"Believe it or not? To believe this (and many 9/11 conspiracy theories), you have to believe that the government is evil enough to cook up a head-spinningly complicated plot against its own people in its largest city. Once you make that leap, remote-controlled decoy planes don't seem that far-fetched."

No mention of Northwoods.

By asking the question, "Do some people have a psychological need to believe in conspiracy theories?"... You don't even have to read the answer because at that point, the "nut/conspiracy theory" tag is put out there...

However, if one does read the answer, their reasoning is "American's growing disgust for media, politicians, and corporations plays a role."
But they don't say why we're disgusted by them.

The reasons aren't figments of our imagination.

And to end it with... "On the other hand, THOSE guys might actually have something to be paranoid about" means that there is no reason at all to think the U.S. Government was involved, and it's just psychological.

The larger effort to paint all who question the Bush Admin version of 9/11 as 'conspiracy theorist' nut cases with psychological disorders who 'see danger around every corner' is an idea currently promoted by people like Chip Berlet, a wikipedia gatekeeper who writes essays on the subject and collects books to subject to defend his turf there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Unfortunately, those promoting the most bizarre and most unfounded stuff (no planes, missiles, pods) only make it all worse for the rest of us trying to get out the most basic and the strongest questions.

:)

contact a radio DJ in Philadelphia named Barsky.he stated on the radio that his friend worked in the Giuliani administration in 2000,and for the turn of the millenium,he actually was in Giulianis bunker,which im assuming at the time was WTC7.This guy Barsky kinda sucks,but he will talk about almost anything on his show,he was talking about the apocalypse today(which is how the Giuliani bunker thing came up)bombard him with WTC7/Giuliani/911 related stuff.

http://941freefm.com/pages/1270.php

tell him to get his friend on the air, or at least flood him with some 9/11 truth. he is likely to talk about it on-air if we flood him enough.

Only slightly off-topic... I don't know what to make of this, just passing it along. In this (amazing call for impeachment) speech at the National Press Club on February 16, actor Richard Dreyfuss is talking about the cheapening of political discourse and thus (with irony):

"how easy all our issues must be, since we don't analyze them, and we don't ruminate over them. It musn't be so difficult. You know, like, the towers falling, or, how we take care of one another during Katrina; or not..."

Realplayer stream. "towers falling" is at 29:25 (~half way in)

Actor Richard Dreyfuss addresses Hollywood's view of today's media at the National Press Club.
2/16/2006: WASHINGTON, DC: 55 min.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/e021606_dreyfuss.rm

Icke as the one featured in a box?

Hit piece.

'nuff said.

researcher, David Ray Griffin actually promotes the ruling elite's self-termed New World Order plan for a one-world government, in addition to promoting other odious globalist elite agendas as well. (Yes, by the very same ruling elite who brought us the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks, etc., in furtherance of their end-goal.) David Ray Griffin himself admits that his view that a one-world government is necessary was formed at the Bellagio-Rockefeller Study Center, which is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

"David Ray Griffin Responds & So Do I, (With Links on 'Sustainable Development' Scam)":

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id25.html

And nowadays, the term "Illuminati" is used mostly to simply refer to the *ruling elite*, and doesn't usually refer to the Bavarian Illuminati or to a formal organization officially entitled the "Illuminati." Although the ruling elite certainly do like to think of themselves as the "Illuminated Ones," or the "Enlightened Ones," i.e., as the "Illuminati."

In this sense, the Illuminati certainly do exist, even though they are quite far from genuinely being illuminated or enlightened.

Reuters publicly acknowledges that the Bilderberg group of European royalty and international central bankers groomed Bill Clinton and Tony Blair for the U.S. Presidency and British Prime Ministry, respectively:

"Secretive Bilderberg group to meet in Sweden," Peter Starck, Reuters, May 23, 2001:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/reuters_bilderberg.html

For more information on the Bilderberg group, see the below news archive:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archive_bilderberg.html

See also:

"Elite power brokers' secret talks," Emma Jane Kirby, BBC News, May 15, 2003:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3031717.stm

"World government in action," Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, May 16, 2003:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32606

"The masters of the universe," Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, May 22, 2003:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE22Ak03.html

And as the below BBC Radio report reveals, the European Union and the euro European Union single-currency were both secretly planned since the first Bilderberg meeting in 1954:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archive_bilderberg.html

BBC Bilderberg Report: European Union, Single Currency Planned Since 50's

BBC uncovered incredible archived Bilderberg documents which confirmed that both the EU and the Euro were the brainchild of Bilderberg. ...

"Club Class," Simon Cox, BBC Radio, July 3, 2003:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bbc_radio_4_bilderberg.mp3

FrankV,

ausome info about richard dreyfuss! that is k-rad :)

Frank... watching it now... I always liked him.

Frank... it's awesome.

Zach Dundas is just a staff writer of some kind.A person of no real impoortance. Check Google.

In the June 2005 edition of Penthouse, there is an article called, "Secret Masters Of The World And Other Great Conspiracies That Explain Everything", by S. David Sachs (page 24).

Though not exclusively about 9/11, there is a section called, "Bush and bin Laden: Separated at Birth?"
[excerpt]
Within hours of the September 11 attacks, conspiracy theorists were spreading every explanation imaginable for the events.

Many blamed the Israelis, accusing them of framing Islamic terrorists. This brought together the two great themes in conspiracy thought: Who stands to gain, and how were the Jews involved?

Then the eerie links between George W. and Osama bin Laden began to emerge.
[excerpt]

The Maxim article is a good thing. How could discussion in the print media be anything else?

Never underestimate the intelligence of your audience. To do so is asking for failure. Simply alerting some people to possibilities is enough.

It's not required to agree with every concept mentioned in the article. Do I really have to say that?

Not mentioning Operation Northwoods is a problem though.

tru dat!!!!

on a lighter note.. just for a laugh, check this trailer out.. http://www.apple.com/trailers/rogue_pictures/davechappellesblockparty/tr...

I reject what "researcher" wrote: " It's a classic mixing of the most bogus (no plane) theories, weakest evidence (no hijackers)" and, later/again, "most bizarre and most unfounded stuff (no planes"!!!!

The reasoning espoused by "researcher" is full of, er, uh, (trying to be polite...), um, socially aggressive logical fallacies.

It acts to prop up the government's unproven claims of what hit the buildings (and thus, indirectly, of evil boxcutter-wielding suicidal Muslim hijackers) by snidely ("no plane") referring to the views which pierce clear through the government's impossible conspiracy theory of 9/11. (IOW, it infers that if you see through that part of the government's wild conspiracy theory, your theory [note how it slyly attributes a theory to anyone who merely recognizes how impossible the government's is], according to "researcher", is "bogus". Those of you familiar with the 911 truth movement will recognize this as the biggest, most long-standing, unscrupulous widespread divisive campaign within our supposed movement.)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that "researcher", just like the 9-11 Commission, was (must have been!) willing to ignore, as if they did not exist, all the inconvenient/contradictory pieces of evidence in making his aggressive statements, which just happen to line up perfectly with critical segments of the government's official/unbelievable conspiracy theory of 9/11. (With enough anti-no-plane, or plane-hugging, folks like "researcher" "on our side", the government proper needn't "dirty its hands" talking about whether or not it was hijacked civilian commercial Boeing passenger airliners that hit the buildings, which, not coincidentally, it cannot afford to be seen doing yet cannot afford to not do! Which contributes to why it is so impossible for me to not see the quoted comments as outright government disinformation.)

Leadership by (and/or followership of) such folks who dare to call themselves 911 truthers but do not act like it is what has made the 911 truth movement be so constipated. Examine the point of view expressed in the opening phrase I quoted. It simply does not hold water when viewed in the light of all the evidence (please consider just 2 pieces):

Only by ignoring the evidence of the phenomenal unnaturally brief bright burst of light upon WTC1 impact could anyone still believe with a high degree of confidence that that was flight AA 11. (Note that "researcher" slyly refers to anyone who doubts that it was AA 11 as a "no planer" even as 'leading' (gatekeeping) 911 "researchers" withhold/omit/suppress the very same revealing contradictory evidence, and seem to be satisfied with any evidence of any aircraft wreckage at all, even though it is woefully insufficient to indicate, nevermind prove, that it was in fact AA 11 which impacted WTC1.) Of course, the same, uh, folks also have to ignore the fact that the aircraft does not even appear to be the right size/shape to be a 767, as well as the "dog that didn't bark" clueS of the way the TV networks have all so assiduously avoided all frame-by-frame analyses of the 1st impact video, and the way the government has not utilized NASA to enhance the video (something it routinely does in relatively inconsequential crime cases, and which Bush promised us the govt would do -- utilize all resources -- in this case).

