Do You Want 9/11 To Become Accepted Like The JFK Assassination?

Do You Want 9/11 To Become Accepted Like The JFK Assassination?

I was talking to Uber Commandante the other night about what he thinks will happen in regards to 9/11. Will they be held accountable? Will the people of America finally wake up?

His response was to say that 9/11 will probably become accepted like the JFK assassination. The majority of Americans think there was a mass conspiracy behind the JFK assassination, yet, nothing has ever been done about it. Instead, Americans are content with the idea that there was a conspiracy, but there's nothing they can do about it.

It has become an interesting topic of discussion at parties, and with friends, and nothing more.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I let 9/11 go. So much wrong is being done. So much death, and destruction, and it all stems from the 9/11 attacks. If the possibility exists that we can hold those responsible, accountable, and change the course of history, isn't it worth the effort?

Would you like it if the "9/11 Conspiracy" eventually became an interesting topic of discussion, and nothing more?

If your answer is no, then can you please try to devote at least 1 hour a week to 9/11 Truth? Just one.

Let's give the people something REALLY interesting to talk about.

The time when we, the people, took back our country.

JFK assasination almost doesnt compare in scope to 9/11.

Obviously they killed him because he didnt want to play ball, but if you think about the acts committed on 9/11, the scope is almost to big to grasp fully.

I think thats the major issue we have when spreading the truth. Most Americans look at 9/11 and the massive scale it would spam if they were to believe it is a conspriracy. It's like people see it and think to themselves, there is no way in hell they could pull off something of this magnitude at it not be obvious.

To us, the answer is obvious. To others, they prefer the simple answer.

I want this exposed, I want the people responsible to hang. I want my country back.

1 hour a week? im at least a 1 hour a day guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

1 hour a week? im at least a 1 hour a day guy.

---

This was directed towards those who aren't doing anything.

you should post this on RawStory and C&L. shame them into doing some basic research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

you should post this on RawStory and C&L. shame them into doing some basic research.

---

Let my minions do it. Go forth minion.

911 is not like jfk, cuz the gov't wasnt' going around yrs after the shooting saying Oswald is gonna shoot you too! the threat level of Oswald shooting you in the head is RED!!! I'm starting to think that 911 truth aint gonna do it on its own, it needs to be a one/two punch of 9/11 truth (also known as repealing the National Security Act and associated global intellegence agencies) AND Truth about the Federal Reserve/ IRS. check this interview of Aaron Russon about his film "America-Freedom to Fascism: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=aaron+russo

A great post!
Copied it, with a couple of comments.

Cool.

I think the biggest difference between 9/11 and JFK (other than the obvious) is that, with JFK, you know it was the govnt but no one knows exactly who or why. With 9/11 you know exactly who did it and why. People can and will be held accoutable for this. With JFK there's no one to go after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius

With 9/11 you know exactly who did it and why.

---

I don't. I don't have enough evidence to specify who played what role in it.

Yes, I know the official story is bullshit. But that is not enough to consider the investigation over and done with.

never!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borepstein

I don't. I don't have enough evidence to specify who played what role in it.

Yes, I know the official story is bullshit. But that is not enough to consider the investigation over and done with.

---

Well obviously you've got Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Rice, and a couple of top Generals who can all be directly tied to 9/11 with solid undisputable proof. As far as the exact roles, that can be figure out later with the investagation. Think of it like a heist movie, if you know the guys who did it and have the proof, who did what is irrelivent exept for the sentencing part. Now if your going to sentence masterminds for the murder of 3,000 people, the exact roles wouldn't mean anything because being associated with something on that magnitude is about as serious as it gets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius

Well obviously you've got Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Rice, and a couple of top Generals who can all be directly tied to 9/11 with solid undisputable proof. As far as the exact roles, that can be figure out later with the investagation. Think of it like a heist movie, if you know the guys who did it and have the proof, who did what is irrelivent exept for the sentencing part. Now if your going to sentence masterminds for the murder of 3,000 people, the exact roles wouldn't mean anything because being associated with something on that magnitude is about as serious as it gets.

---

Well, I don't see indisputable proof.

Now I am not a fan of the persons in question so if that proof surfaces I am definitely not going to have a problem with proceeding based on it but i have yet to see that happen.

As for your heist analogy - well, it works but don't forget that in the heist operation it still does matter who provides a getaway car and who shoots the victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borepstein

Well, I don't see indisputable proof.

Now I am not a fan of the persons in question so if that proof surfaces I am definitely not going to have a problem with proceeding based on it but i have yet to see that happen.

As for your heist analogy - well, it works but don't forget that in the heist operation it still does matter who provides a getaway car and who shoots the victims.

---

The wargames would be the biggest piece of evidence as well as Bush's staged actions that day, the fact that Marvin Bush worked for the security company which handled the WTC and that whole thing. And so on and so on....

As far the heist analogy goes, yeah it's important to figure out who did what and get the complete picture, but when your even an accessory to the murder of 3,000 people, your in deep shit. If you drove the getaway car for someone who just killed that many people, it's wont exactly be the same sentence as driving for a small bank robbery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius

The wargames would be the biggest piece of evidence as well as Bush's staged actions that day, the fact that Marvin Bush worked for the security company which handled the WTC and that whole thing. And so on and so on....

As far the heist analogy goes, yeah it's important to figure out who did what and get the complete picture, but when your even an accessory to the murder of 3,000 people, your in deep shit. If you drove the getaway car for someone who just killed that many people, it's wont exactly be the same sentence as driving for a small bank robbery.

---

The evidence you are talking about is circumstantial. Yes, this - and many other facts - are strong circumstantial evidence. I have yet to see any direct evidence, though.

As for who gets how much shit - with charges like that no one is gonna' get a small amount, that for sure. Yet I still insist we ought to resist temptation to even mentally convict people without sufficient evidence - regardless of how much we dmight etest those people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borepstein

The evidence you are talking about is circumstantial. Yes, this - and many other facts - are strong circumstantial evidence. I have yet to see any direct evidence, though.

---

It seem then that you have not been paying attention.

Solid physical evidence is at hand, more than enough to secure indictments, and it is a body of evidence that is still growing.

The real question is can we get the proper investigation and even move this show along to the trial phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond

It seem then that you have not been paying attention.

Solid physical evidence is at hand, more than enough to secure indictments, and it is a body of evidence that is still growing.

The real question is can we get the proper investigation and even move this show along to the trial phase.

---

Well, maybe... What are you referring to as "solid physical evidence is at hand"?

Also, don't forget that it is one thing to indict someone on a charge and yet another thing to secure a conviction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borepstein

Well, maybe... What are you referring to as "solid physical evidence is at hand"?

Also, don't forget that it is one thing to indict someone on a charge and yet another thing to secure a conviction.

---

(:) Thank you for your patience. I was in a bit of a mood last night.)

In the middle of this page, I believe:

http://www.911blogger.com/2006_06_01...g_archive.html

Personally, I find it to be damn compelling evidence. It is, I believe, the proverbial smoking gun.

Yeah, people will want to bitch and squabble over chain of custody of this evidence, but come on. It was the government that had (and still has) the responsibility of addressing these same very basic (thirteen) points, but chose instead to “scrub” the crime scene and continues to be noncompliant in turning over the physical evidence for examination. That combination of criminal actions on the part of the government and rediscovery of meaningful physical evidence by the people, along with a much, much more plausible explanation of what took place on 9/11 is quite powerful, IMHO.

If public awareness is raised about these salient points (and more), then the government may find itself facing a very unhappy power: the people. (I’m not totally sure how the “psychology” of all this will ultimately play out across millions of people, though. I think that is where we come in with regard to how the activism is conducted.)

And let’s take it a step further with regard to investigation of the physical evidence. Even if the government runs tests on the some of the evidence it is illegitimately withholding, those results are already quite suspect, given that they have destroyed their credibility with those ridiculously “unscientific” FEMA and NIST reports. (NIST had better be really, really careful what they say about building 7, but so far their actions of non-transparency indicate they are likely to continue "lying.") What physical evidence might remain needs to be sent out for testing in many labs, etc. and the body of people that directs this process should be carefully scrutinized, etc. – certainly none of these NIST and FEMA people should be allowed to participate at all.

Well, as you point out, there will always be that gap between indictment and prosecution.

