-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition Limited Hangout?
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:05:39 +1100
From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>
Inphoman 911 asked
[[Why risk exposing such
> technology on 9/11 and not just use high powered explosives or
> mininukes instead? IOW why does the false flag destruction of a
> building require secret microwave technology? Are they trying to
> hide this technology from only us or from foreign powers as well?
> Using the secret raygun on 9/11 wouldn't have been too smart in the
> latter case now would it?]]
The answer to this is in two parts. Part 1 deals with a fundamental
reasoning problem in the way the question was asked.
Part 2 addresses the question more literally.
Part 1.
If this question was asked in the context in which I think it was, then the
very asking of it is nonsensical. If one accepts or is open to being shown
direct evidence that it was used, and as a consequence is also curious about
*why * they used it, then it's a reasonable question.
But if one is using speculative musing, presenting a pre-conceived
assumption that there would be no reason, and using this as an excuse to
rebut or refuse to consider such evidence, then this is very poor reasoning.
To analogize. Suppose you were a detective investigating the murder of a
woman. All evidence leads irrefutably to her husband, which is very
surprising to everyone because everyone thought they had a loving and happy
relationship.
Would such evidence be dismissed, simply because you couldn’t think of a
motive ? Of course not. The fact that it was surprising would of course
incite you to look the evidence over very carefully, in case you had missed
something, or in case there was some alternative explanation. But if the
evidence stood up to such suspicious examination and couldn’t be faulted,
you wouldn't then throw it out, simply because it was surprising in the
context of your pre-existing world view. What you would do is make
appropriate alterations to that world view based on the evidence before you.
Having satisfied yourself that he did it, you might then wonder about why.
You may or may not find an answer to that, but even if you didn't, it still
wouln't change the fact that he did it.
Inphoman may think that he's being enlightened in calling an inside job in
the general sense-, more enlightened than those who dismiss the notion
simply because their pre-existing world view doesn’t allow for such a thing
to be imaginable. But there's actually no difference in the two approaches.
Speculative musing, on the basis of what we *imagine* to be plausible is
only reasonable if there is no direct evidence of any kind on the question.
If there is direct evidence, then such musing is completely irrelevant and
illogical.
It's like Chomsky defending the official story of the JFK assassination.
Chomsky goes to great speculative lengths, musing about the political
implications of an inside job and concludes that it's not plausible. The
problem with this approach is the magic bullet. The science of ballistics
doesn’t change itself for the sake of perceived political plausibility.
Perceptions of political plausibility must adapt themselves to what the
science of ballistics tells us.
Our world view, our fundamental assumptions about what we think is plausible
or not plausible should be formed on the basis of the pattern we have
observed from established irrefutable facts. A world view which assumes that
that there would be no motivation to use such weapons may be reasonable on
the basis of a previously known set of facts. But if new facts emerge, which
make that world view inconsistent with the known facts then it becomes
irrational to try to fit the facts around the old fundamental assumptions,
rather than update one's fundamental assumptions in the light of new facts.
What we are seeing here from Inphoman is the same irrationality which for so
long denied the demolition evidence itself. Let me tell you about an
encounter I had with some socialist gatekeepers regarding Sept 11 in early
2002.
We were at a "justice for refugees" rally. Naively thinking that I was in
the company of people who were skeptical of official lies, I started talking
about S11. They all burst out laughing the moment I said it was inside job.
One of them, with a curl of his lip called me "fuckin loony". I started
explaining the physics of the WTC collapse but was interrupted with guffaws
of laughter. The most aggressive one asked, "why would the govt demolish its
own buildings, you idiot ?"
An illogical question, since I had been trying to explain the physics.( Note
the similarity to what is being discussed here - "why would they do it...?)
And clearly a question to which he actually didn’t actually want to hear the
answer anyway. Because I said. "Good question. Let me explain to you the
finances and legal problems surrounding those buildings and why they had to
be demolished -"
I didn’t get any further because I was interrupted by more guffaws, which
started to turn to threatening body language and they walked off, casting
back extremely unfriendly looks.
Having finally overcome such irrationality on the demolition question, it is
ironic to see the very same techniques of irrationality now being used to
claim that only the demolition is worth talking about.
Inphoman should take a look in the mirror, the next time he tries to tell
someone about the demolition and is met with this kind of behavior. In fact
he will be looking in the mirror.
Part 2.
Remember that the founding parameters of this question "why would they?" are
speculative, so in the absence of finding a CIA memo saying "this is why we
wanted to use high tech weapons", any answer must by definition be
speculative. So having asked a question which demands speculation, I don’t
then want to hear any complaints that the answer was speculative.
If the end game is a faked alien invasion, using high tech in full view and
passing it off as alien technology, then such a huge undertaking is not the
kind of thing to do without a rehearsal.
The rehearsal involves many aspects. One is the smaller scale testing of the
weaponry itself in a real world situation. The second is a test to see how
gullible the public is about swallowing whatever is fed to them - how
capable of failing to look behind the curtain.
Most likely, the moon hoax was an even lower key rehearsal for how
successfully a movie could be passed off as a real event. You wouldn’t want
to try something like Sept 11 without a rehearsal. The object is not
necessarily to cover things up with any great alacrity. It's more to test
out whether people have been made so brain dead, that the clues are right in
front of them and they still can't see it.
Consider the WMD debacle. And the Iraq- AQ connection farce. Nobody could
say that they made any serious attempt to provide a cover story for the
invasion of Iraq. The attempt to link Iraq and AQ were pathetic. So pathetic
that it can only be interpreted as a test. How many people will believe this
garbage no manner how obviously stupid and phony it is ? And of those who
don’t believe it, how many of them are going to fundamentally change their
view as a result ? As in refusing to vote for either of the Reps or dems
again and going into fundamental rejection of *everything* that we tell
them?
The WMD debacle was even more obvious. It was *designed* to be a debacle.
They didn’t even try to make it credible. If they can pull off something
like Sept 11, then at least a reasonable effort to plant WMD in Iraq -
either literally or metaphorically - was child's play. They didn’t even try.
They deliberately made it as clear as daylight that their story was 100% BS.
The only reasonable conclusion is that were testing how truly anesthetized
the public is. If you imagine public awareness as a ferocious and dangerous
beast, like a huge crocodile which has been shot full of tranquillizer
darts, then they were just making sure that it was truly asleep before they
approaching it more boldly.
WMD was like they were shouting into our faces "Wake up ! We're lying to
you! Can you hears us ? Has anybody noticed ? Does anybody care ? Yoo-hoo !
We're lying ! Wake up ! " and then turning to each other and saying. "Yep it
looks like they're out cold."
Here in Australia, *nobody* believes the WMD story. But it hasn’t changed
anyone's ability to turn on the TV and believe that what's being shown to
them is basically a real event, even if a few porkies are being told about
it. Here in Australia, the public mind is still alive to some degree, but
its no longer connected to the will or to any recognition of patterns.
Everyone knows that they lied about WMD, but all it means to people is that
they lied about WMD. Most people think they were after the oil, which is
about as close as they go to fitting it to any pattern, or drawing any
bigger conclusions from it. So there's one test successfully completed. It
deosn't even matter if they find out about a lie like that, because people
don’t connect it to anything.
By contrast , in the USA ,people tell me that something like 50% of
Americans believe that WMD were actually found in Iraq even though there was
*no attempt* of any kind to sell such an idea. Test even more successful.
The crocodile is in deep sleep.
This means that more ambitious things can be done in plain view without
anyone noticing or caring.
Sept 11 makes a great rehearsal for an alien invasion. If you can actually
show people avideo of a UAV hitting the tower and get them to believe that
its giant plane, if you can show people a cartoon of a plane and get them to
believe its real, if you can show then a 16 ft hole in a wall and get them
to believe that a 125 ft plane went through it, they'll believe anything.