Ditto the Pentagon Video Frames. Some "researchers" prefer to divisively argue ad nauseum against/about "no-planers", conveniently ignoring the fact that the only visual evidence of whatever hit the Pentagon CAME FROM THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF and REFUTES THE GOVERNMENT'S 757 CLAIM! (IOW, this evidence hoists the lying government by its own petard, yet the loudest, most divisive 911 truthers somehow manage to ignore that fact too.) So, once again, the only visual of whatever hit the building does everything to refute, and nothing to support, the government's claim, and yet again, unbelievably, once again, a self-proclaimed "911 truther" would try to make people feel silly for questioning the government on these points. (And, again, just as with the WTC1 impact evidence, the 9-11 Commission Report omitted all mention of it. AND EVEN MORE INCREDIBLY, a 911 "truth" group ostensibly formed to keep an eye on the 9-11 Commission wrote a 149-page "Omission Report" detailing the government's omissions, and it "accidentally" (HA!) "coincidentally?" (guess again!!) omitted the same government-theory-breaking omission!!!

So "researcher", after ignoring (burying?) the evidence in a fashion reminiscent of the behavior of the 9-11 Commission itself, derides "no planers" instead of going after all the ways the government (and its stupid "plane theory") fail all the most basic sniff tests.

C'mon, people. Are you all a bunch of coincidence theorists? If you can't see what all the wolves in sheepdogs clothing are up to, if you cannot recognize the pattern and connect the dots, we might not deserve to have our stolen Constitution back!!!!!!!!!!!

When articles like Maxim's mention web sites which focus honestly on what we can learn from the Pentagon Video Frames and the Naudet video "Flash Frame" (and the fake Osama video and the Bush's highly incriminating witness statementS) I'll consider such articles less unfair and imbalanced, and less a part of the ongoing big coverup (commensurate with the biggest crime in U.S. history in terms of scope and resources).

What would BushCo do without all its own fake phony oppositionS?

PS: this is not intended as any kind of personal attack; it discusses and challenges/reveals a brazenly expressed not-compatible-with-911-truth-seeking sentiment that had seemingly gone unnoticed here. I sure hope it wouldn't help for me to hold myself out as (ie, to claim to be) a "typical mainstream American citizen", because I can't do that. I am sorry my post is so long, because it's "kind of" important (the real hijackers are among us here)...
______________________________________

Fluffy, Enquirer-esque hit-piece penned with subtle vehemence with the full intent of inducing a feeling of total incredulity in the novice unenquiring reader.

About 1% of people who read that skin-mag article will do further inquiry into 9/11. The other 99% will be even more satisfied with the gov't version.

Hey 911blimp above, we need more K.I.S.S. = keep it simple, s..... After I read your post 3 times, I had to rest to recall that the NYC Fire Dept does NOT wire buildings for demolition. (And nobody could nor would wire smoky buildings during 9/11, on the suggestion of the old schmuck leaseholder, Silverstein, no less.)

Conclusion: WTC 7 was pre-wired weeks in advance--proving the foreknowledge & preparation by gov't NeoCons for 9/11 to happen. (No Arab idiot patsies like Atta could've accessed & wired WTC 7 for a perfect demo job) And since WTC 7 was wired & imploded, it's highly probable that WTC 1 & 2 were also. Take it from there.

This is brilliant, but mentioning David Icke?! Come on, to anyone from the UK at least knows that guy lost his marbles back in the early 90s I think, when he quote "said he was Jesus"!! Saying that some of the things he's been saying do make sense like there being a "power elite" who try to control things. But "Lizard men" come on what the fuck! I'm not bashing people who like what David IckeÂ’s been saying but if this is about credibility, then David Icke brings absolutely none of that.

A husband takes out a million $ life insurance on his wife. 6 months later she's dead. Cops, detectives, DA's office, the insurance company, newspapers, etc. would be hounding husband.

Silverstein recently becomes leaseholder for WTC. He takes out billions in insurance policies. 6 months later, the buildings implode. Silverstein makes billions $$$ in insurance. He's not a suspect??? No careful investigation??? No questions??? You expect me to believe this isn't a cover-up???

whos show was Sander Hicks on?Malloy im assuming.Randi still isnt willing to make the leap.at least not on air. does anyone here have the video of Sander Hicks interviewing Richard Ben-Veniste? ive read the transcript, but i wanna hear what kind of tone it took.

http://911weknow.com/events.htm

does anyone know anything about this movie? it says it comes out this March, but the site is kind of vague about who is behind it.