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/
In Mahikari's Bible - Goseigen, or Book of Warning to the World, Okada (Mahikari's founder) writes "...the production of fireballs in this world cannot be stopped unless ningen (the masses of animal-like people) begin to have an attitude of apology...God will make man produce the fireballs and bullets...I cannot but once burn the whole surface of the earth with fire...How are you going to cope with the situation that the age of the explosion of fireballs and uncontrollable chaos is approaching?...The Star of David: this is also what I made Moses use as his crest....The ultimate result will be the destruction of the earth. Therefore god's kingdom has been symbolized by The Star of David." (10)
