too clever by half (9/11; who dunnit?)

.. observation vs. speculation ...

  .. IF some 'black-ops they' really did do this ...

    .. THEN we've got far less chance than I ever nightmared


Warning(1): The following discusses 9/11 'conspiracy theories,' often termed by the idle, the lazy and the (criminal!) apologists alike as 'crazy, non-reality based fantasies.' On the other hand, a few stalwarts have *not* (yet?) availed themselves of the pushed-paradigm Kool-aid panacea - i.e. acquiescence in the face of pure evil ...

Warning(2): I have largely avoided this topic, not 'merely' because of warning(1) & the insidiously implied intimidation, but on two other, more pressing grounds; (a) IF an inside job THEN there's nothing much we can realistically expect to happen to 'compensate' (i.e, catch & prosecute the crooks), let alone improve things (i.e. never again!) - but most 'pressing,' (b) the topic (mostly, watching the videos) gives me the willies and worse - vivid nightmares (just like last night; boo hoo). It hardly seems worth it (vis-à-vis the reduction in my quality-of-life); but nevertheless, as a seeker of justice via truth, sometimes needs must...

Warning(3): Think before <clicking>! - this .flv video from ae911truth is v.large (265.501Kb); if you can use such a thing at all, I recommend <r-clicking> and then selecting 'Save Target As.' (i.e. by typing the single letter 'a,' say). It took my set-up about 1h40m to download; I can't at this time say whether (IP?) bandwidth-strangulation was active or not.


I came across the video because/via this article:

September 14, 2009
Why Propaganda Trumps Truth
By Paul Craig Roberts
  « ... There are, of course, some kooks. I have often wondered if these kooks are intentionally ridiculous in order to discredit knowledgeable skeptics.
Another problem that the 9/11 Truth Movement faces is that their natural allies, those who oppose the Bush/Obama wars and the internet sites that the antiwar movement maintains, are fearful of being branded traitorous and anti-American. It is hard enough to oppose a war against those the US government has successfully demonized. Antiwar sites believe that if they permit 9/11 to be questioned, it would brand them as "terrorist sympathizers" and discredit their opposition to the war. An exception is Information Clearing House.
Antiwar sites do not realize that, by accepting the 9/11 explanation, they have undermined their own opposition to the war. Once you accept that Muslim terrorists did it, it is difficult to oppose punishing them for the event. In recent months, important antiwar sites, such as antiwar.com, have had difficulty with their fundraising, with their fundraising campaigns going on far longer than previously. They do not understand that if you grant the government its premise for war, it is impossible to oppose the war.»

Roberts names the 9/11 Truth Movement and the antiwar movement, I would extend some condemnation generally towards 'the Left.' I once shuddered at the rather comical "the UN is as useful as a chocolate tea-pot" - but the UN does turn out to be a useless sell-out; then was *enraged* by the charge that 'the Left' had too few if any ideas (or similar; I'm *not* digging that incident up.) The facts are that *any* opposing 'the establishment,' whether US, UK, Aus or the (ugly throw-back) Zs gets smeared by the so-called 'élite,' their puppet-politicians, the corrupt & venal MSM and running-dogs like the publicly-financed AusBC and last and certainly least, the sycophantic apologists and associated lying trolls. But (there's almost always a but): surrender to evil is not an option.

Here a c-f snip, followed by a reader comment:

The Spider's Egg
Written by Chris Floyd
Friday, 11 September 2009
  «It's really quite simple and, to my mind, self-evident: the "official" story of what happened on September 11, 2001, is not a complete or accurate account. (We should of course speak of official stories, because there have been several shifting, contradictory scenarios offered by the great and the good in the six years since the attack. However, for clarity's sake, we'll stick with the singular for now, and will assume -- as the entire media and political establishment does -- that the report by the Hamilton-Kean 9/11 Commission is the final "official" version.)
To put it plainly, this official account is riddled with holes: unexplained inconsistencies, unprecedented occurrences, astounding coincidences, mysterious lacunae, and deliberate obfuscations. It is, in fact, a more improbable "conspiracy theory" than many of those suggested by the much-derided "9/11 truth movement."»