If you can turn 30 stories of tower to dust in mid air, and have pools of
molten steel still underground a month later, and get people to believe that
only conventional technologies were used, then they'll believe anything. It
doesn’t really matter whether they believe the BS about Jet fuel or the BS
about conventional explosives only. Their minds are like putty. If you have
to make a concession somewhere along the way and concede that it was a
controlled demolition - although that's huge scandal on the normal scale of
things, its all controllable, if the crocodile is still so asleep that it
believes in cartoon planes and conventional explosives which do what
happened on Sept 11. Making such a slick story that all of the facts seem to
fit to even the most careful investigators would do a better job of selling
the official story, but it wouldn’t be much use for testing out how people
react to something which is a bad fake.
The assumption that all they wanted to do was start the war on terror and
conduct the very best fake they could construct ignores a lot of other
possibilities and really doesn’t fit the facts very well.
Using real planes was impractical as explained here
http://911closeup.com/
But if they had to use missiles, then why not sell a story about Arabs
firing missiles ? No terrified passengers which reduced the drama a bit, but
on the other hand, the cover up is better, and its easier to blame on a
rouge stste. So there's grounds for exploring a scenario that bigger things
are at stake here, than simply selling the whole official story package as
best they can.
If the next stage involves selling an even bigger movie than Sept 11 -
passed off as real event, with lots of use of hitherto secret high tech
weapons on full display, then it makes perfect sense to first rehearse the
many different aspects of the scenario in a lower key way first.
If the world settles down to believing that a real plane flew into the
tower, and then it was demolished, then we don't have the truth. We just
have a new lie. The fact that this lie contains an element of truth which
was lacking from the previous lie, doesn’t change the fact that it’s a lie.
And if the whole world believes a lie, then they are still under the spell.
If people are deluded, then you can do whatever you like with them. And
having a cartoon as one of the most defining historical images of the past
century certainly qualifies as mass delusion.
If they're going to sell an alien invasion, then people absolutely *have* to
believe that what they see on their TV is real, even if they dispute the
finer points of what it means. Everyone agrees that the buildings going down
was real. If people only argue about how and why the buildings went down,
and assume that the plane is real, simply because they saw it on TV, then
are missing the main point of the deception - if that main point is simply
the reinforcement that the TV might lie about who did it, but it never lies
about what you're actually seeing.
That needed to be tested. Think outside the box a bit.
[[alexldent claims the government may be ready to concede to
> conventionally demolishing the towers and cremating thousands of
> civillians alive in side. He thinks they can get away with it by
> claiming they wanted to save additional lives in the streets of
> lower manhattan, even though they didn't evacuate the towers
> beforehand, but rather told people to remain inside. He also thinks
> they can get away with the fact that they designed their controlled
> demolition to simulate a building pancaking after a plane had hit it
> by claiming they wanted to keep their preplanted explosive
> countermeasures secrets from the terrorists!
>
>
> Folks, there is no volunatry backpedalling from the official 9/11
> narrative. ]]
Not true. In Dec 2001, I wrote an article presenting evidence - although it
at that stage it still fell short of conclusive proof - that the invasion of
Afghanistan had already been planned prior to sept 11. It was met with howls
of derision from the debunkers. A few months later, full proof emerged and
the Whitehouse actually admitted it. Within hours,instead of saying "you
were right", the debunkers were smirking - " well of course they were
planning to invade Afghanistan, you idiot. Nobody ever denied that. They
knew OBL was dangerous and wanted to take him out, but he got in first."
Months of howling derision at the ridiculous idea that the invasion had been
pre-planned was instantly flushed down the memory hole.
How about the melting steel debacle ? If you deride the melting steel story
now you'll get howls of derision that nobody ever claimed that the steel
melted.
How about the "missed warnings" scandal ? After months of denying that govt
or intelligence services ever had even the faintest clue that such an attack
might be in the planning, then we got the "missed warnings scandal". It was
only a scandal for a short time. It quickly got incorporated into an excuse
for more of a police state. "We had all these clues, but we couldn’t connect
the dots because of damned civil liberties obstructions". Months of
strenuous denials that they had *any idea* that it was coming got flushed
down the memory hole almost instantly and the busting of that particular lie
actually made the bigger lie stronger.
