- Honesty is a tricky business. What happens when an honest
assessment of the situation actually works against your ultimate objective?
What do you do then, when one of life's little riddles sneaks up and bites
you on the butt?
-
- Well, first you examine your long term objectives. What
is your ultimate purpose? What is it you are trying to do? And finally,
what the heck are we here for, anyway?
-
- Then you review the short term goal. What is it I was
trying to accomplish? And does that immediate achievement justify sitting
on facts you suspect to be true, but don't dare say? And ultimately, will
aspiring toward the short term goal actually work against your long term
objective?
-
- I could at this point veer into the murky territory that
both links and repels men and women, but in the dull interests of decorous
propriety, I will not, except to say the classic male example of this conundrum
typically is a confession of undying love in pursuit of minimally sincere
sexual activity, producing a result where one's long term objectives are
inevitably polluted by the short term goal. (Ooh, I can just hear those
speculative wheels spinning crazily in the minds of voyeuristic cybergossipers,
but let me stress this I am only using this as a hypothetical for-instance.)
-
- More to the point - and in fact exactly on it - is my
perspective on the events of September 11, 2001, the day the world changed.
Or, as I have said in the title of my booklet, "The Day America Died."
-
- I remember that day all too well. I was standing in front
of my TV. I had just awakened and flipped it on, intending to zap the clicker
to ESPN to catch the latest sports news, a typical daily habit that occurs
just before I stumble into the kitchen to make my coffee. By chance, the
tube was set to NBC, where the plastic Today show commentators were talking
about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center. So I never
changed the channel. I just stood there, eyelids glued apart, and watched
as plane number two glided into the south tower, and into history.
-
- I just stood there, I don't know for how long. Eventually
I turned around, made the coffee, and listened to the aghast commentary
of the NBC crew. I don't remember now what it was triggered my next verbal
outburst, whether it was Katie Couric reporting the government saying it
was Osama bin Laden who was behind the attacks, or some vaguer speculation
about Arab terrorists.
-
- I only know I turned around, stalked into the living
room, and then with the most certain self-assured vehemence I have ever
shown in my life, started bellowing: "No way! No freaking way!"
-
- I knew then, right then and there, that 9/11 was an inside
job. That this was not the work of Arab terrorists, unless they played
some minor diversionary role in a complex and deliberately confusing cast
of characters. That this was done at the behest of the people who control
our lives, who wanted to create a stultifying example that would be branded
into the minds of the muddled masses in order to create a war mentality
to justify their criminal intent to make war on the whole world, and make
a handsome profit from it.
-
- Nothing I have seen, heard, or read since has caused
me to feel even the merest shadow of a doubt about what I felt at that
moment. All those millions of words, mostly written by people who have
no stake in anything media-related or politically purposeful, have only
reinforced my conviction.
-
- The highest, most important leaders in our land, and
other countries as well, were behind the scheme to kill thousands of American
citizens in order to justify an intensified assault on the oil-producing
countries of the Middle East and elsewhere. Time and the telling of hundreds
of more lies have only deepened my conviction, and proved it far beyond
a reasonable doubt. The plans for these wars were drawn up BEFORE 9/11,
and the lies utilized to execute them have become well-established in the
public eye, at least for those interested enough to take a look.
-
- So, I began to write about it, firing thought cannons
into cyberspace that were read by thousands of readers but which had little
or no effect on the world at large. Gathering every fact I could from each
mind who cared to comment on these matters, I soon amassed an array of
speculative evidence from a variety of researchers that convincingly confirmed
my initial emotional impressions.
-
- I always thought the government's lies were the best
piece of evidence, what with Cheney, Rice, and Myers all saying "we
had no idea something like this could happen" and then the FBI announcing
the names of ALL the hijackers later in the day. When Bush announced the
invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, it soon became evident that
this demonic target-shoot has been planned years before the towers had
been hit.
