“It (modern despotism) would resemble paternal authority if only its purpose were the same, namely, to prepare men for manhood. But on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them in childhood irrevocably. It likes citizens to rejoice, provided they think only of rejoicing. It works willingly for their happiness but wants to be the sole agent and only arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and takes care of their needs, facilitates their pleasures, manages their most important affairs, directs their industry, regulates their successions, and divides their inheritances. Why not relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and the difficulty of living?”
---Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
A crucial debate continues to sputter in America, with respect to the most important political event of our lives, and even perhaps, of modern history. It potters along like an old man whose awful children wish for him to hurry up and die, so they may gain their inheritance and peace of mind and be rid of the spotted ugliness of ol' Dad. This is the debate over the origins of the 9-11 attacks. If America was one great, profitable but dangerous silver mine, then the 9-11 debate is its official mine canary, and the little canary's heart is barely pumping in the dark. It tried valiantly to warn us. The debate resembles the last hoarse cry of a mentally retarded share-cropper fallen to the bottom of the crop-owner's well. It is pale and moribund and has no worthy legal representation. As I have suggested, and now suggest again because it appeals to me, it is much like the weak but persistent croaking of a death-bed bound philanthropist whose greedy, fat, and parasitic progeny gather to ignore him and squabble about the disbursal of the will.
But before going into the validity of this or that divergent view as to who exactly attacked the highly symbolic nerve centers of American Super-Power in 2001, it has to be noted that the mere existence of such a controversy, such a disagreement, is a very important phenomenon, in itself.
After all, why would so many people question the official account of 9-11 when the event was seemingly so elementary? We all saw the plane hit that tower, all the networks showed it, and we all heard the immediate airing of the consensus opinion that Bin Laden was guilty---he who had declared war on America and Zionists already, and was reportedly responsible for past terrorist atrocities. How could we possibly doubt what all the major news agencies were telling us with such unanimous conviction? Especially when many world governments lined up to support our conclusions and the subsequent military or police actions in Afghanistan, at least?
...
Why indeed?...
"It's one thing to kill somebody. It's another to hide the fact that you did it, or you hired someone to do it. And that's more difficult. That's why they used the device of the Warren Commission report to cover up their hired killers. Now who would hire the killers? And who had the power to put this report out over the top of the whole story? You see, you're dealing with a very high echelon of power. It doesn't necessarily reside in any government. It doesn't necessarily reside in any corporate institution. But it seems to reside in a blend of the two. Otherwise, how could you get the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Dallas police, the media---all of the media, not just one or two newspapers---to participate in the cover-up? None of the media will print the story, other than Oswald killed the President of the United States."
---Fletcher Prouty, Colonel, USAF, deceased
The answer to this question of why we question such official court histories is uplifting and simple, although it still eludes some who call themselves investigative journalists and critical thinkers. The answer is that we are not yet totally obedient lamb-chops and meat-pies as a people: that the whole official story is very much implausible, falling apart under the slightest scrutiny, and such a conclusion is unavoidable to a rational person who doesn’t reflexively dismiss uncomfortable facts or argument as rubbish “conspiracy theory.” It doesn’t matter who supports or continues to report 9-11's official conspiracy theory, (which hinges on outrageously scant evidence of the guilt of some quite paradoxical, reportedly stripper-loving and coke-sniffing Islam-o-fascists who loathed the freedoms of godless capitalism and hung around private, CIA-connected airports in lawless south Florida, while showcasing a seemingly unlimited access to cash and hard drugs) whether these supporters are the government or the collected news organizations, or a history professor fearful for tenure---because all these agencies speak the same dubious language. The smell of deliberate nonsense or hopelessly ingrained ignorance clings to their every reverend claim, presupposition, and endlessly repeated "fact."
After examining the total evidence, a clear-thinking, reasonable person has less chance of agreeing with this official version of the Case of the Tragic Events than a human dishwasher has of smelling clean. The official story is a willful and absurd hallucination that says far more about our national mind control system, our hidebound gullibility, than anything else. Somewhere deep in my monkey soul I have miraculously retained the ability to laugh at this hideous ultra-nationalist myth of the 19 High Jackers, which has caused such continuous death and suffering in the world---but retained it perhaps only because I now clearly see what a weird shadow was cast by the actual, material events of the day, and what a truly outlandish parallel purpose the attacks served (in the occultic, ritual sense which we have to address at another time, being mind-alteringly strange as it is). Both the outright silliness of its official narrative, and the bizarre, generally unknown parallel reality of 9-11 are so implacably perverse that one logical approach to understanding it all must involve laughter. Resigned, carefree laughter. It is a choice between the Cosmic Giggle or the Upsetting Fixed Scowl.
As I appear to never tire of telling folks, the mainstream conspiracy theory of 19 Jihadi hijackers who defeated the entire intelligence and military apparatus of the most powerful Air-and-martial force in history---when it was actually on high Jihadi-alert for weeks prior---is an unpalatable stew of gristly propaganda that the dignified person would throw to the floor or rather shit in than consume. It is indigestible. It is a zany, empty theory that holds less water than the body of King Tut, for a staggering number of reasons aside from the most obvious: namely, that the attack itself was a manifest impossibility branded in the gaudy style of Hollywood, hatched on the watch of a notoriously criminal government regime whose principal actors have long been connected to "black operations." Provably connected. (See: the work of Webster Tarpley, Sherman Skolnick, and the arcane details of Iran-Contra, The Franklin Cover-up, The October Surprise, H.W. Bush in Dallas, and the Barry Seal and Orlando Letelier murders) The 9-11 attacks were a fraud and a treasonous self-mutilation---based on prima facie evidence this is the only conclusion the thinking, mindful person can reach. We have established this fact, to my satisfaction.