Years of the WMD debacle has been flushed down the memory hole because it
was actually all about making Iraq a democracy.
Inphoman is correct in saying that the original official story as a full
package can't be gone back to. But it doesn’t need to be. It's not the only
lie in town.
The official story of Sept 11 contains so many different lies, that it
creates endless potential for disinformationists to make up new lies which
are sold with the attractive veneer of admitting carefully selected parts of
the truth. The original story as told by the Bush regime and the media was
never going to stand up for very long. It has too many holes. But it doesn't
need to. As the original story crumbles, it is creating intense competition
amongst the different varieties of spin off lies for the title of “truth”.
One which is gaining increasing popularity amongst the “truthlings” - the
self styled “truth movement” - is to admit the demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7
while keeping most of the rest of the story intact.
The most crucial elements of the rest of the story are that
· Four commercial flights were supposedly hijacked.
· Three planes hit buildings and one crashed in PA.
Both claims are false. Within these false claims, we have every conceivable
possible spin off being put forward.
· Hijackings by Arab terrorists as claimed by the Bush regime or electronic
hijacking by the regime itself.
· The actual flights claimed by the Bush regime hitting the various targets
or substitute planes of some kind.
Any of these lies can be successfully worked into a limited hangout which
still protects most of the main architects of the original event and cover
up.
What all of those scenarios above avoid is the full involvement of the media
in showing a cartoon of a fake plane hitting the WTC and passing it off as a
real event. Because this cannot be incorporated into any replacement lie
which protects the essential infrastructure of the criminal elite which
planned and carried out and covered up the attacks, then it is the main
target for attack by those are attempting to use partial Sept 11 truth as
the platform from which to spin new lies. Limited hangouts are analogous to
cheering a revolution because a new bloodthirsty dictator has overthrown the
old one.
All that's needed is a show trial of the few more visible and more
expendable perps. And such a show trial can easily be presented as a major
cleanout. That's what happened to the Nazis. Show trials of a few of the
more public figures, while the rest settled comfortably into their new homes
at the CIA, the Pentagon, NASA and the US weapons program. The Nazis didn’t
lose the war. They won it. The corpse of the Hitler regime was kicked all
the way down the street to make people think that justice had been done and
that the evil doers were no longer in power. It was all a script.
In 1941 with the German Nazis at the full height of their power, it would
have been inconceivable that in 6 years a) Germany would be a smouldering
wreck b) That in spite of that the Nazis had just set up shop somewhere
else, using the illusory defeat of Nazism to make themselves even stronger.
The illusion was so strong that most people still don't even know that part
b) happened. It was a limited hangout on a scale every bit as audacious as a
limited hangout involving the demolition. It can happen again.
Any new lie which maintains that the plane we saw on TV was real will be
cheered because the exposing of such a monstrous crime as the demolition and
deliberately allowing the attacks to happen, or even facilitating them with
substitute flights and remote control technology, will understandably seem
to many like a breath of fresh air after years of stupid stories about
mythical Arab hijackers and intelligence “failures”.
But the apparent breath of fresh air is an illusion. Just as the defeat of
Nazism was an illusion.
Maintain the central illusion—that a real plane flew into the Sth tower and
we know it’s a real plane because we saw it on TV - and nothing really
changes. The same media which showed us the cartoon plane to begin with, and
then lied and covered up for the original official story for years, will
then suddenly assume an heroic role of exposing the “truth” of Sept 11,
joining forces with scientists who looked the other way for years—like
Jones— who will suddenly emerge as fearless heroes to give us a new set of
lies to cheer. These lies will be disguised as truth because they will bust
carefully selected aspects of the old lie. Politicians who looked the other
way for years will suddenly make heroes of themselves, thundering
imperiously about impeachment and “investigations” to find out the “truth”.
