9/11 Truth at Conspiracy Con

June 2nd, 2012

Today is the first day of the 12th annual Conspiracy Convention taking place at the Marriott Hotel in Santa Clara, CA. Truth-seekers and freedom-fighters abound to hear what’s been plugged as the “most controversial speakers in the world.” You can get all the details at ConspiracyCon.com.

Based on a cursory stroll through the dealers room it seems like some of the perspectives represented at this convention include that cancer was engineered to control society, that psychosis is the product of secret “mind invasive technology,” that Obamacare is a plot to reduce the population of Earth to 500,000 and that inter-dimensional extraterrestrials are preparing to launch an invading army of human-alien-robot hybrids to enslave the human race… no joke. And if you want you can even get your Tarot cards read and your aura photographed. Maybe after lunch.

Your typical free patriot crowd is also well represented. The place is awash in tell-all documentaries on the Federal Reserve, the truth about the Income Tax and various other state tyrannies of varied levels of credibility. But I thought I’d start with my thoughts on the presentation of the first speaker in the morning session.

Jim Fetzer is a prolific author on science and philosophy and a professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He has published multiple collections of studies on the assassination of JFK for which is well known in the conspiracy crowd, but today he appeared representing Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

There’s no doubt in mind that 9/11 will go down in history as one of the great conspiracies, next to Roswell and the JFK assassination, to be debated and speculated about for a hundred years or more. In full disclosure, I have not found the prospect of 9/11 being an inside job to be particularly relevant in my own life because the implications of the U.S. Government orchestrating a false flag attack on American citizens does not imply anything about the U.S. Government that I do not already believe. And the Truth about 9/11 has no bearing on that belief one way or the other. But, one thing about which I am absolutely certain is that the official story about 9/11 is utter bullshit, and highly suspicious. So, I for one am glad there are those out there still digging into the inconsistencies if that’s what it takes for people to wake up the monstrosity of the State.

That being said, Jim brought up some really interesting points. I especially appreciated that his style in presenting his theory was not to poke a few holes in the official story and then speculate wildly what may fill those holes, but instead to first show that there is nothing but holes in the official story. Point for point, fact for fact, he demonstrated that there is virtually nothing true about the official story… after that, it’s all speculation. I appreciated his constant return to his central thesis, almost like Montgomery Scott aboard the USS Enterprise, that “you cannot change the laws of physics.” For example, during its flight toward the Pentagon, Flight 77 allegedly barreled through a handful of street lights at about 530 miles per hour. Well, according to Newton’s Third Law a Boeing 757 going 530 miles per hour impacting a stationary lamppost would have the exact same effect on the plane as a stationary Boeing 757 being hit by a lamppost traveling 530 miles per hour… so you can imagine what that should have looked like. He also demonstrated a number of peculiarities in the photos where Flight 93 supposedly went down in Pennsylvania, for example, the same piece of debris being photographed in multiple locations, which he ultimately traced back to the fuselage of a different plane that actually crashed in the mid 90s.

But most interesting (and hard to swallow) was a phenomenon which he called “The Ghost Plane” which is apparently fringe even in the 9/11 Truth Movement. In the video of the plane hitting the World Trade Center tower it appears that the plane almost completely passes through the building before any appearance of damage or explosion appears from the building, which he asserts as a physical impossibility given the structure of the building. The plane should have crumpled, slowed, and ultimately stopped before completely passing into the building. Also, he asserts that the plane in the video does not cast a shadow, or reflect light. But unable to square theory of a doctored video with the many eye witness accounts who said they saw a plane, Jim speculates that the plane itself was a hologram. To bolster this theory he cites that the trajectory of the plane based on video and eyewitness testimony is actually 1400 feet to the left of the trajectory recorded by military radar. And so he speculates that there was actually another stealth plane flying along the military trajectory able to project the hologram everyone saw.

It’s hard to believe frankly. It conflicts with my understanding of how holograms work. But Jim insists that military technology is decades ahead of civilian technology, making this grand illusion possible. He concludes that if there are no planes, there are no passengers, and if there are no passengers there are no hijackers. If there are no hijackers there are no terrorists, which was the entire justification for the War on Terror and over a decade foreign and domestic policy.

Whether his theory is right or wrong, his conclusion is absolutely correct. If 9/11 didn’t happen as officially reported the entire pretense for the last 10 years jackboot thuggery is bogus.

And don’t forget to visit our official website to learn more about the Silver Circle Movie:http://SilverCircleMovie.com

About the Author: Davi Barker

In grade school Davi refused to recite the pledge of allegiance because he didn't understand what it meant. He was ordered to do as he was told. In college he spent hours scouring through the congressional record trying to understand this strange machine. That's where he discovered Dr. Ron Paul. In 2007 he joined the End The Fed movement and found a political home with the libertarians. The Declaration of Independence claims that the government derives its power “from the consent of the governed." He does not consent.