Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Summary – The Path to 9/11 Truth Disclosure

Update: The 3 young guys behind Loose Change 2 - Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas - are really heroes in my view, and they are taking the message to vast new groups of 9/11 skeptics. They are in their early twenties and they made some mistakes in the first edition, but they are fighting the good battle. 2006-05-11

In respect of all those who died on 9/11 and their relatives, and of all who died or were tormented in their name. Although painful for both writer and reader, the following is an attempt to make a contribution to finding the guilty ones and to bring closure to the hunt for the real criminals, the real terrorists and mass murderers.

The Bush administration consciously uses secrecy in a broad spectrum to make skeptics speculate on a huge number of issues. It can also be shown that it has planted consciously distracting speculation on the web and in the media, to deceive and discredit the skeptics and investigators.

If we stick to the facts and refrain from speculation and irrelevant circumstances, we are left with this strong accusation: Two airplanes were allowed – unhindered – to crash into the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11. These caused holes in the walls and scattered fires, but firemen thought the limited fires could be put out. When the towers fell, it was after reported and documented explosions that had nothing to do with the airplane attacks, and after vibrations that registered as quakes of 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale. About an hour after the first attack, came the attack on the Pentagon, and no matter how this occurred, it is unlikely (from enemies, that is) when the chiefs of defence knew that terrorists were on the loose.

What a true skeptic cannot know (due to dubious sources) is whether the planes that hit the WTC were hijacked, whether the 19 arabs hijacked them, whether these controlled the planes, whether they were al-Qaida types and whether al-Qaida in that case operated covertly within an American agenda. A true skeptic has a duty to be skeptic to evidence that is either destroyed or not shown to anyone.

What we however do know, is that the explosives that brought down the towers were planted with an intention that makes the crash holes in the facade of the soon to be pulverized skyscrapers almost anecdotic. If the landlord and/or the government has decided to pulverize the Twin Towers on 9/11, in other words, the deadly effect of the airplane attacks borders on unsignificance, no matter who were behind and/or in control of the planes.

Those who prepared the pulverizing of the towers planned to conduct the demolitions under cover of the plane attacks, and thus they also knew about the plan to crash airplanes into the towers. For the average American, then, it really shouldn’t matter much who were behind the plane crashes, as the planners of the controlled demolition both 1) could have stopped the plane attacks, and 2) are themselves guilty of far more deaths on 9/11 than the plane crashes.

The logical step would then be to go after those who planned to pulverize the Twin Towers. No enemy terrorists could count on being allowed to fly unhindered through the best guarded airspace in the world, so the likeliness that someone other than the government itself was behind also the plane attacks is therefore more or less non-existant.

So the fall of the towers is essential, and the responsibility of the government for these and for making the plane attacks possible, plus for the destruction of the south western part of the Pentagon, must be at the center of the investigation and the revelation of these crimes. Focus on and speculation about other issues will thus be counter-productive, and therefore bordering on sabotage of the aims of the Truth Movement.*

With this starting point we can then for instance accuse Webster Tarpley’s radio show on March 25, 2006 of sabotage, as Tarpley here invites Nico Haupt to go on about the no-planes theories of his. A laughable suggestion, that even if it was true, is insignificant and destructive for the aims of the movement. And this in turn reflects back on Webster Tarpley in general, and on his writing and his contribution to revealing (or concealing) the truth. In the same way the focus of «Loose Change» on the «pod» underneath the planes and a flash in the building are insignificant and destructive, and skeptics must therefore view the makers of the movie, Phil Jayhan and Korey Rowe, and those who recommend it, with much skepticism.

This may seem a bit harsh, as Webster Tarpley is currently running a weekly radio show – World Crisis Radio – and wants to be the agora for exchanging thoughts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Tarpley and his radio show must therefore be judged over time, and dismissed as sabotage only if he goes on inviting the most wacky theorists. But the same starting point can in any case also be used positively: Those authors and books that focus the most on the fall of the towers, the air defence and the foreknowledge, are the ones we should trust the most. The others may be out there with other agendas.

In this way Fetzer on the academic side and Siegel («9/11 Eyewitness») on the visual, auditory and emotional, are among the best supporters in the struggle for disclosure. (Fetzer does however recommend «Loose Change», even though the first edition of this documentary only gets to the explosives after 22 minutes of exploring the «pods», flashes and Florida flying lessons.)

In this post I have tried to show that we can almost eliminate al-Qaida, in much the same way that we can eliminate an unknown from a set of equations, by showing that their possible contribution was not the most essential, and that the attack that is attributed to this terrorist organization first of all served as camouflage for the much greater destruction and crime carried out by explosives and controlled demolition, most likely on behalf of the US government and/or its secret agencies.

And as the plane attack on the Twin Towers is almost unthinkable without extensive cooperation with various US authorities, and thus cannot represent a likely plan from a free and independent terrorist organization, simply because in this case the odds for succeeding were so microscopic, it is fairly safe to assume that the air attack was carried out by Americans or by foreigners with close ties to the US government. If al-Qaida played a role in this, they were in other words playing a role that was rehearsed in concert with the local authorities.

* Postscript: Upon writing this, I see that in the literature on 9/11, this debate is referred to as the Big Tent debate. I.e. whether to include all theories and all skeptics that go against the official saga of 9/11. The way I see it, the Big Tent option allows for all the wackiness, invites all the crackpot and/or sabotage conspiracists, the ones that will make most people laugh and turn away from the movement and its claims.

Moreover: The struggle for 9/11 Truth is a paradigm struggle. Meaning that one paradigm about a terrible attack on the United States is about to be replaced by a new paradigm, in which the US stages an attack on itself, in order to gain national and international support for a monumental war of conquest. In this way, the first aim for the 9/11 Truth Movement should be to replace the old paradigm with the new one. And following that, i.e. when the thought of a staged attack on 9/11 is commonplace and held by nearly everyone, the climate will be more ripe for discussing the nitty-gritty details of the staged attack. Once the new paradigm is in place, it will be business as usual to allow for minor modifications and further investigation of all the details.

But first we must all pull together to replace the old paradigm and arrest the real ciminals of 9/11.

1 comment:

Tahoma Activist said...

I agree with wanting to convince people and therefore not wanting to argue about minutiae. So often I come to a message board and people are off in all these little side arguments. The most important thing, of course, is reaching the people who are on the verge of understanding.