And people will be so shocked at the treachery and howling for Bush and co
to pay, that they wont notice that same old trick as the illusory defeat of
Nazism is being pulled all over again.
Expose that it was a “war of the worlds” con job—a movie, passed off as
news, - and (hopefully) people will never again believe anything on their TV
sets. Thus you destroy not only the lie, but the main infrastructure for
selling whatever replacement lie becomes convenient in the wake of the
limited hangout. The would-be new dictators will have no tools with which to
spin their new lies and nowhere to hide from their involvement in the
original lie.
The truthlings want to keep the infrastructure of the lie machine intact.
They want to remove the more obvious perpetrators of the original lie, such
as Bush, who have now outlived their usefulness. The “truth movement” is
analogous to the revolution which seeks not to end the injustices of the old
regime but merely take possession of the power and its benefits and give
them a different appearance.
[[Do you really want Professor Jones to
> go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and that the
> planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on
> videotape?]]
Yes. Because this is what happened.
Of course, mainstream TV wont let him. So be it. I'd rather talk truth on
the underground than bullshit in the mainstream.
[[What praytell would be the result of him taking that
> action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of Jones
> stature started doing things like that?]]
Inphoman really needs to clarify what he means by "truth" here. I am
intrigued by the idea that telling the truth might damage the truth
movement.
Now, if Inphoman thinks that telling the truth is not a good idea, then that
position can be clearly stated and debated on its own merits. But is
difficult to think of anything more Orwellian than claiming that the good of
the truth movement depends upon not telling the truth.
Truth is one thing. Political expediency is a completely different thing.
When the two happen to coincide, then it’s a happy day. If they conflict and
one must choose one over the other, I would appreciate it if people didn't
then try to justify choosing political expediency by calling it truth. Let's
converse in English please. Do I need to pull out the dictionary and quote
the definition of the word "truth" ?
Of course, if Inphoman genuinely believes that the claim that no planes hit
any buildings is not the truth, then he's welcome to argue that case on the
basis of facts and reasoning. But arguing whether or not something is
expedient doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion of whether it's
true.
A truth movement should be interested in truth for its own sake. If that is
not what Inphoman is interested in, then call it something else.
[[if people of Jones stature ]]
Jones' stature ? What "staure" does this idiot have ? A physics professor
who took four years to work out that the law of gravity still works ? Well
... he thinks it does, but he want the Govt to hold an inquiry into itself,
to see if its guilty, just to make sure that gravity is still what it used
to be. An idiot who declared boldly that the official story that 757s hit
the towers was true and he knew it to be so because he had conducted a
careful study of the undercarriage of one and compared it with the 757 which
hit the tower.
Except that it's supposed to be a 767 ! Jones is still trying to wash the
red off his face from that one. Stature ?
[[Controlled demolition means
> we've got the goods on the criminals. ]]
Not so. See above.
[[Making the general public
> aware of Controlled demolition (the deliberate cremation of fellow
> citizens, and then automatic realistion that there was a
> hypocritical manipulative coverup afterward.) is precisely what we
> need to get the blood boiling for public outrage and subsequent mass
> mobilization. Everything else, NO MATTER HOW TRUE IT MAY BE is a
> waste of our time, and a diversion from nailing the crooks.
> Wouldn't they just love for us to voluntarily marginalize controlled
> demolition to advance other theories that are even harder for the
> general public to swallow than controlled demolition itself?]]
One could say exactly the same thing about any particular aspect of the
evidence. The lack of air force response. Bush in the class room. No plane
at the pentagon. No planes at the WTC. No such flights as AA11 and 77. No
Arab hijackers. Why not just promote all of it?
Its not a difficult thing to do.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html
A truth movement should be interested in nothing except that which is true.
[[we need to get the blood boiling for public outrage and subsequent mass
> mobilization.]]
