Presented at the bi-monthly Elko, Nevada Tea Party Meeting Sept. 7, 2010:
I inserted the agenda item of 'Religion and the Tea Party Movement' after receiving a couple of emails from the Elko Tea Party that referred to the Islamic threat; one of which mentioned the 9-11 attacks.
The fact that this latest wave of Islamophobia came along with the latest round of saber rattling for a combined U.S. / Israeli attack on Iran didn't escape my attention.
Nor that a building three blocks away from the Ground Zeno complex in NYC that was being renovated into minor community center was described in the main stream media as "a Mosque that would serve as a training ground for terrorists, an insult to the victims of 9-11 and a tribute to Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West."
And it was no surprise when the person funding the NYC project turned out to be a Saudi Prince who is business partners with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News the main news outlet hyping the story.
But on this 9th anniversary of 9-11, I'd like to revisit this issue that has served as the foundation for the war on terrorism that has used our soldiers as an international police force, brought this nation to the brink of bankruptcy and has generated so much hatred toward the U.S. around the world.
For those who think that talking about 9-11 is just fantasizing or being unpatriotic, let me point out that John Farmer, a former Attorney General of New Jersey who was the Senior Council to the Official 9/11 Commission has written a book and in there he bluntly states that the story and the conclusion of the 9-11 Commission are "entirely and inexplicably untrue." So even the Chief Council for the 9-11 Commission says the story they told us is not true.
The idea that Islamic extremist were able to take over 4-jetliners using little box cutters is unbelievable in itself, especially with some of those pilots being combat veterans, but of the hundred issues that could be confronted on the official story, let me just address onewhere did the story of the box cutters come from anyway?
It came from one source; the call from Barbara Olsen, the TV newscaster, to her husband Ted Olsen, saying that the hijackers had taken the flight crew, the flight attendants, and the passengers and herded them to the back of the airplane - and that they were wielding box cutters.
In the Zacharias Moussaoui trial, the FBI testified that they only could find one call from Barbara Olsen and that call was unconnected in other words, she never called anybody.
So if there was no connected call to Barbara Olsen, then where did that information come from? It came from her husband, Ted Olsen who said he received three calls from her. Keep in mind that Ted Olsen worked for the Bush Administration.
Some will say "But I listened to her voice" and I would point out that in 1999, Sandia Laboratories had developed a digital voice 'morphing' technology. They displayed it to Colin Powell, who was aghast to hear himself say in a recording, "Gentlemen, we are here to plot the overthrow of the United States government."
Of course he never said any such thing, but it was his voice, and all they have to do is have a snippet of your voice and they can construct lines of narrative and it's your voice. And with Barbara Olsen, she was an on-air personality and there were many samples of her voice. So whether Ken Olsen was lying or he actually did receive the phone call, in either case it didn't happen and yet that's the bases of what we think we know about what happened on 9-11.
One might think this would be newsworthy, but it will never get the attention it deserves when 5-multinational corporations own all of the U.S. media under the control of the central banking authority those funding the multi-billion dollar consolidations.
On a personal note, when I was drafted into the Vietnam War, the thinking in the military was never allowed to evolve beyond "bomb those gooks back into the stone age." So when the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks were identified as Moslem extremists even before the fall of the second tower and the mantra of "bomb those rag heads back into the stone age" was heard within 24-hours of the attack, the warning bells began going off in my psyche.
I found my skin crawling when I saw the yellow ribbons being place all over Elko and the religious right being high jacked into mindlessly and unquestioningly waving the flag at another war with the idea that supporting the war was supporting the troops.
And I found myself completely disgusted when at the 'support of the war is support of the troops' movement, the story finally broke in the main stream media that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to a full blown U.S. invasion of Vietnam was a hoax to generate support for the war it never happened - and there was not the slightest reaction or consideration that this might be grounds for the American public to question this latest war.
When in the military, my support came not from the faith-based community that supported the war, but from those that had the courage and independence to question.
- Gary Jacobucci firstname.lastname@example.org
Side note: Not many people pay attention to the think-tank white papers from NGOs even though they have been the main driving force for American political policy for the last hundred years, but one formed within the elite ranks of the Council on Foreign Relation needs mentioning.
In their treatise 'Project for a New American Century' and 'Rebuilding America's Defense', the advisor board comprised of Cheney, Rumsfeld and several CFR members with dual-Israeli citizenship (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Lewis Libby, Bill Krystal, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Dov Zakheim among them) laid out a plan for a war in the Middle East, adding the caveat that it would be a tough sell to the American people without "a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
We had our catalyzing and catastrophic event and they sold it. This group became the spokesmen for who was responsible for the attacks on 9-11 and the cheerleaders war on terrorism.