It’s a tribute to how far you’ve come that I would take the time to write you an open letter; such correspondences are generally to those who, due to their celebrity (or notoriety), are unlikely to respond to a person’s private communication. (You’ve already done this, of course, i.e., not responded to my private communication.)
You’ve come a long way.
As I’m sure you will recall, we were first in touch in 2009 when you invited me to be on your podcast as an interviewee after you’d seen a bit of the rough cut to my film Water Time; Surf Travel Diary of a MadMan, then changed your mind (and cut off communications with me) when I informed you of my conflict with Alex Jones – the matter of FBI Agent John O’Neill’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks (the myth is that he died that day). But more about that at another time…
I put off writing about the matter at hand – your version of the 9/11/Pentagon attack – and would probably have let it slide completely, but your recent Corbettreport.com video on the ‘missile’ debunking and ‘How to Spot Disinfo’ was just a bit too much for me to ignore. I’ll embed your video here for the convenience of other viewers of this essay:
Well, what’s the big deal, right? I mean why would I find this video ‘too much to ignore’? I mean, let’s face it, that video you expose as being bogus is bogus, right? Yep, sure is. And old Gordy Duff did admit that he puts out disinfo, right? (To ‘stay alive,’ he added. Interesting comment, but which you didn’t deal with, James. But okay.)
The ‘How to Spot Disinfo’ title really bugged me. I’m not a big fan of that sort of irony.
You know about Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP), don’t you, James? It has several formal definitions but as I refer to it: ‘A system of affecting the behavior or opinions or thoughts of another person or persons without their knowing you have done so, usually through the use of subtextual or subliminal cues, be they verbal or written.’ In other words, you talk about one subject, but what you’re really saying is something else. NLP is a version of mind control. Agencies like the CIA and other intelligence groups, plus the ‘business’ known as Public Relations are especially known for using NLP.
But there are two kinds of NLP, of mind control, right, James? There is the ‘okay’ kind, wherein you are communicating a truth, or at least what you believe is a truth. Then there is the bad kind, wherein you are communicating a falsehood, and you know it. For the purposes of this essay we’ll only deal with the latter sort. The bad sort.
A possible example: You produce evidence that a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon is bogus, a fraud. Disinformation. This is your video, right? (In fact, you go out of your way to be scornful of the other video’s attempt at fooling the public. You imply that a person would have to be an idiot to believe that video, right James? You all but outright say that, don’t you?)
But if what you’re really trying to say is ‘American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11, just as the official story claims’? Then we’re dealing with NLP, with mind control. And if you in fact know that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, i.e., you’re communicating a falsehood, we’re dealing with bad NLP.
Let’s get to the bottom of this, shall we? Your video in its entirety is above. Now let’s check out the relevant ‘information’ in your effort:
I know: You don’t outright say that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon… but you come pretty damn close: …’leaked images may reveal missile impact rather than jetliner struck Pentagon…’ Then you prove that the missile images are faked… and you fail to mention that the falsity of the images proves nothing about what did hit the Pentagon…
If you don’t see how this video ‘goes with’ your ‘How to Spot Disinfo’ video, I’ll embed a truncated version:
What makes this an example of NLP (as defined above) is that the purported (stated) subjectof your talk is not ‘what caused the damage to the Pentagon,’ but rather was the behavior of Rumsfeld and Cheney on that day. The average viewer, asked what the video is about, would not be likely to say, ‘The Pentagon was hit by American Flight 77.’ But, as we both know, they surely would come away from the viewing with that thought planted firmly in their minds, given that you repeated eleven times that Flight 77 hit the building. NLP at its best: No one will argue with an idea that he didn’t even realize he was subjected to.
And if you look at the comments section of your video you will find that of the (currently) 344 folks who had something to say a total of one person (aside from yours truly) saw fit to mention that you in essence backed up the official story of what happened at the Pentagon – and did so over and over and over again. Virtually no one noticed!
You even bring up the subject of dumb-ass Comments in your ‘How to Spot Disinfo’ video! Talk about irony!
Yeah, people are stupid, aren’t they, James? Thirty-four comments and only one person brought up fakery. But hey, in your Pentagon video it took ten times as many commenters to find the one who ‘noticed’ what was really going on, i.e., that you were using NLP to plant the transparent falsehood that a 757 jetliner (American Flight 77, to be specific) struck the Pentagon – not only a falsehood but an impossibility by the laws of physics.
But wait. Maybe there is someone out there reading this who has not delved into the issue of the Pentagon attack who might be thinking, ‘Maybe James is right! Maybe Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon!’ Or at the very least, maybe James believes that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. (Remember that NLP mind control involves a perpetrator who knows he is spreading a falsehood.)
Most people reading this already know that no big jetliner (like Flight 77) hit the Pentagon so I’ll not waste too much space. You, James, can use the links provided if necessary.
1) A 100-ton airliner like a 757 has about a million parts that are serial numbered to connect it to the aircraft in question. Not one part from Fl 77 was identified from the Pentagon scene.
2) The damage, as seen in the photographs and videos, does not reflect a strike from a large airliner. Here’s General Albert Stubblebine on the damage as seen in the photographs we are all familiar with:
That should really do it but there is plenty more. Waaay more.
2) No photographic proof of an airliner strike. There were over 80 surveillance cameras that should have caught the crash but the only one released showed something other than a big jet (if it showed anything real). If proof existed, it certainly would have been released, to shut up the ‘conspiracy theorists’. This is so obvious that it should be all that’s needed to debunk a Flight 77 hit. But it goes on and on, the evidence. I mean on and on.
3) The flight path. No commercial jetliner of any sort could have flown the path that the official story (Flight 77) requires. See the Pilot’s For 9/11 Truth videos, like this one.
4) The flight path, Part 2. The Citizen’s Investigation Team proved that the poles were knocked down ahead of time, since the ‘plane’ that overflew (and did not hit) the Pentagon could not have flown through them.
5) The light poles. Check out this video to see how airplane wings and solid objects behave when they ‘meet.’
So even if ‘a plane’ had flown through the poles, it would not have knocked them down. The wings would have been torn off. This is by the laws of physics, James. Newton’s laws. Last I heard, they were still in effect.
6) Speaking of the laws of physics: According to the official story, Flight 77 was traveling at over 500 MPH when it approached – skimming the lawn – and struck the Pentagon. This is impossible. No jetliner can fly at that speed at sea level. Period. Listen to the below Bill Lear link if you have to.
And ‘ground effect’ would make it impossible to ‘skim the lawn,’ as is the story. Google ‘ground effect,’ James. Or listen to pilot Bill Lear (of Learjet fame). Bill is talking about the WTC strikes but the principal is exactly the same.
(That I feel I even have to do this – explain to you, an alt media star,why the story they fed us about the Pentagon is utter horseshit – is very serious evidence that something is very seriously wrong. In fact, I’m outraged that I’m making this list for you, James Corbett.)
7) Flight 77 didn’t wasn’t even scheduled that day. This is via the government’s own records, James. (The same goes for Flight 11, by the way.)
8) Witnesses? If you’re going to bring up ‘witnesses,’ don’t forget Jamie McIntyre. On the other hand, since there are so many conflicting reports (plus you yourself have done podcasts about bogus witnesses), it’s best to stick to physical evidence – like the laws of physics.
By the way: Given that one of the many, many things you do (so well!), writing and filmmaking for Globalresearch.ca is one of them, how could you miss this article, which makes it utterly clear that Flight 77 (or any other jetliner) did not hit the Pentagon?
James: Given all of the above (just the tip of the evidence iceberg), that you would repeat (one way or another) twenty-three times – with no qualifications (like ‘alleged’) – that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, is evidence that something is very wrong.
Worse: In over two years since Kuala Lumpur, how could it be that I am the first and only person (to my knowledge) to call attention to the above travesty? Yes, something is very wrong.
And as Barbara Honegger points out:
The most important lie of the 9/11 Black Op Spectacle is the Flight 77 lie.
