What to think of the 9/11 incident.
Skipping past my own experience of that day, one must wonder if 9/11 was a real inside job... Why couldn't they do a better job of covering it up? I mean this is the government of United States of America.
Either they did this hidden job or not...
another thing to wonder is what if they actually indeed planned 9/11 and deliberately wanted us to know that they did it. Gasp.
But for what...
First of all there is plausible deniability at every level. Bush does not know much about what happened that day. All the way up and down the chain of command, people performed their duties and followed orders with little awareness of their role in a larger operation. A very few people had to be in the loop. Many more knew something would happen, and had a vested interest in the outcome. Oil companies and military contractors for instance. They knew we were going to war, and certainly wouldn't be questioning any justification. Lots of people knew implicitly not to question what we saw that day or the events it set in motion. And the anthrax attacks let everyone else know the price for dissent.
Second, 9/11 could not strictly be said to have been an inside job. It was most likely a highly compartmentalized operation with many key players both inside and outside the U.S. Many foreign governments and corporations had a strong motivation to facilitate the attack or look the other way. 9/11 was an international event.
Third, they did know that some people would see the cracks in the official story. They also knew that this would be a minority they could easily marginalize through the mainstream media, and that the majority would accept the official story. In other words, they don't think all us 'conspiracy nuts' matter that much. "We must never accept outrageous conspiracy theories..."
And while I consider this unlikely, it is possible that the whole movement was anticipated and designed to chorale those concerned about the government corruption away from the key issues of military profits and industrial sustainability and toward an issue that is far more sensational and easy to marginalize.
Finally, but for what? I'll leave you to answer that question for yourself. Its only convincing if you learn it yourself as others can only present reasonable speculation. Although there are some really good reasonable speculators out there.
This has been posted before, but it's so good it deserves a re-post:
www.namebase.org/news04.html Sidebar from NameBase NewsLine, No. 4, January-March 1994: The Man Who Wasn't There by Daniel Brandt
About the time that my two colleagues plotted a trajectory toward the Dallas symposium, I was relieved that PIR's telephone had stopped ringing, and there was some light at the other end of the TV specials. Yet another media feeding frenzy during yet another assassination anniversary. "I hope I'm not around for the 50th," I told researcher Scott Malone when he called a few weeks earlier to check on something or other that I've since happily forgotten.
After Peter Dale Scott's exhausting "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK," I needed a rest before starting on the other worthwhile 1993 JFK book, Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation." By now I've only a vague idea of the number of JFK books in NameBase, but the notion that it's enough already is increasingly distinct. Fortunately Fonzi's book was easy reading, and early on a zinger perked me up. Fonzi describes a visit to Vince Salandria in 1975, the earliest assassination researcher who at one time was a mentor to many starting out in the field:
"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.... We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do.... They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down." (p. 29)
The name Vince Salandria was not familiar to me; I knew only that he had assisted in the Garrison investigation. Fonzie mentions that Salandria has never written a book, never capitalized on his research, and by 1975 had faded into the background. I found an address for Salandria and wrote a letter explaining that I thought his perspective deserved a wider audience. He graciously sent 60 photocopied pages of articles he had written from 1964-1977, and mentioned in his cover letter that "I still feel that shifting the analysis from a micro to a macro approach is essential to freeing the bona fide critics from a quagmire."
Half of the copies were of articles he wrote from 1964-1966, by way of showing, as he described in his letter, that "I was perhaps the earliest person to attack the Warren Report microanalytically." This isn't a boast, it's a confession. By December 1971 he described himself as "among the earliest and GUILTIEST of the researchers in my protracted analyses of the shots, trajectories and wounds of the assassination.... While the researchers have involved themselves in consuming preoccupation with the microanalytic searching for facts of how the assassination was accomplished, there has been almost no systematic thinking on why President Kennedy was killed."
In this article and another written in 1977, Salandria looks at the assassination with a fresh set of assumptions. He borrows from his friend Professor Thomas Katen, who characterized the Warren Report as a "transparent conspiracy" rather than a cover-up. The deeper you look into the evidence, the clearer it becomes. The clues are buried, diffused, and time-released so that those who look hardest become the most fragmented and demoralized. And savvy political leaders, who might normally feel that something can be done, are the very ones who get the message most clearly: "The cryptocracy is in control, so go along if you expect to get along." Then there are those who need to deny, or refuse to see, or just enjoy grotesque minutiae -- for them, bread and circuses and murder mysteries are sufficiently harmless.
