Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
I think 9/11 was an inside job, the photos were as fake as the story of Barbara Olsen's phone calls, it was done by unconventional means, and the passengers are still alive.
Having worked for a short time as a civilian on a military base, I know that the military uses child molestation to entrap people so that they can be blackmailed and controlled. A child-molesting ring was busted at the base where I worked. A guy had been molesting his grown daughters since they'd been infants and they never said a word because they were some kind of Christian fundamentalists who believed that the male head of the family can do whatever he wants. But they also condemned homosexuality, so when one of the daughters walked in and caught the guy raping his six-month-old grandson, she was afraid that the kid would grow up to be gay and went to the cops. Somehow they'd forgotten to explain to her that same-sex sex was okay as long as the one person was underage. The entire base defended the guy and everyone was so angry with the daughter for turning him in that she had to leave town. He got something like a 6-month sentence, if I remember correctly. The child-care center run by another known child-molester at the base remained open. I got fired for blowing the whistle on overt sexual and racial harassment and discrimination. Of the 3,000 civilian employees at that base, I believe there were three, including me, who weren't married or related to somebody else who worked there and didn't belong to a fundamentalist Christian church. It was a cesspool and was shut down years ago during a round of base closings.
As for truth, be it JFK truth or 9/11 truth, it simply isn't relevant to most people's lives. Those who rely on a government paycheck know enough to keep their mouths shut, go along to get along, don't rock the boat, and never question authority. Whistleblowers are quickly fired and thenceforth described as disgruntled former employees with no credibility. Anyone with credibility is not to be believed even if it seems like they're telling the truth. You can't stay in the system long enough to get credibility if you're not corrupt. There are a few exceptions like Jim and Dave Griscom, but for the most part it's a good rule of thumb.
I've been banned from various websites over the years for mentioning JFK, RFK, MLK, COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, racism, sexism, genocide for profit (the industry this country was founded upon and continues to this day), that slavery was never abolished (try abolishing the death penalty except as legal punishment for a crime, eh?), corporate rule, election fraud, the two-party good cop/bad cop scam, that we never had a democracy or a republic (if you can't hold your elected officials accountable DURING their terms of office, you cannot exercise your will through them--you can merely petition them the same way any subjects can petition tyrants), and other taboo topics.
I'm accustomed to the sort of mass attacks described by Lee, Thoth, and others above, where the moment I say something that isn't on the approved list, I get called names and piled on by teams of political party operatives, disinfo agents, astroturfers, and assorted other cyber-hit squads. I'm accustomed to having whole topics and sometimes even everything I've ever posted on that site deleted. I'm accustomed to being banned, or if they want to be cute, "permanently suspended," which is the same thing.
I don't have any credentials or credibility myself and I never did. but I've been on Jim's podcast and he can tell you, if he feels like it, that I know what I'm talking about. And I'm still learning.
So here's an off-topic for ya.
This country has never had free and fair elections. The Constitution put several firewalls between the popular vote and the Presidency. We have no right of recall at the federal level. Our Supreme court, an unelected body whose decisions cannot be appealed, is incompatible with the most basic principles of democracy. When the only two Presidential candidates with any chance of winning are both committed to wars and bailouts, the results of the "election," i.e., wars and bailouts, are predetermined no matter how many people vote or who they vote for, so it isn't an election. For there to be an election, there has to be more than one choice. If the President can be sworn into office before it is possible to finish counting the popular vote, you do not have a democratic form of government because power is not vested in the hands of the people and the popular vote does not determine the results of the "election."
The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. They demonstrate this consent by holding elections. Your vote is your consent. It is your consent to be governed by whoever wins, not necessarily by who you voted for. In a recent Rasmussen Reports poll, only 21% of voters believed that this government has the consent of the governed. The other 79% don't understand that they gave their consent when they voted. A vote is not necessarily an indication of democracy. Stalin held elections, he required people to vote, he counted the votes, and he always won. Nobody fought and died for the right toi cast a vote in a Stalinist-style election where there is no way to verify that the votes were counted accurately. An uncounted or flipped (miscounted) vote is not a voice in government, it is not a precious right, it is consent to be governed by people who don't even bother to count your vote.