Why is the matter of the Pentagon attack so important? First, the ‘attack by foreign nationals’ on the heart of the U.S. military establishment was the rationalization for the continuous wars that our country has been waging for a decade and a half. George W. Bush himself has stated and written that ‘It was the attack on the Pentagon that meant we were at war.’
But more importantly: No matter what is ‘proved’ regarding the events in Pennsylvania and New York City – whether it was thermite or space beams or mini-nukes that disintegrated the WTC – the insiders who perpetrated the attacks could always point at someone else as the guilty party. The insiders were ‘removed.’
But if the Pentagon story is proved to be a lie, there is no one else to point at. I know you understand this, James, and how important this notion really is. You’re a very, very smart guy. Which is why – in your Pentagon presentation at Kuala Lumpur – you stuck to the behavior of Rumsfeld and Cheney (meanwhile buttressing the essence of the official story). And what did you accuse them of (especially Rumsfeld)? Incompetence.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, James, but there is nothing you accuse Rumsfeld of that in a court of law could not be blamed on incompetence or even senility. Rumsfeld was a septuagenarian even on 9/11; imagine how the ‘poor old man’ would come across now. Imagine how his attorney would take apart the accusation that he ‘abandoned his post to do a meaningless photo op’:
Imagine Rumsfeld on the witness stand. ‘I know. I shouldn’t have gone out to help those people, but they were my friends and co-workers…. I’m so sorry….I…I…’ and I’d bet the old psychopath could work up a tear.
That would be that, wouldn’t it, James? And the same goes for everything else you ‘accuse’ Rumsfeld of. Regarding Cheney: The best you could do was produce evidence that he wasn’t where the 9/11 Commission said he was at ‘the time in question’? So what?!
You sounded great, though. Intelligently outraged and so forth. That’s the way limited hangout and NLP mind control works…
Given that the conference was supposed to tell us how to prosecute the perpetrators of 9/11, please inform us why the two main points you made in your presentation did the following:
1. Let Rumsfeld and Cheney off the legal hook.
2. Reinforce the official fiction that American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
You’ve accused Gordon Duff of being a disinfo agent and (logically) a member of the controlled opposition. I don’t know if Duff will respond to your accusations, but how about doing so yourself?
Don’t dodge the issue, which, one more time, is this: Why – in a carefully prepared speech at a 9/11 Truth Conference (it was your ‘debut’, wasn’t it?) – did you repeat eleven times (23, counting Mineta) the transparent falsehood that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01? (If your response is to ‘own up,’ i.e., say, ‘You’re right, I should have qualified the Flight 77 references,’ I’m sorry, but the repetitions (nearly one per minute) in a carefully prepared speech wherein the subject matter was something else, qualifies as just another level of limited hangout.)
Was it to let your handlers know that you’re ‘with the program’? Or was it to demonstrate once again how stupid the American public really is. That of 344 comments, only one brought up your reiterations of a Big Lie. Or both?
I can’t help recall, James, that you were once asked in an interview ‘How do you do it?’ Meaning make documentary films plus put out about a video a day, plus essays and podcasts and do interviews. All by yourself, apparently. Your very slickly done film on The Fed had no one else in the credits, for example. You made that film solo while doing everything else, so I perked at the above question (I made a documentary film all by myself too, so I know what it takes.) Anyway, in response to the question… It was the first time I’ve ever heard you stutter…
Who’s helping you?
To James Corbett fans who might be thinking nasty thoughts about me: Critical thinking means having the desire and ability to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and to have the self-reflection necessary so that when the occasion arises you are able to slap yourself on the forehead and exclaim, ‘How could I have been so stupid?’
Regarding the Alternative Media: The fact that so few even mention mainstream media direct collusion in the 9/11 Black Op Spectacle is evidence of how riddled with controlled opposition it really is.
Here is my best example of the problem:
(James, would you ever feature a video like the above on your website? No? Why not?)
Go to Banditobooks.com to view my film Water Time; Surf Travel Diary of a MadMan…
Thanks to DJ, JV, DB and SR for helping out with gas money ($3.25 a month). I will post a new photo as I inscribe new initials by the fuel cap.