Friends of Liberty - We The People get the Government We Deserve: Lessons of 9/11
We can now rest our case on whether or not it's "crazy" to question the government's official account of 9/11. Corrupt elements within our government have proven they are capable of carrying out, facilitating or covering up crimes of equal or greater depravity - this cannot be factually disputed. However, to support a specific charge (a charge of cover up or complicity) we'll need to go further with the evidence. That is what the remainder of this essay will focus on. Specifically, it will focus on evidence that points to a "cover up" because a cover up, once proven, will establish complicity. Consider what follows similar to a grand jury investigation. Our first job is to decide whether there's reasonable cause to believe a cover up has taken place. If the evidence reveals reasonable cause, it is then our job to indict. Unlike the government's "investigation" into 9/11, ours will be truly independent. We will not allow the suspects to choose the detectives, limit the parameters of our inquiry, block access to damning information, lie by omission, etc. Let it be known that we are not only demanding answers, we are demanding answers that can survive reasonable scrutiny. Because the government's claims regarding 9/11 (up until now) cannot survive reasonable scrutiny, they must be rejected in favor of answers that can. There are perhaps 100 separate pieces of compelling evidence that clearly undermine the official government account of 9/11. However, there is no reason for us to address them all here. For our purposes we only need ONE solid argument - one argument that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what we've been told is a lie. In a nutshell, this is it:The 3 buildings that collapsed in New York on September 11, 2001 (the north tower, the south tower, and world trade center building #7) were brought down by explosives. The evidence to support this claim is irrefutable. It can be physically observed and re-created. It can be mathematically proven, and independently verified via eyewitness accounts. The evidence to support the government's claim that fire destroyed all three buildings has no basis in reality - the "evidence" exists only in the form of words. There is no historical data to back their assertions, only historical data to refute them. No models have been able to physically reproduce the phenomena they describe because (as expected) the laws of physics cannot be violated. The government's refusal to first investigate and disprove the most logical cause for the collapse of the buildings (explosives) is, in itself, highly suspect. Analogy:Suppose a man is found dead in his home. His house has been ransacked, two computers are missing, and there are signs he was tortured. His body is laying face down, his hands and feet are tied, and there are three gunshot wounds to the back of his head. Does it require a degree in forensic science to conclude foul play? If you are an outsider looking in on this investigation, would you be suspicious if this man's death was officially ruled a suicide? Would you say such a ruling was able to survive "reasonable scrutiny?" And what if after ruling the death a suicide, the man's home mysteriously caught fire (electrical problem) and his body was accidentally sent to the crematorium where it was promptly incinerated. Would you expect a cover up? Let's hope so. Now back up a minute. What if the only information you had access to was the official account? What if the available information regarding this mans death consisted solely of the following: "Detective Johnson arrived on the scene where he found John Doe dead from a self inflicted gun shot wound. Investigators found a suicide note apologizing to his friends and family. Bouts with depression over the loss of his job and a recent divorce were cited as the most likely cause for his decision." What if this is all the information you had access to? Isn't it reasonable to assume you'd never think twice about it? Of course; and that is how the perfect cover up is supposed to work. -Sure there might be quiet rumblings of a conspiracy - secret ties to the CIA and a covert drug running operation gone bad. But with the crime scene destroyed, and the body cremated, good luck proving it. The official account of 9/11 is a cover up - plain and simple. For the sake of argument, we'll define a cover up as "a false story created to conceal the real story." For any cover up to succeed, the false story must be protected from information that undermines it. If the conspirators are unable to do this, the cover up falls apart.Although all cover ups begin with a false story, there are other elements that play a supporting role: the destruction of physical evidence, creating distractions to control people's attention, vilifying those who level accusations, etc. These supporting elements (in conjunction with the false story) serve one goal: Keep you from seeing or considering anything that might reveal the truth. 1. Destroy evidence: If it doesn't exist, it can't be examined2. Create distractions: (Here are a couple common tactics)a) The "false debate" distraction: False debates are very useful because they lend credibility to the lie while distracting people away from questions that would expose it. Take our "suicide" story above. If people can be manipulated into a heated argument over "why" Bob killed himself, (because his boss fired him just a week before Christmas, because his heartless wife left him a week later, because he had a secret drug problem, etc.) the issue of whether or not Bob actually did kill himself gets lost. In effect, the false debate turns the lie into an established truth - a foundation on which the subsequent debate is built... (Clearly, two people cannot argue about why Bob killed himself without first accepting the "fact" that he did kill himself.) As they become increasingly sure of their position, they become increasingly dependent on the lie that supports it. Regardless of which side of the debate they're on, they will unite in protecting the false assumption on which their whole argument rests. In an odd way, defending the lie becomes an act of self-defense from that point forward. It goes without saying that once one "false debate" has been established; other "false debates" can grow up around it. In very little time, the masses can become hopelessly tangled in a web of falsities - endless arguments without merit. When this happens, only strong evidence can destroy the illusion - Strong evidence that turns their attention back to the legitimate starting point; killing all descendents of the original lie. b) The "major crisis" distraction: The power of a "major crisis" to manipulate the masses is well known among the ruling elite. Whether the crisis is intentionally created or naturally occurring, nothing enables them to more effectively expand power and direct the consciousness of their subjects. -To silence dissent, monopolize media talking points, rationalize the irrational, or completely bury an unwanted topic, nothing beats a crisis. (Especially when that "crisis" is war.)3. Attack the messenger: If evidence cannot be destroyed, false debates aren't sufficient, or the crisis can't shake off growing dissent, the one remaining option to keep you from contemplating the evidence is to attack the messenger. When this is done, the conspirators' assertion is obvious: "What this person claims is absurd and any evidence they present isn't credible."
Now ask yourself an obvious question: Why would it be necessary to vilify a person making "absurd claims" backed with "no credible evidence?" Isn't that something a reasonably intelligent person could determine by looking at the evidence themselves? Do we really need (or want) others to decide for us what we should and shouldn't take into consideration? In a "free" and "democratic society?" I don't think so. The preceding three installments of this "1-Hour Guide" have been an attempt to expose the mechanics of how the government (with the help of the media) manipulates us into believing things that simply aren't true. For instance, the Northwoods Document proves our government would openly conspire to stand by and let our country be attacked, so long as the carnage helped them further their military agenda. Worse, it proves they'd go so far as to completely manufacture an attack if they couldn't bait the target country into attacking us first. This is not a "conspiracy theory" it is a "conspiracy fact." -And yet the average American still believes it's crazy to think such things are possible. Is it an accident that everyone knows about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" but nobody has heard of the Northwoods document? How about the real story behind the USS Maine; the Lusitania; the Gulf of Tonkin; the USS Liberty...or (what we're discussing now) the NeoCons' "New Pearl Harbor?" Either we condone the exploitation of our country or we don't. Either we support the acts of liars, thieves, murderers and aspiring tyrants or we don't. This is our country, not theirs. LOOK at the evidence, decide what it means and determine once and for all where you stand. Since it might take another few weeks for me to write the final installment, here are a couple clips that cover the evidence of "controlled demolition." Both are very well done - the evidence speaks for itself. The first clip is about 5 minutes long and comes from the "Loose Change" documentary. The second clip is nearly an hour long and it comes from the Alex Jones documentary "911 - Rise of the Police State." 5 Minute clip (Bombs in the Buildings)
Parts 1 and 2 of this essay available here: