[911InsideJobbers] [Fwd: Holmgren Re: Controlled Demolition Limited Hangout?]

two things:
1) remind me to never get into a debate or argument with Holmgren
2) can you ask him if I can reprint any or all of this great essay on
my blog?

--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Rosalee Grable <webfairy@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition Limited
Hangout?
> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:05:39 +1100
> From: Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@...>
>
>
>
> 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 couldnÂ’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 couldnÂ’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 doesnÂ’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
> doesnÂ’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 didnÂ’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 didnÂ’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
donÂ’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
wouldnÂ’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
> donÂ’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 didnÂ’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 didnÂ’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 hasnÂ’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
> donÂ’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
> doesnÂ’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 wouldnÂ’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 doesnÂ’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, doesnÂ’t change the fact that
itÂ’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
couldnÂ’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 doesnÂ’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
didnÂ’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 itÂ’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 itÂ’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 doesnÂ’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 donÂ’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 couldnÂ’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 isnÂ’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 donÂ’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 shouldnÂ’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@...]
> 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/