Actually , people don't think very well they're angry. Which is probably
part of the plan. They'll be so angry that they won't care what happens as
long as someone swings from a rope. What we actually need to do is to teach
people how to think again, so they don’t get fooled again. If people are
stupid enough to think that cartoon 175 is a real plane, then they'll also
be stupid enough to think that as long as someone swings from a rope then
everything is OK again. There must be an underlying commitment to good
ethics, and a certain amount of anger is inevitable, but thinking that the
anger itself is actually what we need is poor thinking. Getting angry is
easy. Usually its also useless. At an individual level, many of us battle
for much of our lives which anger coming out the wrong way towards the wrong
people. It works the same at a collective level. The whole idea of Sept 11
was to make people so angry that they couldn’t think any more. Once that
happens, then the perps behind the curtain don't really care whether you're
angry at OBL or angry at Bush. Angry people are stupid people, and stupid
people can be manipulated. The worst and most stupid things I've written
during my four plus years of S11 activism have been when I'm angry.
I am also puzzled by the clamouring to be able to speak on mainstream TV -
even if it's at the cost of having to talk bullshit. If the TV will allow us
to speak the truth, then that's exciting, because it reaches so many people.
But if the cost of using the medium is that you have to talk bullshit, then
who wants it ?
Part of this is about figuring out how to break the power of the mass media
and find other ways to reach people. That isn’t helped by swooning over the
fact that someone got on to TV, even if they had to talk bullshit to do it.
This is another reason why it's important to understand that the media is as
big a player in this as Bush. In fact, bigger. It was the media who sold us
the hijacking story by their shock and awe campaign of the cartoon 175
footage. So of course they're not going to let anyone speak about that.
When someone starts getting mainstream coverage, that means that you have to
start wondering why. When that person appears suddenly having done no
research whatsoever on sept 11 - like Jones - spouting factually incorrect
garbage - like Jones - and with no history of even distributing the research
of others - like Jones- and suddenly jumps the queue to become a media hero,
one has to wonder why.
What makes you think that the Jones cult is anything to do with truth ?
I would be far more tolerant of selective truth if the person presenting it
at least had a record of original research, and having at least at one time
having been at the cutting edge.
For example Jared Israel had the courage to post an article on Sept 15 2001,
when no one had any way of knowing what the personal consequences might have
been, alleging that it was inside job, and having already dug up a fair bit
of documentation for it.
With a record like that, if he was to get mainstream media coverage putting
forward a lIHOP view, then while I would still disagree and argue the
evidence, I would at least concede that he's earned the right for some
personal respect in that he was there at the cutting edge, at the beginning
risking his life to bring out new information.
Jones looked the other way - on everything - for more than four years- and
then , just when its becoming fashionable, suddenly arrives from nowhere,
plagiarizing what's useful to him and attacking or ignoring the rest, and
we're supposed to be excited because he's on mainstream media, mixing up
bullshit with things which would have been cutting edge in 2002, but are now
in the realm of gatekeeper stuff.
I smell spook or opportunist puppet dancing on spooker strings.
If Inphoman is new to Sept 11 research and activism, that might seem like a
strong and impetuous accusation, but it takes time to develop a proper
understanding of both the researched facts and who did them, and when they
did them and how they've been used by other people.
Because I've been in this almost from the very beginning, because I've done
a lot of original research myself, and a lot of distribution and argument
in favour of other people's research, I've seen the spooks come and go and
can pick them pretty quickly now.
Every piece of research I've done has earned me hysterical attacks from the
"movement". Being the first person to actually advance the free fall
argument - back in March 2002, 1 year before Hoffman suddenly arrived and
called it his own research, 3 1/2 years before Jones suddenly arrived and
called it his own research, then I happen to know a bit about this.
I got attacked for my demolition research just as much as I'm, now getting
attacked for the no planes research. Ironically, some of the people who are
now shouting " *only* controlled demolition" at me, are the same people who
were attacking me for promoting demolition back when it was still
controversial.
At the same time as pinching my research, Hoffman started attacking me for
"distracting" from it.
The very first thing Jones did when he appeared in public was to start using
my research as his own and also attacking me. They both did exactly the same
thing to Rosalee. They both did exactly the same thing to Jeff King. They
both did exactly the same thing to Nico.