After talking with Salandria in 1975, Fonzi flew back to Miami. "I didn't quite grasp exactly what he was talking about, but I had the uneasy feeling he was advancing some awesomely frightening theories. Then it crossed my mind that, perhaps this time for sure, Salandria was crazy." By 1993, of course, Fonzi is much more concerned that his friend ISN'T crazy.
I instinctively refused when my colleagues urged me to attend the 30th anniversary symposium with them. But it wasn't until I heard from the Warren Commission's first micro-critic, the man who stopped being there sometime around the 8th anniversary, that I began to understand why.
I must say that it isn't mislooked upon when say for example the government found out people did find out about 9/11 being a inside job, that they can easily tell them off as just conspiracy theorists.
At the level of play that the Government is at. ( that is if they really are that such a level) they can do pretty much anything.
Also before I read your post mark, is it relevant to the issue that is being discussed now?
For what = why? While we are busy giving out DVD's with easily debunked misinformation, the real conspiracy is growing in strength. While we are busy chasing the past, they are busy planning our future:
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination [read as 'democracy'] practiced in past centuries."
--David Rockefeller, at the Bilderberg meeting in 1991, the same one Bill Clinton attended. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ge10aa02.h...
Another thing to wonder is what if they actually indeed planned 9/11 and deliberately wanted us to know that they did it. Gasp.
But for what...
Also before I read your post mark, is it relevant to the issue that is being discussed now?
"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.... We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do.... They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."
This is totally essential reading and very relevant to the approach we have here. Knowledge of our history must inform our present strategy. This directly addresses your question about why it appears that they may have wanted us to know and also Gurich's concern for people promoting fallacy.
Here's one strategic benefit for them in conducting an operation than would be transparent to some. In the process of formation this movement has exposed those in our society who are most willing to question the authority of the 'big lie.' Homeland security now has a tidy list of people in this country who are less susceptible than average to mainstream normative influence.
This is a good time to point out that Mike Ruppert laid out a convincing argument for complicity in November of 2001 in his "Truth and Lies of 9/11" lecture. Since then the movement has been successful at increasing awareness of the issue. However, no evidence exposed since that time has brought us any closer to securing an independent investigation. What have we been doing for the past few years?
At this point, the movement needs to start tightening its focus on using the best we have to reach ever more of the public and more influential people. The best we have was fairly well summarized in Ruppert's lecture. I wouldn't add much. We have the tools we need. We no longer have time to be debating which facts go on our top ten list. A good lawyer could look at all the evidence and decide what would make a good case.
I'm certainly one of those who no longer wants to 'microanalyze' the circumstances of the crime. Complicity is very well founded. I am glad we have a strong research community that can and will obsess over every dash and dot. But we need many more people to be creatively active and less easily distracted.
Hello again. I am rather much enjoyed of your response Truthmover.
I guess I did overlook(or underlook) the idea of microanalyzing. But maybe I was trying to say something else.
Ok so microanalyzing is out of the battle plan. (or is it really? You can't really debunk this at all..Well not just yet) Your sayings of microanalyzings ending would jsut be that. A series of microanalyzings whilst the Government is moving on and planning a future. But what if the constant microanalyzings had it not been stopped lead to a different conclusion?
Maybe to finally reach a destination we need people doing all kinds of things to reach our conclusion. Things that have been known to work and not work.
If that idea is total bollocks to you at the moment then whilst be stumbled into what is the battle plan? Curious let me know if you find out.
Maybe to finally reach a destination we need people doing all kinds of things to reach our conclusion. Things that have been known to work and not work.
Great response. I certainly agree. As I said above, we do need a healthy research community that pursues every lead to it's logical conclusion. That scientific process necessarily includes considering hypotheses that are not perfectly or immediately well founded.
But in fact, we have a whole team of people doing that for us. We have our own highly critical thinkers. But also, despite the frustration that they cause, our debunkers actually do a fairly good job of indicating which hypotheses are either poorly founded or easy to dismiss.
Both of those categories are important for us. We need to know what's true. But our promotional efforts also demand that we be aware of which hypotheses are easiest to shoot down by more popular and less logical reasoning. An example of the first would be ScrewLooseChange challenging the manner in which LC2 deals with the hole in the Pentagon. An example of the second would be the manner in which Mark Roberts uses soundbite logic to counter any claims made by the movement. We can't ignore the fact that some of our claims are more easy to shoot down than others in the public eye.
