The 911 Disinfo Problem

What 'problem' you might say?

Certainly the average Joe six-pack does not see any problem at all. "The Gov't says the A-rabs snuck in an dese Mooslum hoodlums up an smooshed dere planes inta the Trade Towers" is more or less how they would describe the events of that day.

But, of course, there are quite a few others who feel that this trite explanation does not appear to hold water any more than a sieve does when attempting to explain how and why these attacks took place.

It is pretty certain that unless we can come to a reasoned understanding of that fateful day's events none of us will be able to put them into a context that gives us some hope of understanding what is taking place as a result of the carnage from that day.

There are quite a few 'alternative theories' about who the actual perpetrators were and what were their motives and the precise mechanisms as to how they went about doing the 'deed'. Some of them appear fairly plausible at first glance, but seem to fall apart with some closer inspection, and some just do not even seem to obey any of the laws of Physics in this reality as we know them. There are some, though, which appear to hold up fairly well IF you do not go 'deep' enough into understanding the way the world really works to come to a really 'reasonable' conclusion.

And, as any good investigator will remind us, the FIRST thing one needs to ask is "Who benefits from this the most?"

Keeping in mind that 'whatever' group is actually responsible for the attacks, it can most definitely be called a Conspiracy, as conspiracy is nothing more than a group of people who have the same purposes and intents to commit some particular action in concert.

Two of the people who have proposed their own theories regarding the incident of 911 are Mike Ruppert and Daniel Hopsinger. Not only do each have slightly differing ideas as to all of this, but they are slinging mud at each other and each accusing the other of being a 'disinfo agent'.

Now, you would think that one of them is probably telling the 'truth', and the other is attempting to actually disseminate 'disinfo', and that is most likely the purpose of the entire engagement between the two. It appears to be a win-win scenario for those who are doing their best to keep the public in the dark as to the real sources of the attack by keeping everyone focused on the question of which of these two is 'correct' - when it is fairly apparent they are both promoting dis-info - either consciously or unconsciously.

This is what I see.

I recently read a very good article describing this very same scenario titled "Ruppert and Hopsinger Coopting the 911 Truth Movement" by Joe Quinn. It is a fairly lengthy article, but gives really solid reasons why and how this is all being done.

Joe mentions in this article that whether he is aware of it or not, Mike's message tends to promote emotional rather than critical thought, and this thinking with emotions tends to make a problematic situation even worse than it was originally.

He also mentions that Hopsinger is rather suspect because he continues to insist that it had to be perpetrated by Saudi Arabia. A critical examination would show that to be very unlikely - to the point of even being ridiculous.

Suppose all this bickering about these two 'theories' is nothing more than a way of keeping most of us from considering who the 'real' perpetrators of the attacks really are?