The comment:

  «agree with Gwilym
written by Sean O'Neil, September 12, 2009
Rhislart Gwilym --
I agree with every point you made. Especially the closing points on denialism among the supposedly objective investigative reporters you name (Cockburn, Monbiot) as well as others held in high esteem (Noam Chomsky, for example)»
[Chris Floyd commenter, ibid.]

To the above named; to 9/11 Truth, antiwar movements and 'the Left' generally, I would add a few names; Cole & Escobar have recently drawn my ire, and then to my point: IF intimidated (or gutless, or idiots) THEN (next to) useless.


Getting back to the 9/11 theme. I was from the beginning always (negatively, of course) impressed by WTC 7. Why that? I've recently read that WTC 7 may have been rigged for demolition exactly *on* 9/11, as a result of damage sustained; that would 'explain' why it fell at all, and that sooo much later. Utter bloody nonsense. IF, THEN: it appears to my eye, over looong consideration of the images broadcast, then later different perspectives turning up on the net, like this video which Damian cited here, that the collapse of towers 1 & 2 were so far from what may be expected in (undisturbed) nature, that even any *extended* credulity was right out there on the distant limit. Well, you know; two identical structures - why not fail in an identical way? (i.e. aircraft-struck, then jet-fuel (but not steel-melting) fires.) But then came WTC 7. About all I can say (extra to this comment, that is), is look at the videos. Watch as the twin towers spew steel *outwards*, dense debris *upwards*. Try to work out the vector-sums; what gives the side-kick? Did the steel-reinforceded concrete floors 'trampoline' to kick stuff up? All 3 collapses just are not natural, and the ae911truth .flv observes pyroclastic flows (hot, v.hot, just like in volcanoes), shows just how *identical* WTC 7 is to a 'real-world' CD (Controlled Demolition). Identical is, as identical does.


Now, nobody has to believe anything I say - mostly re-hashed info anyway; you can't make this stuff up, as a special case of finding anything on the net - it's a real-life caveat emptor. But let's assume (as is said "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable ..."), that WTC 7 really was pulled (their word; spontaneously said and duly reported, *before* WTC 7 Oh, so neatly 'fell down.') IF ... THEN, it would make no sense whatsoever, to rig WTC 7 for destruction - unless it was part of 'a set.'

I simply can't see any way past this - therefore, one supposes, my nightmares last night...


Fazit: It may well have been, that there really were 19 - (+ one little piggy stayed home - and the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing!)) - 19 box-cutter equipped 'towel-head' types, originally or mainly from Saudi Arabia. That could quite easily have been an inverse black-flag twist, designed both to entrap and impugn; since it is known that Al Qaeda was 'manufactured' by a certain group, that group's 'talents' are assumed to be well 'advanced,' also vis-à-vis subversion and incitement. The Arabs would act as convenient patsies. Then, as a pilot myself, I queried the putative hijackers' flying from day#1; the best answer I ever got (on the Q/T, i.e. not for attribution) was from a retired 747 Captain: the INS/GPS-autopilot could have done the flying. Type the coordinates in, press goto - full stop. The only question then remaining would be: was it a rogue project? If ... THEN: Why would the official enquiry be such a clumsy whitewash, instead of going all-out after such heinous traitors? Why was NORAD out-to-lunch? Why, why, why? Well, daaarlings; all silly questions: It was always for the oil. First Iraq (Afghanistan = pipeline(s) and key bases), next Iran.

Perhaps, with the sheople as dumbed down as they obviously are, the conspirators thought "Any excuse will do," and so far so good; the dumbos haven't twigged - yet.

Finally, returning from any speculation to 'real-life' observation;

Q: Who has benefited?

No comments:

Post a Comment