-
- But more tangible evidence quickly followed: Why did
the FBI quickly confiscate that videotape from that gas station across
the street from the Pentagon that would have clearly shown exactly what
hit the Pentagon? Because it would not have verified their story - that
is the only reason it could be.
-
- And that is legitimate probable cause for a thousand
prosecutions, if we had a law enforcement apparatus that actually tried
to enforce the law.
-
- Why is there no evidence of the so-called hijackers actually
being on the supposedly hijacked airliners? Or even if they were, of having
no snowball's chance in hell of executing the impossible aerobatic maneuvers
necessary to do what the government said they did? There were no hijackers.
And no reason to invade foreign countries.
-
- The time the towers took fall is what I consider the
smoking gun. There is no way structures of that mass and complexity could
have free-fallen the way they did without the 47 core columns of each twin
tower being expertly severed by explosives. The minimal fires supposedly
caused by the plane crashes were neither hot nor widespread enough to cause
the buildings to fall at all, never mind the way they did, conveniently
and neatly into their own footprints.
-
- No way! No freaking way!
-
- However, it wasn't long before I dared verbally venture
into these matters when I ran afoul of people with different opinions as
to what actually happened.
-
- And as it stands today, the 9/11 skeptics movement is
in total shambles, with the dominant personalities far more interested
in pushing their own personal view of things and advancing their own interests
than they are in convincing the public they need to focus on the American
criminal politicians who were behind the whole caper in the first place.
-
- And this is a truly tragic twist, because now that the
American public, weary from the continued flimsiness of government lies
about current events, is ready to confront the biggest lie of them all
- 9/11 - the 9/11 skeptics movement has deteriorated into trivial bickering
that serves no purpose at all other than reveal the shallow, selfish motives
of many of its participants.
-
- I receive about 2,000 e-mails per week, most from people
who are intensely interested in solving this problem. One recent one from
the indefatigable story forwarder Sally Chrisinis in Texas contained a
link to a 2004 story by Gerard Holmgren that I consider the single best
overall roundup of what really happened on 9/11 that I have ever read,
titled "Manufactured Terrorism: The Truth About Sept. 11." Read
it here: http://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51
-
- Holmgren, an award-winning, Australian blues guitarist,
has distinguished himself as the 9/11 researcher with probably more amazing
discoveries than anyone else (especially that two of the supposedly fatal
flights on 9/11 never showed up in FAA records, and that the passenger
lists are riddled with inconsistencies).
-
- He is also at the center of, and chief spokesman for,
the single issue that most divides the 9/11 skeptics movement - the assertion
that there were no planes, or at least no passenger jetliners - used in
the attacks.
-
- Just for a moment, savor this enigma. The best researcher
says there were no planes. Or, more precisely, not the planes we thought
we saw.
-
- Try to view this as a perfect parallel to the overall
9/11 dilemma. A majority of Americans, trapped as they are in media manufactured
images for the entirety of their lives, simply cannot bring themselves
to believe that their elected officials could ever even contemplate such
a dastardly deed, never mind actually commit it.
-
- So imagine how hard it would be to convince the public,
which did not want to believe their leaders killed 3,000 of their own people,
that on top of that, the whole charade was pulled off without the planes
we thought we saw. This was always my chief objection to the no-plane theory.
It would be met by guffaws (and has been). No one would believe it. Hell,
it was hard enough to try and get people to believe their own government
would actually do this (even though I never found it hard to believe, because
there are simply too many similar historical precedents of self-inflicted
wounds to justify aggression).
-
- But then, from various nooks and crannies of the Internet,
reality began to intrude.
-
- First, there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon, except
a couple of apparently seeded parts that may or may not have matched up
to the specifications of the plane that was supposed to have hit it. Add
on top of this the government's assertion that the DNA of each passenger
was later identified after a fire that was so blazingly hot that it vaporized
an entire jetliner into complete invisibility. And on top of that, remember
that this was the plane that supposedly flew for an hour and 40 minutes
in the most secure airspace in the world without being intercepted by our
crack Air Force. And finally there was the impossible aerobatic maneuver
the pilot of Flight 77 was supposed to have executed - a 270-degree diving
turn at 600 mph - that not even Neil Armstrong could have pulled off, and
this was done by a guy, a wacked-out Arab terrorist named Hani Hanjour,
who from all reports had trouble driving a car.