Fast forwarding past the investigation phase: where might we expect this “case” to be heard? The civil courts are blocking it and congress is not doing as they are required, which is to allow and perhaps participate in a transparent and honest investigation. Obviously the depths of corruption in congress make it rather difficult to know who to trust; congress has pretty much destroyed its credibility with the people. (Aren’t their poll numbers even lower than the executive branch? This leads me to the conclusion that the government finds itself in a position where it might want to appoint a suitable proxy and stand down along with detention of the usual suspects until this whole "affair" is resolved, no? Perhaps the "military" branches of the government could agree to let the secret service handle this transition would be my suggestion to these people at the moment, but again, I don't really know who to trust anymore.)

I’m seeing that public awareness is the best crop that we can cultivate at the moment.

And the answer is no, I don’t want this to end up “accepted” like the JFK assass.

What's up YouCrazyDiamond. Good to have you here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond

(:) Thank you for your patience. I was in a bit of a mood last night.)

In the middle of this page, I believe:

http://www.911blogger.com/2006_06_01...g_archive.html

Personally, I find it to be damn compelling evidence. It is, I believe, the proverbial smoking gun.

Yeah, people will want to bitch and squabble over chain of custody of this evidence, but come on. It was the government that had (and still has) the responsibility of addressing these same very basic (thirteen) points, but chose instead to “scrub” the crime scene and continues to be noncompliant in turning over the physical evidence for examination. That combination of criminal actions on the part of the government and rediscovery of meaningful physical evidence by the people, along with a much, much more plausible explanation of what took place on 9/11 is quite powerful, IMHO.

If public awareness is raised about these salient points (and more), then the government may find itself facing a very unhappy power: the people. (I’m not totally sure how the “psychology” of all this will ultimately play out across millions of people, though. I think that is where we come in with regard to how the activism is conducted.)

And let’s take it a step further with regard to investigation of the physical evidence. Even if the government runs tests on the some of the evidence it is illegitimately withholding, those results are already quite suspect, given that they have destroyed their credibility with those ridiculously “unscientific” FEMA and NIST reports. (NIST had better be really, really careful what they say about building 7, but so far their actions of non-transparency indicate they are likely to continue "lying.") What physical evidence might remain needs to be sent out for testing in many labs, etc. and the body of people that directs this process should be carefully scrutinized, etc. – certainly none of these NIST and FEMA people should be allowed to participate at all.

Well, as you point out, there will always be that gap between indictment and prosecution.

Fast forwarding past the investigation phase: where might we expect this “case” to be heard? The civil courts are blocking it and congress is not doing as they are required, which is to allow and perhaps participate in a transparent and honest investigation. Obviously the depths of corruption in congress make it rather difficult to know who to trust; congress has pretty much destroyed its credibility with the people. (Aren’t their poll numbers even lower than the executive branch? This leads me to the conclusion that the government finds itself in a position where it might want to appoint a suitable proxy and stand down along with detention of the usual suspects until this whole "affair" is resolved, no? Perhaps the "military" branches of the government could agree to let the secret service handle this transition would be my suggestion to these people at the moment, but again, I don't really know who to trust anymore.)

I’m seeing that public awareness is the best crop that we can cultivate at the moment.

And the answer is no, I don’t want this to end up “accepted” like the JFK assass.

---

Don't worry, everything is fine - no need to apologize:)

Now, let's see... The links on the page you bring up are clickable - could you tell me which precise articles you want me to read (there's just quite a few of them there).

As for the governmenta lcrisis that might ensue - yes, any direct evidence implicating the US gvernment in 9/11 would be the biggest crisis in the history of this country. It is just that I have yet to see that evidence.

Yeah, I know there are lots of clickable links, but I figure it can't be too hard to figure out which one I mean.

He appears to me to be going about the science in a very methodical manner, which is to say that I doubt he is committing the same error as Ponds and Fleischman.

I mean these tests and the qualitative interpretation of the results are more or less trivial in the world of physics and chemistry.

And that crap published by FEMA and NIST would not get published in any credible, front-line, peer reviewed journals read by “real” scientists from many disciplines; e.g., Science and Nature come to mind.

Even if it did get published in such a journal, I’d hope that “real” scientists would at that point go ballistic, because then it would finally be put right in their face and they would perhaps find it more difficult to look away from the truth anymore.

(Perhaps you have to understand that when a “real” scientist reads a report, we rip it apart from limb to limb and put it back together. When it does not go back together properly, we get more than a little suspicious and begin looking for a better model that describes the results.)