Those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Let me tell
you a little story. In the early 60's my parents were anti- Vietnam war
activists. In 1964, when they organized the first demonstration against the
war in Perth, only 10% of the population was against the war. They began the
West Australian anti -war movement with a meeting of 8 people in their
house.
Through 1964 to 1969, the opposition Labor party opposed conscription but
supported the war.(At that time Australians were being conscripted by the
liberal Govt - here, the Libs are the conservatives, which might be a bit
confusing for Americans).
As they nutured the movement in the early years, my parents suffered social
and political isolation. Ignoring this, they hammered and hammered the Labor
party that simply opposing conscription was not enough. The war was wrong
and Australia shouldn’t be in it at all. Grass roots opposition grew, but
the Labor Party still supported the war, and relied on their anti
conscription stance to curry favour with people.
By 1970, opposition to the war had reached 70 %. Then the Labour party
suddenly jumped on the bandwagon, making thundering speeches about how they
were not going to be part of any imperialist US war. They won Govt in 1972,
ended conscription and pulled Australia out of the war - and became heroes
for it.
The efforts of early campaigners such as my parents, were of course flushed
down the memory hole in 1970. Labor was against the war. Labor had always
been against the war. Labor was the hero. Labor politicians who had
supported the war right up until 1970 went down in history as the heroes who
had opposed it.
In 2002 (Labor is in opposition again now) I wrote to a labor member of
Parliament who is a survivor from the 72 to 75 govt. Obviously he was a
young back bencher, you had just come into parliament at the time. Of course
he is seen as a good anti-war hero, having been a part of that heroic
anti-war govt.
I sent him a whole lot of Sept 11 evidence. He called me a mad conspiracy
theorist without even reading it. I replied that he had been around long
enough to remember the lies told to justify the Vietnam war, and he had an
obligation to look closely at the evidence that the US and the Australian
Libs were up to their old tricks.
He replied that he's been around long enough to know a mad conspiracy theory
when he saw one.
And when he says he believes the official story of sept 11, people trust
him, because after he's one of those old Labor "heroes" who stood up so
bravely against the Vietnam war. Groundhog day !
This is what happens, when Johnny-come -lately's become heroes by pinching
other people's research and jumping on the bandwagon once it's fashionable.
The foundations are being laid for the next lie. And you can bet that the
public "heroes" of the busting of the old lie will be at the forefront of
selling the new lie.
First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they threaten you. Then
they take the credit for (some of) your work. Then they use it to sell the
next lie.
Only the *full* truth is acceptable. Nothing less.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosalee Grable [mailto:webfairy@thewebfairy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 1:52 PM
To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com; Gerard Holmgren
Subject: Re: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition Limited Hangout?
Thanks for taking the arguement to the next level and pretty much
articulating my position better than I have done.
The gang behind the Frameup on Humanity is not a direct correllation to
"the government."
The gang behind the Frameup on Humanity splits up and plays both sides.
Always.
They have followed this pattern for humdreds of years, it has always
worked, and they're not going to rock the boat.
The gang behind the Frameup on Humanity is into One World Rule,
Universal Planetary rule ala Star Wars.
Singular Dictator, nowhere to hide, Orwellian.
Unfortunately they have had a lot of time to stack the deck, until
seemingly reasonable people like you are content to shoot for a more
palatible lie, cos it's easier and not a big deal.
I do not compromise because ONLY the full unabridged truth will defeat
them, and bankrupt them instead of us.
They've steered us this far by making us acceptive of pallative fiction
doubletalk doublestory that makes you see a walk in the park when it's
really a cliff.
I'm sending this onto Holmgren, since you have raised some interesting
questions that deserve a fair answer.
I had to change exactly one word to make this accurate:
"Rosalee Grable claims the Frameup is ready to concede to
conventionally demolishing the towers. A defacto admission that the
NIST reports and the 9/11 Commission were elaborate hoaxes. This
unprecedented sacrifice/total loss of credibility is to cover up
secret microwave weapon technology, they are saving for a False Flag
Alien invasion that is not yet fully set up."