-
- So, you begin to suspect there's something wrong with
the Pentagon story (to say the least).
-
- OK, then you consider the crash in Pennsylvania, on which
the passengers supposedly staged a valiant attempt to wrest control of
the plane from hijackers, and in the ensuing fight, the plane crashed to
the ground. It isn't so much the fact that no one actually saw this plane
crash, or that there was something curiously anomalous about the wreckage,
or that many witnesses recall seeing an unmarked white jet cruising around
the area.
-
- My pal Brad sent me an interesting timeline about Flight
93 that included the evocative phone calls Deena Burnett supposedly received
from her husband Tom as he struggled with the dire situation fighting the
hijackers aboard the doomed jetliner.
-
- Just after 6 a.m. California time, Deena Burnett called
911 (the number, not the day) and said she'd just received a cell phone
call from her husband who was on a plane. Deena told the cops: "They
just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane."
-
- Seven minutes later, or so the story goes, Tom Burnett
called Deena again. She says he said: "The guy they knifed is dead."
-
- Greg Gordon's riveting account in the Sacramento Bee
of the Burnetts' tragic morning http://tinyurl.com/dzh7h, with Tom furnishing
inside details meticulously enunciated to verify the government's story,
will bring tears to your eyes. It did to mine.
-
- And then you remember that this was a cellphone call,
and the plane at that time was flying at 35,000 feet (and climbing to 41,000).
And you remember the words of Professor A.K. Dewdney (among others), who
has proved conclusively that cellphones don't work at that altitude. See,
for example, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
-
- So you begin to suspect that there's something wrong
with this Pennsylvania story, and think, hmm, deja vu all over again?
-
- OK, then you begin to think back about the events in
New York City, and you remember the famous Naudet video, which showed the
first crash of the day, Flight 11 slamming into the north tower of the
World Trade Center. It's a crappy video, all fuzzy and jerky, supposedly
because the Naudet brothers caught it by serendipitous accident while filming
a documentary that day about firefighters.
-
- If you've done any research into these matters, you've
watched the blown-up, slowed-down version of that footage over and over,
and you can't escape the nagging feeling that that plane's wings are perpendicular
to the fuselage - not swept back at an angle like those on a passenger
jetliner. And you can't help but begin to wonder - what kind of plane was
that? And you remember the initial reports of a small plane hitting the
tower.
-
- So you begin to think to there's something wrong with
this North Tower story. And by now it's a familiar refrain.
-
- When I put these three thoughts together, I am ready
to believe Holmgren's story. If three of the crashes have been grotesquely
misrepresented, there no way the fourth one could have happened as reported.
If you think it could have, then you have never placed a bet in your entire
life, and should never.
-
- But what really nailed it for me was George Nelson, the
retired Air Force colonel who recently wrote a story about airplane crashes
in general. Nelson said there has never been an example of an airplane
crash in which the plane could not be identified because of an innocuous
item called replaceable time-change parts, small components in the vastly
complex array of machinery necessary to get these big machines off the
ground.
-
- Each airplane has numerous time-change parts that are
all recorded in their meticulously kept maintenance logs, and each of these
parts has serial numbers that are logged in as well, hence providing a
certifiable record of part with plane. Many of these parts are too small
to be destroyed in a crash. I mean, even in the worst crashes, if a plane
is reduced to rubble the size of say, silver dollars, some of these parts
are even smaller than that, so they don't get further reduced in size.
They turn up in a search of the wreckage, a serial number is found, and
the plane is identified by the connection recorded in its maintenance log.