That crap put forward by FEMA and NIST is some serious junk science. They ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. And judging by all the disclaimers, etc. in the beginning of those reports, they are.

Quote:

---

(Perhaps you have to understand that when a “real” scientist reads a report, we rip it apart from limb to limb and put it back together. When it does not go back together properly, we get more than a little suspicious and begin looking for a better model that describes the results.)

---

Edit to change "results" to "observations" in the above quote.

And in case you have not noticed, we humans are really quite good at determining with a high degree of precision the physics behind such processes as the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11.

Quote:

---

Ponds and Fleischman

---

Sorry about that misspelling. "Ponds" should be “Pons.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond

Yeah, I know there are lots of clickable links, but I figure it can't be too hard to figure out which one I mean.

He appears to me to be going about the science in a very methodical manner, which is to say that I doubt he is committing the same error as Ponds and Fleischman.

---

Maybe it is not too hard but I failed.

More likely than not I know what you are talking about as I have spent quite some time studying 9/11 and writing about it (see my site).

Hey good site man... I must be the only one in here that doesn't have a seperate site. I will make this ok to myself with the justification that the world needs readers of sites too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borepstein

Now, let's see... The links on the page you bring up are clickable - could you tell me which precise articles you want me to read (there's just quite a few of them there).

---

so many links and so little time ...

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/dr...owerpoint.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond

so many links and so little time ...

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/dr...owerpoint.html

---

Thanks, thsi was an excellent presentation. I never heard about that government-allied structural engineer trying to pressure Prof. Jones.

I ma familiar with the case Jones is making. He effectively proves that the official story about how the WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapsed is a sham. I have been saying things like that about the whole official story for quite some time.

But it does not contain any direct proof of the government's involvement.

Establishing that the events of 9/11 involved CD (along with the many, many other facts of what occurred on that day) and applying the investigative principle “means, motive, and opportunity,” I’d have to ask you, “Who else could it be?”

And, of course, it wasn’t just the government. It was the “government,” which includes many other nefarious characters, such as starvin' Marvn'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond

Establishing that the events of 9/11 involved CD (along with the many, many other facts of what occurred on that day) and applying the investigative principle “means, motive, and opportunity,” I’d have to ask you, “Who else could it be?”

And, of course, it wasn’t just the government. It was the “government,” which includes many other nefarious characters, such as starvin' Marvn'.

---

The "means, motive, opportunity" approach has its fauls. Sometimes all that is required is "opportunity" - in other words, completely irrational crimes do happen, and not so infrequently.

As for "who else" - I could give you a whole list of potenital culprits: Al Qaeda or other Muslim radicals (an irrational show of force), Israel (in order to frame such radicals), the Chinese (they benefit from the US being entangled in a "long war") and many others. I am not saying that I favor any of those hypothesis - this is just to illustrate that the list of potenital culprits is a long one and you should not limit your search to just one culprit.

What I find most damning is that whoever the culprit is there is hardly any doubt to the fact that the US government went to incredible lengths to cover for them. But that in itself does not provide complete proof of the US government's participation in the events themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by borepstein

As for "who else" - I could give you a whole list of potenital culprits: Al Qaeda or other Muslim radicals (an irrational show of force), Israel (in order to frame such radicals), the Chinese (they benefit from the US being entangled in a "long war") and many others. I am not saying that I favor any of those hypothesis - this is just to illustrate that the list of potenital culprits is a long one and you should not limit your search to just one culprit.

What I find most damning is that whoever the culprit is there is hardly any doubt to the fact that the US government went to incredible lengths to cover for them. But that in itself does not provide complete proof of the US government's participation in the events themselves.

---

What would constitute “complete” proof for you?

I’m not too concerned at the moment about who else might be involved, as the internally placed criminals are the most menacing aspect of this whole situation. These people are, after all, in control of the most powerful military on the planet … at least for the moment.

But really, who would “they” be conducting such a cover-up for? Wouldn’t it be in “their” best interests to expose the guilty party and take it from there? It certainly can not be some nonsense of creating a distraction so that the “real” enemy does not suspect they are in the cross-hairs; most of our resources and attention are directed at the current events in and around Iraq and Afghanistan (along with evading Congress, subverting various government institutions and political heritage, spying on us, and more, I’m sure).