This comes back to presenting the best of what we have to offer with a clear understanding of not only our most important evidence that might be the foundation of criminal proceedings, but also which topics passed the debunking test. In other words, which topics are most difficult to logically or maliciously challenge.
Trying to figure all that out is a process that has no necessary boundary lines other than trying not to waste our time. A problem arises when those promoting 9/11 truth do not fully investigate the present state of our research. Promotional strategy must be derived from the relationship between the content and the audience. Without a firm grasp of both, we see many people stumbling around.
Some of them are promoting speculation that they aren't all that good at defending. Some of them have whole websites that lack a clear distinction between research and promotion.
This movement has well established probable cause to suspect that there was some degree of complicity. That probable cause is sound without the inclusion of what happened after the planes hit their targets. AND...that happens to be exactly what the MSM uses to marginalize our view. "So you really think Bush blew up the towers?" "So you're one of those people who thinks a missile hit the Pentagon."
Pragmatically speaking, we need to present the best of what we have and avoid falling into traps very likely set for us by those trying to cover their tracks. As a result I don't talk much about what happened after the planes hit the buildings. None of that would have been possible without complicity.
I certainly encourage everyone to investigate these concerns. We have pages here on CD and the Pentagon. Some of the evidence related to these concerns in essential to the movement. Some of it less so. Ultimately we really want people to simply see a difference between what we talk about with each other and which issues they use to introduce the topic. People can always get into this and dig up all the loose ends. But we need to be hitting everyone with the strongest case we have to offer.
Truthmover, your first post in this thread with the 3 points would make a good article, and you've expanded on those points in the subsequent posts here; if you've already written an article on this subject, please post the link here, or if you will write an article, please email me the link when it's done; i'd like to see it over at opednews.com; you could post it yourself there, or i'll submit it for you.
Thanks for the encouragement. I've spent a lot of time posting here and at TruthAction over the past year. That tends to involve a fair amount of repetition which leads to a stronger ability to summarize. I really think I've improved as a writer on these forums.
I think a pragmatic review of some of the pitfalls we face might be beneficial to some. That third point about the likelihood that the movement was anticipated is most compelling to me. Many look away from the possible implications of this as it for some leads to pessimism and a feeling that we are up against impossible odds. I view this quite differently.
We have to become as familiar as possible with the tactics that are being use against us. Learning more about the history of government intervention in social movements allows you to fashion a more practical and effective strategy in the present. And without a practical strategy, we may very well fall into a trap set for us.
Here's another view on the potential for our actions to be entirely ineffective.
http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/1151?replies=...
"Most of what is commonly referred to as “political activism†is viewed by the corporate state’s counterinsurgency apparatus as a useful and necessary component of political control.
Political activism amounts to an utterly useless waste of time, in terms of tangible power, which is all the American Corporate State understands. Political activism is a cruel guise that is sold to people who are dissatisfied, but who have no concept of the nature of tangible power. Counterinsurgency teams routinely monitor these activities, attend the meetings, join the groups and take on leadership roles in the organizations." - Militant Electronic Piracy
How then do we turn our activism into tangible power? How do we take action without inadvertently satisfying the interests of those who have power? These are questions that people should not shy away from considering.
Do you have any thoughts about how I could focus some of this into a article? I always have a hard time with how broad or narrow to be.
thanks for that link, and imho, you're already a good writer. Posting comments and getting responses over the past few years helped me refine my own views/skills to the point of being willing to start post articles and diaries this year, so I know what you mean. That's great you're unsure of how broad or narrow to make it; that means you can write at least 2 articles on the subject, maybe several. Marketing research shows us people need to see an ad an average of 7 times before purchasing. Your article may be immediately forgotten or not even seen by most (info overload), but at least one and possibly thousands will think it's great- at least for the ideas and links. With each article under your belt, you're more experienced and confident.
advice:
1) Use a word processing program (of course) 2) Bang on your keyboard til you get something you're willing to have reposted all over the world. It may be ready for publication before you think it is; at some point take a chance, unless you're sure it still sucks. Readers in the blogosphere, imho, are forgiving of stuff that could be better worded, as long as your intentions and links are good, and your points are relevant and clear. 3) Read the comments, laugh at the trolls, take what's useful and edit/fill out the article even more.
I've got a draft article germinating on how to blog; thanx for asking my advice, i'll probably incorporate some of what i wrote here.
You must log in to post.