual iconographic event, two towers falling down from jet liner collision. Belief was instantaneous, and the long, cultural tradition to believe (despite years of literacy and education in Western Societies) and not consider other alternatives is still prevalent. Obfuscation has always done the trick, making any good faith effort to consider alternatives very difficult, especially against an official and reinforced drumbeat narrative.

    When I heard the first George Bush comment on the new global order, these ideas quickly emerged in my thinking.

    It wasn’t Wilson’s making the world save for democracy, but Bush actually used the word order. Wow!

  5. the Reichstag in 1933?

    Here is a rather extensive list of questions, that, as far as I know, have yet to be answered.

    And here are some more questions from the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission.

    Reading David Ray Griffin’s “The New Pearl Harbor” was a major revelation for this writer, as has been his subsequent work. If you haven’t read any of his books yet, it’s a great place to start for those wanting to know more about 9/11.

    “Loose Change”…

    Here’s an updated version of “Loose Change”, which you may prefer to view instead…

    Here is the first of Sofia’s ten-part series of videos “9/11 Mysteries” (each about 10:00 long) that are quite well done…

    And here is a video from Book TV by David Ray Griffin…

    This should be good for starters.

    • banger on September 11, 2010 at 14:09

    Whether we like it or not the event was obviously some kind of inside job. I’m totally agnostic on what actually happened. Did people seize the planes? Where they flown by remote control? Were the buildings rigged with bombs? All these are very secondary issues. The critical and overwhelming issue is that the official story is not only wrong but cannot be true no matter what angle you look at it from.

    The deepest tragedy of 9/11 is that the American intelligentsia will not look at this event critically. This means, to me, that this class of people in this country cannot look at anything critically and cannot be believed or trusted on any matter whatsoever. We have to understand that without a vigorous intellectual culture our society is doomed in the fullest sense of that world. To me personally this is very tragic as someone who feels deeply identified with the Western Humanist Tradition. I feel bad for those that died in 9/11 and the suffering of NYC–but the City has recovered and become, in many ways, a better place because of that suffering.

    But the country that spawned great thinkers and literary men and women is no more. How can I go on to sites like Counterpunch and take seriously anything Alex Cockburn says? How can I evaluate him as anything but a Stasi Leftist although his vicious and ad hominem attack of 9/11 skeptics was stunning in its irrationality and stupidity.  

Comments have been disabled.