I'm an election boycott advocate. I don't think that the best way to bring about peace is by voting for war. I think that people who vote, who delegate their power, grant their authority, and give their consent of the governed to officials they can't hold accountable, don't care about their country or even about themselves, are totally irresponsible, and shouldn't be calling people who DO care, "apathetic."
During a President's term of office, they can cause irreparable harm. They can start, continue, or expand wars that kill millions of people, torture people they know to be innocent, allow the environment to be polluted in ways that can never be cleaned up, such as with depleted uranium, and such harms cannot be undone by voting for somebody different in a subsequent election. The dead cannot be brought back to life, the broken cannot be untortured, and the toxins in our air, food, water, and in our bodies and our children's and grandchildren's bodies, cannot be removed. Many of those toxins are cumulative.
But the potential benefits to be gained from elections, such as civil, human, or reproductive rights, health care, jobs, etc., are temporary and can be taken away by Congress, the Supreme Court, or a new election. For many, the possibility of temporary benefits outweighs the risks of permanent harms. These are not critical thinkers.
Those who encourage voting say that if you don't vote the bad guys will win. I guess they believe that our oligarchy consists of good guys because people voted.
They say that if you don't vote, you can't complain. King George didn't let the colonists vote and the Declaration of Independence is a long list of complaints. The right to gripe is an inalienable right, you don't get it by voting. If you complain that you got screwed, the first thing you're going to be asked is if you gave your consent. Your vote is your consent. If you vote, you can't complain because you consented. It may be that you're going to get screwed anyway, but you don't have to consent, and if you wish to preserve your right to complain it is probably a good idea not to consent.
They say that not voting is giving up and doing nothing. They'd rather keep jumping off the cliff than stop, take stock, and consider if they really want to go in that direction. It is better to do nothing than to do something that isn't in your own best interests.
They point to voter purges and attempts at disenfranchisement as evidence that the powers that be don't want people to vote. It doesn't occur to them that while a few million may be spent on preventing people from voting, over a billion will be spent on getting out the vote. The oligarchy doesn't spend a billion dollars getting out the vote because they don't want people to vote. The purges and disenfranchisement are attempts to make votes appear to be valuable. Uncounted votes aren't valuable. Votes in elections where the results are predetermined aren't valuable. Votes for candidates you can't hold accountable aren't valuable. The only value of a vote is that a tyranny can point to the fact that people voted as evidence that it has the consent of the governed.
Our CIA has been rigging elections in other countries for decades. Anyone who thinks they haven't been doing the same thing here, doesn't understand how the people who pulled off 9/11 got themselves in positions where they could control our air space, our media, any investigations, and anything else they needed to ensure that they could do whatever they wanted to do with absolute impunity. Vince Salandria and his group of early JFK assassination researchers nailed it--only those who can control the cover-up are capable of getting away with a crime.
I love open topics. Thanks, Jim and Sandy, and anyone who bothered to read this. ;)
Ours friends at CTC will be featuring a show on conspiracies looks like sunday night. I will be real disappointed if the guest goes down one of those obfuscation roads so common to this field. I do not like the label CT, it implies "kook" and that was originally done by the CIA in the 60s to label guys like Mark Lane to cover their tracks on JFK. They saw it working then, so they superimposed it onto our modern situation, and now the young people , born in the dust, can't sort it out. Those evil SOBs knew what they were doing in terms of confusing the public and neutralizing the opposition. As I get each year older, I get more and more ticked off because I realize now that it was not only my generation they shafted, but now I see the young people and I wonder about their futures too.
please tell me what time is this program and what channel. thanks a million! dr segarra
Thoth, the athenticity of the videos was questioned by several theories:
- No plane theories, all videos are holograms! That's totally crazy.
- Planes were not the claimed ones, especially UA175 on WTC2; no windows visibles, so it was not a civil aircraft! This is a little bit less crazy, but at that altitide, and speed the windows were not visibles.
Any way, do not waste our time and credibility; after 9 years any theorist should be able to give a complete scenario of his theory. If you have any complete and evidence supported theory explaining how the strikes were made, and why they were made in such manner, I am listening you. Without such arguments, seperated alone arguments like the windows of the plane is useless, time, energy and credibility waste.