Furthermore, even if I were to entertain the idea that various “people” in our society are only involved in a cover-up, I’d have to point out that accessory after the fact in this case will likely carry the same level of punishment as would direct operational involvement in carrying out the crimes. But I’ve thoughtfully dismissed that idea based on the mountains of evidence compiled to date.

Nor, can it effectively be reasoned that “they” were acting in my best interests. That is generally just a pretext for the “most horrid enormities” that all too often are soon to follow. What I’ve “observed” first hand for the last few decades resonates quite strongly with the wisdom expressed by George Washington in his farewell address about how this takes place. (Today, some of us are referring to this situation as a nightmare, and the struggle is to help others realize this is the case so that we can work together to wake up already.)

And how on earth (short of having transporter technology) can anybody else get into the WTC buildings to precisely place so many demolition devices? (Considering that these buildings were known to be targets for horrid acts, the security was reasonably expected to be better looked after than in most buildings, etc. Do you have any idea what security procedures look and feel like in such a place? They are fairly thorough, checking and tracking most everything that comes into the building, etc.)

Along with all the other mountains of facts, the rather precise placement of the three Bush brothers in 2000-2001 is extremely compelling “evidence,” IMHO. These types of inferences based on circumstantial evidence do in fact carry a great deal of weight when deducing the most probable “story” of what happened. (The issue, as far as I can tell, is not whether or not “they” are guilty, because it is too obvious that they are; it is a matter of how to get the general population to see that this is so.)

As far as I’m concerned, I have the real enemy in the cross-hairs, and they should know in no uncertain terms that I’m coming to get them. Who am I? I’m the people, ultimately an even greater power then “they” are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YouCrazyDiamond

What would constitute “complete” proof for you?

I’m not too concerned at the moment about who else might be involved, as the internally placed criminals are the most menacing aspect of this whole situation. These people are, after all, in control of the most powerful military on the planet … at least for the moment.

But really, who would “they” be conducting such a cover-up for? Wouldn’t it be in “their” best interests to expose the guilty party and take it from there? It certainly can not be some nonsense of creating a distraction so that the “real” enemy does not suspect they are in the cross-hairs; most of our resources and attention are directed at the current events in and around Iraq and Afghanistan (along with evading Congress, subverting various government institutions and political heritage, spying on us, and more, I’m sure).

Furthermore, even if I were to entertain the idea that various “people” in our society are only involved in a cover-up, I’d have to point out that accessory after the fact in this case will likely carry the same level of punishment as would direct operational involvement in carrying out the crimes. But I’ve thoughtfully dismissed that idea based on the mountains of evidence compiled to date.

Nor, can it effectively be reasoned that “they” were acting in my best interests. That is generally just a pretext for the “most horrid enormities” that all too often are soon to follow. What I’ve “observed” first hand for the last few decades resonates quite strongly with the wisdom expressed by George Washington in his farewell address about how this takes place. (Today, some of us are referring to this situation as a nightmare, and the struggle is to help others realize this is the case so that we can work together to wake up already.)

And how on earth (short of having transporter technology) can anybody else get into the WTC buildings to precisely place so many demolition devices? (Considering that these buildings were known to be targets for horrid acts, the security was reasonably expected to be better looked after than in most buildings, etc. Do you have any idea what security procedures look and feel like in such a place? They are fairly thorough, checking and tracking most everything that comes into the building, etc.)

Along with all the other mountains of facts, the rather precise placement of the three Bush brothers in 2000-2001 is extremely compelling “evidence,” IMHO. These types of inferences based on circumstantial evidence do in fact carry a great deal of weight when deducing the most probable “story” of what happened. (The issue, as far as I can tell, is not whether or not “they” are guilty, because it is too obvious that they are; it is a matter of how to get the general population to see that this is so.)

As far as I’m concerned, I have the real enemy in the cross-hairs, and they should know in no uncertain terms that I’m coming to get them. Who am I? I’m the people, ultimately an even greater power then “they” are.

---

I am sorry, I should have said "direct proof" as opposed to "complete proof".

Yes, there is no direct evidence t the fact that the US government participated in those attacks.

Circumstantial evidence is stong, as I have already stated. You are right to say that the coverup is a damning piece of evidence; you are incorrect in saying that the WTC security could not have been compromised by a third party. yes, I have an idea as to what kind of procedures they had; I also know that no procedure is 100% efficient.