-
- Every crash that has ever happened, Nelson asserts, has
been identified in this manner. See http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm
-
- Except on 9/11. No replaceable part that could link the
planes said to have crashed to a piece of rubble that was examined on that
day has ever been found.
-
- Nelson's conclusion? "The Bush administration has
provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks
were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck
their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised .... it would
be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such
proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution
against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation
carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government." (And
this guy's a retired colonel.)
-
- At that point, planes or not, I was ready to believe
Holmgren's tale (after years of arbitrarily denying it was true, because
I just could not believe it).
-
- But one formidable hurdle remained. The major image seared
forever into the minds of every person on earth is the crash of what the
government says was Flight 175 into the South Tower. We've seen it over
and over. It is etched into our dreams.
-
- Holmgren, along with his allies in film analysis, The
Webfairy, Scott Loughery, Nico Haupt, Marcus Icke and the whole "no-plane"
movement, continue to insist it was done electronically - that there were
no planes - because of anomalies they have observed in the videos of the
event.
-
- I had occasion to converse with the Webfairy (Rosalee
Grable) recently, and I told her I was ready to believe Holmgren's version
of events, except for one thing - how do you explain so many different
camera angles on that crash all recording essentially the same event, and
how could eyewitnesses see it if it were all done with exotic film techniques?
-
- This was the question that had always hung me up in this
debate. Sure, most of us had only seen it on TV, but what about all those
people who were running from the raining rubble - what had they seen? And
what about the people in Queens who watched it on the Von Kleist video.
And what were the suspicious Israelis filming from the New Jersey shore
- only a video deception?
-
- How could a hologram of jet crash been seen by so many
people from so many different angles? I am no technical expert on these
matters, but for all the reading I've done on the Internet these past three
years, you'd think I would have run across the subject - since I've been
looking for it.
-
- Rosalee told me that Gerard and her friends no longer
believe it was a hologram, and that they now believe it was all done in
the ersatz movie studio of a flight simulator, and then that footage was
somehow transmitted to the TV networks.
-
- Holmgren responded forthrightly. "I can't give a
definite answer. As with the Pentagon, all I can say for sure is what it
was not. That is, it was not the "plane" which we see in the
video. The illusory plane masks whatever it was."
-
- So there it was again - the difficulty of the story.
In all four events on 9/11, we can't figure out what happened, but the
evidence that can be assembled indicates the official story is not true.
-
- The dilemma of a difficult story that cannot be easily
conveyed to the public is what made me reject it in the first place, but
in the same way that people's attitudes ultimately have no bearing on the
veracity of what they're saying, so the difficulties in comprehending a
story have no relevance as to whether or not it's true.
-
- Where I began this reconsideration of a contentious dispute
was by remembering that you can't determine the veracity of information
on the basis of someone's reputation. And the reputation of the no-planers
is horrible. They have savaged everyone who dared question their version
of events, and left a trail of bad feelings wherever they've gone.
-
- They have intimidated many into frustrated silence with
a constant barrage of cantankerous contentions, and a result have attracted
all manner of derogatory adjectives, including from me. And yet, we continue
to use their information - that two of the flights may never existed, that
the passenger list info is very suspicious - in our pursuit of the truth.
So perhaps some of us have been too harsh in dismissing them as disruptive.
After all, this is a very emotional debate, and the future of the world
DOES depend on its outcome.
-
- This emotionalism has spilled over into other principle
schisms within the 9/11 skeptics movement. In my clumsy attempts to try
and deduce the real story, I've received some of it myself, with the controversial
Phil Jayhan (who lately has been saying he is receiving messages from God)
accusing me of taking money from the government as well as not caring about
the people who died on 9/11.
-
- More recently, I have been swept into a public roasting
by Holmgren and the no-plane gang of 9/11 personality Karl Schwarz in which
neither side has exactly distinguished itself by polite debating tactics.
