Saturday, March 31, 2007

The problem with the 9/11 truth movement (Guest post by Noise)

The problem is thus...people hoping for a real investigation are counting on the people involved in the coverup to jumpstart this effort. Many elected officials know what Edmonds's knows. They know what is in the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry report. They know what is in the Helgerson IG CIA internal review report. Members of the two commissions (Joint Inquiry and the 9/11 Commission) heard closed session testimony from several witnesses.

Knowing all of this they didn't do a damn thing about it. Well, except for one thing...they made sure the public never learned what they knew.


«—U®Anu§—» said...

Sadly, that's the way it goes sometimes; in the case of the Bush administration, that's the way it always goes. And as much as the Bush administration still hopes to cement a permanent republican lock on power, it also seeks to establish informational void as the norm. More sadly, it exploits the natural tendency of people to become complacent and incurious from repeatedly crashing into that solid wall. I read some things today about 9/11 which were news to me, and whether or not there is any truth to it is impossible to say. I'd like to know what conclusions I can draw about 9/11. Without the real facts, I can't draw any conclusions. The more information I see, the more I understand I don't grasp the situation--and the people who do ain't talkin'. That's nothing new. I continuously wonder what they think they're protecting. National security? Money interests? Lawbreaking? All that and more: if knowledge is power, they want it all, and no one else can have any. After thinking about it many years, I've decided secret keepers don't have many real advantages, except in staying out of jail. My hope is we reach a place where the flow of information around the world is so good, such a position is no longer tenable.

noise said...

Not sure if the posting was authorized but Kill the Messenger is up on You Tube.

Miguel said...

Thanks for the heads up on KTM. I doubt it was authorized.

Enlightenment said...

Well, one problem with the 9/11 Truth movement is that it has been infiltrated by false truthers like the people at the website who are disinformation specialists, pretending to be genuine truthers but who spend most of their time trying to persuade people that the evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 is scanty when it isn't and similar tactics. Which in and of itself proves the coverup is taking place, as why make an effort to start disinfo sites if the "official" story is true?

Another problem with the Truth movement comes from the American people and their psychological cowardice. I know that sounds harsh but it is true. Many Americans would rather NOT think about 9/11 and would rather just blindly accept the "official" myth, no questions asked, than look into the details and risk finding out something that is going to scare the hell out of them and make them want to emigrate. It is psychologically much safer to think or make oneself think that it was only "nineteen hijackers with boxcutters" responsible than to face the truth, that it was our own government behind it, that 9/11 was a classic false flag operation. That is just too scary a thought for many Americans, and for them, "too scary" outweighs a mountain of evidence proving that it was in fact an inside job.

So, regardless of the amount of damning information out there, many Americans refuse to even BEGIN to look into it, preferring the safety of a comfortable pack of lies to the cold, hard, bitter truth. Most Americans don't even realize that a third building "collapsed" [was demolished] that day, WTC # 7 building, since it happened at about 5:30 p.m., several hours after the Twin Towers were demolished by explosives. Tellingly however, of the ones that DO know that WTC # 7 "collapsed", about 80% want a new [read: REAL] investigation into 9/11, suspecting there's more to the story than the garbage being fed to us by the Cheney administration since 9/11. All one has to do really to see that the "official" myth is nothing but a myth is to watch the video footage of WTC # 7 "collapsing" and it is painfully obvious that it was a controlled demolition, which itself immediately sinks the "official" fairy tale. I urge everyone to watch the footage and see for themselves. You can't miss the two neat parallel rows of squibs (dust/smoke puffs) shooting out of windows, moving up the face of the building nearest to the camera immediately before the building "collapses". Also the speed at which the "collapse" occurs is damning, being freefall rate, meaning the uppermost floors were "falling" THROUGH the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air. Check it out for yourselves, you will see what I mean:

The bottom line is, all one has to do to prove that the "official" story is crap is to prove that just one aspect of it is impossible; so far there are SEVERAL aspects of it that are impossible. So, by extension, what does that tell us about the ones (Cheney administration) who have been feeding us this steady diet of bulls**t lies about 9/11?? That they are the ones behind it.

«—U®Anu§—» said...

Enlightenment, the administration-is-complicit hypothesis is my favorite one, too. There are always defense industry-funded extremist fanatics figuring out ways to make trouble and cause wars. They found a cozy home with the likes of Bush and Cheney. Notice how quietly physics professor Stephen Jones retired from Brigham Young? Yes, they need to keep the kind of talk coming from him very, very quiet, because if people start questioning them about that, they might also question them about why we're exterminating Iraqi citizens.

Enlightenment said...