But still I can tell that you may not be satisfied. And so I will serve some of the gristle-stew now, cold; it is offered for your consumption but I expect you will reject it in the end. Let us address some of the primary faults of the orthodox explanation for 9-11: those oddities, ambiguities and improbabilities which have birthed this gagging, dying debate.
First of all, it is a false claim that only a few unhinged, grandiose types question whether or not Mr. Qaeda attacked us on 9-11 (You Must Google "Who's publicly acknowledged 9-11 Lies" and stab at the first result, which crucial site will for some reason not embed here). You need only search for the most recent, under-publicized but professional polls, which clearly and repeatedly indicate that as many as two-thirds of Americans actually believe the government is not coming clean about the attacks. (The above link contains a headline that is totally misleading if not a lying hustle, typical for many kinds of court/establishment journalism which actively seek to tell you how to think: the poll respondents did not "Question Bush intelligence about 9-11," they effectively questioned Bush Innocence on 9-11) These numbers are further subdivided into a majority who feel that the government “let it happen,” (presumably for policy motivations, and legally tantamount to guilt) with their remainder convinced the government "made it happen" on purpose. LIHOP vs. MIHOP, as the separate camps are known. Thus we eliminate the canard that the skeptical are a “lunatic fringe.”
Next is a sampling from a broad survey of reported, publicly available facts about this mass murder of 3,000 innocents whom "we" continue to wrongly avenge by the slaughter of poor Arabs and assorted darker races. These facts might awaken the investigative instincts of even the most randy, digitized, apathetic college student:
1. The Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, wired Mohammed Atta $100,000 in the year before 9-11. Only after this was reported in Indian newspapers was the ISI Director, Mahmood Ahmad, fired, but not tried or prosecuted. And remarkably, Mr. Ahmad happened to be having breakfast with national security-involved senatorial Brahmins on the morning of 9-11, here in the homeland. He then met with Joe Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, after 9-11.
"When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss' staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. "We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan," Graham said.
More important than these episodic luncheons is the long-recognized fact that the ISI is to the CIA as Robin is to Batman, or more appropriately, as the mob hit-man is to the mob Don. This relationship is one of the most intimate that exists between any of the world's intelligence networks, and the public record amply supports this charge. Now, all of this is only supposed to be interesting and fishy to those who wear tinfoil hats. America is just a hotbed of stunningly timed coincidences and security failures, through the ages...nothing more. (See this article)
2. The Twin Towers were not alone in defying all known laws of gravitation and structural collapse on 9-11, when they plummeted neatly into their own footprints at free fall speed, amazing events that were officially explained by the weird thesis that steel skyscrapers can lose total integrity from small fuel fires and jetliner impacts they were specifically designed to withstand, even in multiple. A third building, known as WTC Building 7, (The Salomon Brothers Building) also collapsed in exactly the same controlled fashion at 5:20 pm, and no one in official circles can explain this coherently, while the celebrated, open, democratic media will not even mention the anomaly. Building 7 is key to understanding both the scope of this cover-up, and the local, corrupt, practical considerations attending the mass murders, as are the (as yet unpunished) insider stock market trades made on that day, which are similarly ignored by media, government, and the prominent intellectual classes.
3. The Military and Air-defense anti-terror drills that took place on 9-11
**Possibly one of the biggest bombshell duds never to explode with sufficient force in the Non-11 Question, the media tend to ignore these drills, and that is why you likely haven’t heard of them. They explain, in part, how our air defense protocol failed so preposterously to protect even the Pentagon, hours after the unprecedented simultaneous hijacking of four commercial airliners along the critical eastern seaboard. ***The National Reconnaissance Office was actually simulating a plane crashing into their building---as the attacks occurred---and it would appear that even live-fly commercial airliner hijackings were being simulated/practiced that day as well, although military spokesmen will only confirm that this specific drill happened, “sometime after September 9.” ****This stunning coincidence of preparedness and defeat is, very importantly, echoed in the events of 7/7, when British anti-terrorism drills were also being conducted but clearly failed to produce desirable results for ordinary citizens.
It has to be emphasized that most of American history is, to a serious degree, a cover-up. If you had never before questioned or heard about the USS Liberty incident of 1967, or the assassinations of all prominent liberal figures in the American scene of the 1960s, or the connected, curious history of political "airplane deaths" that continue to plague our country, then you are much more inclined to digest the official story of 9-11 without trouble, and possibly more inclined to rejoice when you receive your free microchip.
**On the general subject of the still virtually secret military and anti-terror drills being conducted on 9-11:
http://www.google.com/search?q=the+military+drills+of+9-11&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
***On the National Reconnaissance Office's Insanely suspicious "airplane crash" drill, conducted on 9-11:
http://www.google.com/search?q=9-11+NRO+airplane+crash+drill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
****On the London 7/7 attacks, and the absurd similarity to 9-11 with regard to government anti-terror "drills" conducted on the very same day:
http://www.google.com/search?q=the+military+drills+of+7-7&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
*****On this history of plane demises:
http://skolnicksreport.com/shistory.html
No comments:
Post a Comment