The Holmgren gang has torched Schwarz for specific inaccuracies in his
very public attempts to get New York state law enforcement officials to
bring legal action against the government for wrongful deaths in the 9/11
attacks. But Schwarz has only feebly defended himself by using empty ad
hominem threats against the no-planers, and his apparently inflated claims
about himself and his "companies" have taken a major hit with
the publication of his background on Portland Indymedia (Karl Schwarz:
Unfortunate Son at http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/318783.shtml).
-
- Again, the upshot of this nagfest was to only drive more
people away from the movement, disgusted with the level of personal insults
obscuring the merits of the discussion.
-
- The same kind of high-intensity emotion has been embarrassingly
evident among Internet radio listeners of late, as they have watched, with
increasing confusion and incredulity, the continuing attacks of WING-TV
against several of the best radio hosts on the web: Jeff Rense, Alex Jones,
and Fintan Dunne.
-
- Miffed that they have been snubbed by their more experienced
and more accomplished broadcasting competitors, WING-TV operators Victor
Thorn and Lisa Guliani have engaged an embarrassing juvenile tirade against
three people who have perhaps brought more people to realistic political
consciousness via Web radio than anybody else, especially with regard to
9/11.
-
- It's very difficult for me to write these words, especially
since Thorn has published two of my books. More importantly, over the past
year he had conducted a string of timely and valuable interviews with some
of the most respected voices in the 9/11 skeptics movement, and at great
personal sacrifice attempted to shed some light on the decade-old Oklahoma
City coverup.
-
- But since that attempt, Thorn and Guliani have ceased
interviewing relevant guests and gone on a deceptive and underhanded campaign
to ridicule Rense, Jones, and Dunne that culminated in them throwing underwear
around their makeshift TV set and holding up a Barbie-doll to the camera
in a pathetic attempt to besmirch the sexual proclivities of one of these
radio competitors.
-
- Whatever credibility they may have had among many in
the alternative news community disappeared forever at that very moment.
-
- A quick scan of their WING-TV website reveals that they
made whatever reputation they had by castigating the competition. They
started out with easy targets like braindead radio host Mike Gallagher,
then graduated to easy target Mike Ruppert, whose blatant oil company propaganda
and mutation from top 9/11 critic into just another leftie gatekeeper news
outlet has been noted with disappointment by most facets of the genuine
9/11 skeptics movement.
-
- But most people get the feeling that if Rense or Jones
or Dunne had merely had them on their shows and let them pitch their own
products, none of this would have happened. So their so-called revealing
exposés of Rense, Jones, and the Genesis Communications Network,
are little more than sour grapes at not being able to crack the big time.
-
- That some of their criticisms are valid are beside the
point. That Jones is a bombastic and aggressive Texan with a keen sense
of his own profitability doesn't diminish his many achievements in exposing
many current events that need to be exposed. That Rense dabbles in arcane
topics like UFOs doesn't negate the formidable political guests he's had
on his show, nor does his continuing efforts to make clear the evils of
Zionism are not perpetrated by all Jews nor all Christians.
-
- That the owner of the Genesis network, Ted Anderson,
makes money by selling gold doesn't make him an agent of the Illuminati.
Fact is, Genesis, with Rense, Jones and Jack Blood leading the way, provides
a news service to the American people that is unmatched for relevance across
the media spectrum.
-
- Which brings us to another point about Thorn. His little
booklet titled "Christ Killers."
-
- Thorn's decision to align himself with the hardcore Christian
right opens him up to legitimate charges of anti-Semitism.
-
- Now I know some of you must be laughing about me using
that term, since I have been branded with it myself. Let me make this clear.
Jews are human beings, just like everybody else. The fact that many - or
even most - of them have chosen to believe the lies told in the Talmud
that they are the Chosen are better than everybody is certainly despicable
and ridiculous, but no worse than the way Catholics feel about themselves
as the only true church, or Muslims as the only true religion, or Hindus
being the fathers of us all. It's all hateful BS, and a movement among
the Jews is growing that Zionism hurts them as much as it hurts everybody
else.
-
- So when I say somebody is anti-Semitic, you can count
on it as being true, and not the same attempt at political intimidation
as it is when used by fascist bozos like Abe Foxman, Jerry Falwell, or
Richard Perle.
-
- After all, I'm the guy who doesn't believe the Germans
gassed anyone during World War II (because Eisenhower never mentioned it)
and that Israel is an illegal state that should not be allowed to exist
because it is simply a mechanism for crime engineered by the Illuminati.
Does that mean I hate Jews? No it doesn't. Because I don't. Though I believe
that rich Zionist Jews were right at the center of the 9/11 scam and are
guilty of treason and mass murder, I believe that Jews hold the key to
both the destabilization of the Middle East by Israel and the great 9/11
coverup, because they have the insights and the connections to get to the
bottom of both deceptions in the name of honesty and humanity.
-
- Whether they will or not remains to be seen. But the
key to accomplishing this incredible feat which is so essential to the
continued survival of human society depends both on Jews rejecting the
notion that they are superior to other tribes of homo sapiens on the basis
of how they have been misled by their evil holy men, and also on non-Jews
abandoning the perception by that Jews are out to enslave them because
that is what is written in the Talmud.
-
- Both of these things must happen. Both of these things
will happen, when people finally realize the real hate crimes are written
in the world's holy books for the purpose of pitting one neighbor against
another in the name of profit.
-
- This needless arguments are typical of what has happened
to the 9/11 skeptics movement. It has been betrayed by people more interested
in their own financial fortunes than in unearthing the truth.
-
- The truth is that we all make mistakes, we all believe
things that with further study we eventually learn are lies, and we all
like to condescend to people who don't share our particular ideas about
what is happening.
-
- This is what I meant when I said at the beginning of
this screed that honesty is a tricky business. By revealing all these petty
grievances, I have probably retarded the search for 9/11 truth more than
illuminated it, simply because of the number of people who have not read
this story to this point, and abandoned it for some other activity they
think is more rewarding.
-
- But you don't solve a problem by skirting its most contentious
aspects. We must muddle through them, no matter how complicated or enigmatic
they become.
-
- In the case with honesty and the truth, if you don't
persevere, and seek it without involving your ego in its discovery, you'll
never find it. So those who didn't stick around for the end of this story
have missed the best part.
-
- Among the thousands of e-mails I try to comprehend came
this gem the other day from someone I seldom hear from, Christopher Brown.
-
- Dissatisfied with what was available in the way of 9/11
sites, Chris constructed his own site, and while it isn't quite accurate
throughout (everybody gets bogged down in the debate about the temperature
necessary to melt or buckle steel), it nevertheless contains two of the
most pertinent modules available on the subject of the massacre at the
World Trade Center.
-
- The site is located at http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html,
but let me synopsize the two parts I consider the most evocative. If you
can read these two little stories and still believe the government's story
about what happened on 9/11, than you are either learning disabled or on
the payroll of the oinks orchestrating the coverup.
-
- Although there is no supporting link in his narrative,
Brown theorizes in the section titled "How the WTC Was Secretly Demolished
on 9-11-01" that the thick coatings on the rebar used on the cast
concrete support core and foundation were actually made of the plastic
explosive C4.
-
- "This would put enough explosive force in direct
contact with the most concrete at high enough pressures and enable the
instantaneous structural collapse of each floor consecutively to the ground
that we saw, as well as the resulting particulate," Brown writes.
-
- "This was technology invented in the Cold War to
make self-destruct missile silos and submarine bases, perfect for preplanned
demolition. The C4 protected the steel from corrosion before the sea water
was evacuated by the incoming concrete into the forms. The C4 was encapsulated
in the concrete and its 10 year average shelf life extended by many times."
-
- On to the second story, which Brown clipped from the
Danish website: http://jfk2wtc.tripod.com/ READ THIS WHOLE STORY.
-
- Here's the excerpt:
-
- Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant
Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker
made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant
Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to
shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where
they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back
to them.
-
- ...............
-
- The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level,
to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed
to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine
shop gone.
-
- "There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said.
"We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two
began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a
perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand
here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We
couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there
was still no answer.
-
- ........
-
- The two made their way to the parking garage, but found
that it, too, was gone. 'There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor,
and you can't see anything' he said
-
- No walls, NO WALLS!!! Those were steel reinforced concrete
walls, the centralized rebar of the walls coated with C4 removed the walls
completely. The surviving engineers were protected by the efficiency of
the blast which pulverized the concrete and filled the air with dust and
high heat, floating the particles at the top of the room.
-
- Gives you a new perspective on the comment by WTC landlord
Larry Silverstein to "pull it," doesn't it? And it takes the
planes/no planes brouhaha right out of the equation. Who cares what flew
into the towers, or what radio show
- has what guest on his show, when the towers were built
to be demolished, and blown up at their bases?
-
- We can figure out the plane thing, if we like, during
the treason and mass murder trials of Bush, Cheney, and thousands of others.
-
- Agents provocateur? We can easily identify the shams
posted by establishment shills such as Chertoff in Popular Mechanics, Jasper
in the New American, and Shermer in Scientific American, or by other Zionist
gatekeepers such as Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky who refuse to address
central questions about 9/11, the Iraq war, and Israel's extermination
of the Palestinians and infiltration of the U.S. government.
-
- But inside the 9/11 skeptics movement itself I cannot
tell if anyone is deliberately trying to deceive or obfuscate (except for
Michael Elliott of 911review.org, who has suddenly disappeared, leaving
a trail of debts and broken promises).
-
- What I do see is people pursuing their objectives so
ardently (and I myself am not immune from this) that they castigate competing
theories as government subterfuge. When combined with the frustration of
trying to defog government smokescreens, and competing theories that disagree
with their own, fireworks follow. And they don't help the movement. In
fact, they play right into the hands of those who engineered the coverup.
-
- The object of the 9/11 skeptics movement is not to gain
personal fame and fortune, nor to disparage those who are not as expert
as others in knowing all the trivial details of every aspect of the event.
-
- It is perhaps a legitimate exercise to point out those
who are deliberately trying to impede or distort a gathering of the facts.
But identifying this activity must be weighed against the higher goal of
inspiring a majority of Americans to recognize the capital crimes of their
leaders. After all, even Mike Ruppert, before he revealed himself as an
oil company shill, was of great value to the movement.
-
- The object, ultimately, is to identify the true perpetrators
of the greatest crime in American history, and perhaps on an even higher
level, to prevent the world from being destroyed by rich and cunning white
men who seek to profit from fomenting wars all over the world.
-
- We need to stop the bickering, and press on in pursuit
of the evidence, wherever it leads. Only then can we truly say we have
led and are leading honest lives.
-
-
- John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast
of Florida. His essays have been posted on hundreds of websites around
the world and have been collected into two anthologies, both of which are
available on his website, http://www.johnkaminski.com/ Also available is
the booklet, "The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn't Believe the
Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001," which is still
selling well. Don't you wonder why?
-
-
-
- Comment
- From Peter Meyer
- pm@serendipity.li
- 6-10-5
-
- Hi Jeff,
-
- I think you've heard that John Kaminski, in his article
published at http://www.rense.com/general65/honesty.htm, recommends an
article purportedly by "J Buchanan" which in fact consists mostly
of material copied from my "WTC Demolition" article at http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
and presented by Buchanan as his own work.
-
- Accordingly I'd be grateful if you would add either this
entire message or at least the following comment to the web page with John's
article:
-
- The author of the webpage at http://jfk2wtc.tripod.com/
(recommended above by John Kaminski) lifted two-thirds of his text almost
entirely verbatim from an article on another website (Serendipity). This
plagiarism is revealed at http://www.serendipity.li/wot/agents.htm#comment
-
- Regards,
- Peter Meyer
|