Exactly Uranus [sorry, my keyboard isn't able to make all the fonts yours can, or if it is a function of the Alt keys and the number pad I don't know the numbers for them, so I will have to spell your name as Uranus-- I'm not just being lazy ;)].

Yes, and in addition to professor Steven Jones being retired, others have faced even worse for speaking out about 9/11. For example, one of the heroes of 9/11, a janitor named William Rodriguez who went back into the South Tower four times to help firefighters get people out, and was the last man to make it out of the South Tower alive (though pursued by an explosion that threw him across the street), had some interesting testimony to give the 9/11 whitewash commission. Unfortunately for them, what he had to say contradicted the "official" story since he mentioned a LOT of explosions (including the one that almost killed him, and one that took the skin off the arms of one of his coworkers). Needless to say, his testimony was NOT included in the "9/11 commission report" and even the transcripts of his testimony were ordered SEALED for something like 50 years or 75 years. Once he found out that the 9/11 whitewash commission was going to ignore his eyewitness testimony he saw what was going on and started speaking out about it. Then he started receiving death threats, being harassed, and his apartment was burglarized twice, one time his laptop getting stolen. He now fears for his life. His story can be found here:

Another example is the millionaire Jimmy Walter from California who, through a combination of a background in engineering and plain old common sense, was able to immediately see that the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 were controlled demolitions. So he began an information awareness campaign involving billboards and t.v. commercials urging people to look into the details of 9/11 because it isn't at all what it appears to be. He too started getting death threats, harassing phone calls, and someone put a large boulder on top of his car. He now lives in an undisclosed European country, also fearing for his life. His story and others can be found, among other places, here:

Here's the situation: The so-called "war on terror" is nothing but a thinly-disguised war for control over as much of the world's remaining oil and natural gas resources as possible. Everywhere in the "war" is related to either oil or natural gas exploration, extraction and transport to market. From Iraq whose relation to oil is self-explanatory, to Afghanistan, sitting on crucially important real estate through which the T.A.P.(-I.) gas and likely oil pipelines are to go through, the proposed trace running from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and possibly India; the Taliban government of Afghanistan was the only government involved that was demanding terms that the U.S. was unwilling to concede, namely heavy U.S. investment in rebuilding the Afghan infrastructure and diverting of some of the gas to local use. They reached an impasse in the summer of 2001, with the last meeting between the U.S. and the Taliban taking place in August. Look up Cheney's "Energy Task Force" and you will find that most of the documents from it are still classified. The Cheney regime started planning in July for an invasion of Afghanistan before the winter snowfall in case the Taliban was unyielding. Since it couldn't be resolved through negotiations, and the Cheney regime felt they had a dollar waiting on a dime so to speak, and anyway anxious to begin their war for resource dominance, they rigged up their "new Pearl Harbor" event (9/11) to shock and enrage the American people enough to make them willing to go along with their "war on terror" (war for resource dominance) that they had been dreaming of since the late 1990s. THAT is the reason why the "official" 9/11 story is impossible (because it's false; the Cheney administration was behind it, not "nineteen hijackers with boxcutters") and also the reason why 9/11 seemed to be an answer to the Cheney regime's prayers, a perfect excuse for doing what they want to do. It seems to be made-to-order because it WAS.

Then look at the "war on terror" in the Philippines, where the U.S. is helping the Philippine Army battle "Abu Sayyaf" fighters who only number a couple hundred at most, on the oil-rich islands of Basilan and Jolo in the Sulu Sea.

Then consider the recent U.S.-encouraged Ethiopian invasion of Somalia to secure control for the U.S.-backed puppet government that up until then was confined to Baidoa and its environs. The U.S. provided targeting assistance to the Ethiopians, intelligence information, and even some air support. U.S. Marines and C.I.A. personnel even went into southern Somalia from Kenya. Somalia is sitting on an undetermined (but sizeable) amount of untapped oil, only waiting for a stable government in Mogadishu that has control over the hinterlands to be able to sign oil exploration contracts.

In Georgia (country not U.S. state) the U.S. has been helping train and advise the Georgian Army to protect the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan gas pipeline against "Chechen terrorists". Since 9/11 the U.S. has grown increasingly close to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, even forming the Azeri-Kazakh "Caspian Guard" naval force to protect the offshore oil rigs in the Caspian Sea.

Everywhere in the so-called "war on terror" involves oil and/or natural gas. This is the reason for the 9/11 false flag operation and everything that goes along with it. But don't take my word for it; research it yourself and you will be surprised and disgusted by what you find. We are all being lied to by the war criminal Cheney regime which is bent on world domination via resource domination.

damien said...

Enlightenment, you're right about the oil targets. Here's a conversation that Gen.Wesley Clark had with a Pentagon official in Oct 2001(!):

“Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”