you can write to him.
Gerard Holmgren <holmgren@iinet.net.au>
He has never complained about complete and credited reprintings of his work.
alexldent wrote:
> 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?
>
>
------- 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
> > explosivecountermeasures 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. G
etting 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
> > 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 publicaware 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 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?
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/