Yep. I'd rather see this technology used for off-grid perpetual energy as
Tesla intended.
http://missilegate.com/rfz
http://missilegate.com/rfz/swaz
inphoman911 wrote:
> Disclaimer: I am not a supporter/defender of Hoffman, and I am not
> really up to speed on who is suspected of being compromised and who
> is not, but commonsense wise something is ringing terribly wrong to
> my ears.
>
>
> Rosalee Grable claims the government is ready to concede to
> conventionally demolishing the towers. A defacto admission that the
> NIST reports and the 9/11 Commission were elaborate hoaxes. This
> unprecedented sacrifice/total loss of credibility is to cover up
> secret microwave weapon technology, they are saving for a False Flag
> Alien invasion that is not yet fully set up.
>
> Why do I find that so hard to believe? Why risk exposing such
> technology on 9/11 and not just use high powered explosives or
> mininukes instead? IOW why does the false flag destruction of a
> building require secret microwave technology? Are they trying to
> hide this technology from only us or from foreign powers as well?
> Using the secret raygun on 9/11 wouldn't have been too smart in the
> latter case now would it?
>
>
> alexldent claims the government may be ready to concede to
> conventionally demolishing the towers and cremating thousands of
> civillians alive in side. He thinks they can get away with it by
> claiming they wanted to save additional lives in the streets of
> lower manhattan, even though they didn't evacuate the towers
> beforehand, but rather told people to remain inside. He also thinks
> they can get away with the fact that they designed their controlled
> demolition to simulate a building pancaking after a plane had hit it
> by claiming they wanted to keep their preplanted explosive
> countermeasures secrets from the terrorists!
>
>
> Folks, there is no volunatry backpedalling from the official 9/11
> narrative. Why do you think they panicked and slammed the lid shut
> on able danger? Tarpley goes into what Able danger was really about
> here in the new preface to his 9/11 Synthetic Terror.
>
> http://www.waronfreedom.org/synth/synter2ed.pdf
>
>
> You better believe the official fiction is meant to stay. Anybody
> thinking that they are ready to voluntarily concede to controlled
> demolition is literally out of their mind.
>
>
> Question for Rosalee Grable. Do you really want Professor Jones to
> go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and that the
> planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on
> videotape? What praytell would be the result of him taking that
> action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of Jones
> stature started doing things like that? I ask because you don't
> sound like a stupid person and maybe you just havent thought these
> things through. My position is simple. Controlled demolition means
> we've got the goods on the criminals. Making the general public
> aware of Controlled demolition (the deliberate cremation of fellow
> citizens, and then automatic realistion that there was a
> hypocritical manipulative coverup afterward.) is precisely what we
> need to get the blood boiling for public outrage and subsequent mass
> mobilization. Everything else, NO MATTER HOW TRUE IT MAY BE is a
> waste of our time, and a diversion from nailing the crooks.
> Wouldn't they just love for us to voluntarily marginalize controlled
> demolition to advance other theories that are even harder for the
> general public to swallow than controlled demolition itself?
>
>
>
> --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Nico Haupt"
> <nicohaupt@...> wrote:
>
>>> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
>>> Von: "alexldent" <alexldent@...>
>>> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com
>>> Betreff: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition Limited
>>>
> Hangout?
>
>>> Datum: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 23:15:50 -0000
>>>
>>>
>> He claimed it by himself.
>> On you other point i would also agree.
>> Many institutes receive military- or intel money.
>>
>> But this in the mix increases the case.
>> Also, i personally believe he's more brainwashed and manipulated
>> than really payrolled, but i wouldn't rule out more.
>>
>> nico
>>
>>
>>>>> How do
>>>>>
>> we know Jack Hoffman is Jim Hoffman's uncle? I can't find
>>
> anything on the
>
>> web...<<<
>>
>> --
>> 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail
>> +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment