The government's lies are obvious, but some skeptics are far more subtle

[Guest guest]

r

Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:09:59 -0400

Subject:The government's lies are obvious, but some skeptics are far

more subt

 

 

 

The government's lies are obvious,

but some skeptics are far more subtle

 

By John Kaminski

skylax

 

People ask me about 9/11, understandably enough, since I've written

many articles about it, and I do a lot of radio interviews — all for

free — to try to warn people that the government's explanation is not

true.

 

I invariably tell them that the most damning pieces of evidence are

the government's own provable lies, which include the failure to

conduct a legitimate investigation into the events of that tragic day,

the instantaneous blaming of terrorists in caves in Afghanistan, and

the preposterously phony commission that took its place in history

along with the Warren Commission as a glaring political swindle.

 

The best piece of evidence that shows the U.S. government was involved

in the planning and execution of the 9/11 disasters is simply the

responses uttered by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary

Rumsfeld, and military chief of staff Myers immediately after the attacks.

 

(See http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm)

 

They all feigned surprise, and said they hadn't realized this kind of

disaster could happen.

 

Yet, their lies were exposed mere hours later when the FBI released

the 19 names of the alleged hijackers, indicating the government had

been tracking these individuals for months. If they didn't know it

could happen, how did they know the names of the hijackers?

 

These lies were further amplified more recently with the revelation

outlined by " October Surprise " author Barbara

 

Honegger (see the bottom of

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html#coincidence)

 

that the government was running various drills on Sept. 11, 2001 using

airplanes as weapons, so when top government officials denied they

knew of the threat of fuel-laden planes slamming into buildings could

actually happen, they were actually running multiple drills to prevent

this very thing from happening —

 

ON THAT VERY DAY. How's that for chutzpah?

 

So despite the total mainstream media news blackout on these facts,

the apparent unwillingness of a majority of Americans (especially

elected officials and law enforcement officers) to confront their

government over these obvious lies, virtually everyone else in the

world knows the real story, that the U.S. government has lied

continually about what happened on 9/11, and this is what gave birth

to the worldwide 9/11 skeptics movement.

 

Three other obvious items also have contributed to this widespread

disbelief in anything the American government says about terrorism in

general or 9/11 in particular:

 

1. In addition to the failure to objectively investigate what happened

on 9/11, President Bush and his sycophants did everything possible to

stonewall investigators they themselves appointed from gathering

relevant information, AND, ordered the destruction and/or suppression

of evidence (primarily audio and video evidence) extremely germane to

an accurate judgment of what actually happened.

 

2. To this day, the American government has never produced a shred of

evidence (other than fabricated and unconvincing so-called intelligence

on the order of some of the infamous Iraq fictions) linking either Osama

bin Laden or so-called Islamic terrorists to the attacks.

 

3. The military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that followed 9/11

and were advertised as a response to 9/11 " terror " were actually

planned PRIOR to 9/11.

 

So, despite all the coverups and the cynical blackout of these

skeptical contentions by mainstream media, the whole world knows what

the American people do not — that the American government is

undoubtedly responsible for the mass murders of 9/11, the lives of

nearly 3,000 American citizens sacrificed for the secretive financial

planning of those who wished to foment a permanent war against the

Muslims and profit mightily from this evil enterprise.

 

That this conclusion has not swept through the collective American

mind and resulted in mass arrests of rich bureaucrats in Washington is

primarily due to two factors:

 

• The corporate censorship of the Zionist-controlled mainstream media,

which are as complicit as treasonous government officials in suppressing

facts that would reveal the real story ...

 

• And the American people themselves, who have been dumbed down into a

frightened coma by the combination of a mind-dulling educational

system in which critical thinking is discouraged; a food supply

infected with debilitating additives that diminish alertness; a

medical system eager to administer vaccines that create hidden

afflictions that has been corrupted by pharmaceutical giants eager to

peddle mind-numbing antidepressants; and mind-controlling, hateful

religions which preach fear and advocate the mass murder of strangers

as a way to demonstrate one's righteousness.

 

And that brings us to today.

At this very moment, a larger number of Americans than ever before is

ready to embrace the idea that something is very wrong with their

government's explanation about the curious disasters in New York,

Washington, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and how these disasters

have been exploited into a convenient excuse to attack oil-producing

nations around the world as well as curtail traditional civil

liberties at home.

 

But what happens when these finally brave individuals go looking for

alternative information about the unspeakable tragedy and cynical

deception that followed?

Total confusion is what.

 

Those who finally screw up their courage and say, " What I have heard

is not right, " are met with a bewildering array of competing theories,

endless arguments over technical minutia, and even some claims that

rely on high-tech film analysis that other skeptics, equally qualified

and ardent in their belief about government lies, dismiss as

suspicious fiction.

 

What is a person who seeks real answers to do?

Since I am person in that category, I have lately advised sticking to

the core issues that can be proven (rather than striving for a

mind-blowing smoking gun that no one could deny). Too many skeptics

are claiming they have " the " smoking gun, only to be ridiculed by

others who say they don't.

 

I myself have been subject to this ridicule, simply for advocating

sticking to the provable lies of the situation. My attitude led one

well-known so-called film analyst, Phil Jayhan of the infamous missile

theory featured in a very popular video now making the rounds, to

declaim that I didn't care about the people who died on 9/11.

 

It's good to know where people stand. Now there's no chance I'll ever

believe anything he says again, and it also makes it easier for me to

decide about the veracity of the film footage he has collected.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Sorry to take so long to unfold this.

I've spent many months thinking about these things. Most of all, I

don't want to disparage someone who doesn't deserve it. I am not a

principal 9/11 researcher. I am only a writer and an average citizen

trying to figure things out. It is with these mundane qualifications

that I, above all, try to keep my eye on the ball.

 

Number one is: try to catch the real perps. Every other revelation

must be subordinate to that goal. Many so-called 9/11 skeptics have

admitted by their actions that this is not their goal. They would

rather promote their particular theories than work toward catching the

culprits.

OK, on with the analysis.

 

Michael Moore's " Fahrenheit 9/11 " provided the first real crack in the

mainstream media mindlock about the coverup, and brought President

Bush's odd behavior to the attention of millions who wouldn't

otherwise have been forced to peruse it. This alone was of inestimable

value. But as time went on, critics noticed that Moore really didn't

touch on any of the core 9/11 issues, and worse, that he deflected

attention toward the Saudis and away from the Israelis. I think today

the prevailing opinion of the film is that it is merely Democratic

campaign propaganda which nevertheless at least brought attention to

the rapid erosion of American civil liberties, but didn't really get

to the meat of the 9/11 lies.

 

A subsequent video, " 9/11 In Plane Site, " has take over the lead in

popularity from the Moore film among those who wish to know about the

real facts of 9/11, and I shall return to this subject in a moment.

At present (late October 2004), the highest hopes for revealing the

true 9/11 story are vested in the new book, " Crossing the Rubicon, " by

Mike Ruppert, who since day one after the tragedy has established

himself as the No. 1 9/11 researcher through his From The Wilderness

website.

 

Perhaps because of competitive jealousy, perhaps through legitimate

concern, Ruppert has become the target of criticism from many other

9/11 researchers because of his decision to link his research focus to

Peak Oil, a concept that insists the real problem is that the world is

running out of oil, and that will create unprecedented chaos and

disaster in the very near future. It is an issue which many people do

not regard as legitimately connected to 9/11. Hence, some people feel

Ruppert is creating a distraction where none need exist.

 

This was certainly the case at a major 9/11 conference held recently

in San Francisco, which Ruppert's dominating presence managed to turn

into a conference on Peak Oil. Few deny that Peak Oil is an important

subject to talk about. But many, including me, don't see its relevance

to catching the 9/11 crooks, and hence regard it as a distraction from

the investigation.

 

Nevertheless, many people hold out hope that Ruppert's fingering of

Vice President Dick Cheney as the mastermind of the confusion that

allowed the terrorists to accomplish their evil objectives on 9/11

will lead to his prosecution for dereliction of duty and abetting the

terrorist enterprise.

 

However, others believe this line of inquiry is, in itself, a limited

hangout, because, in addition to maintaining the fiction that actual

hijackers flew the planes, it focuses on allowing the events to happen

rather than Cheney, Bush et all being responsible for the whole attack

scenario themselves.

 

So who can tell? Is Ruppert's effort a legitimate attempt to uncover

the real truth or a sophisticated labyrinth meant to limit damage and

deflect culpability?

 

And you can't say " only time will tell " because we're still debating

what happened in the assassinations of both Lincoln and Kennedy. The

fact is: sometimes we never do find out what happened.

 

A second hopeful sign in the public arena lately is the lawsuit filed

by San Francisco lawyer Stanley Hilton alleging that President Bush

and numerous other public officials conspired to let the 9/11 attacks

happen. This action is seeking billions of dollars in damages on

behalf of relatives of the 14 victims, and asserts Bush and his pals

stood to profit billions from the changed political atmosphere of the

United States that enabled them to wage profitable wars wherever and

whenever they wanted.

 

The Hilton lawsuit contains many legitimate criticisms of the 9/11

non-investigation and coverup that all make very interesting reading

for the unenlightened (see for a basic roundup

http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.21A.pitt.watchtower.htm), but like

Ruppert's angle of attack, it begs the question of who planned it, and

hence has similarly been critiqued as a limited hangout meant to

conceal the real planners of the event even as it aims to sacrifice

some truly big names to the wheels of justice.

 

So both of these well-known endeavors fail to address the heart of the

matter: who really did it? Who were the fat cats who run Bush and

Cheney (and Kerry and Edwards, for that matter) from the deep, dark

shadows of incredible wealth that put together this demonic plan to

change the character of American civilization from nominally insular

innocence to outwardly aggressive depravity?

 

Though the efforts by Ruppert and Hilton are generating a lot of hope

amongst those who believe in their hearts that America has become an

evil corporate cyborg eliminating as many actually honest humans as

possible, the deeper possibility exists that they are exotic,

extremely well-thought-out parts of the greater coverup designed to

sacrifice a few high-level patsies in order to protect the demonic

billionaires who thought the whole thing up in the first place.

 

Which leads us back to the popular video, " 9/11 In Plane Site, " which

has probably recruited more people to the 9/11 skeptics cause than any

other single maneuver. But the big question — and the giant shadow

that it casts over the whole 9/11 skeptics movement — is: Is it real?

And more importantly? What happens if it isn't?

 

Effective disinformation always contains large amounts of factual

truth contaminated with small but devastating germs of falsehood,

which when discovered, undermine the credibility of all the facts in

the package.

 

According to some observers, notably Brian Salter of the respected

website questionquestions.net, " 9/11 In Plane Site " contains a factual

inaccuracy in a segment known as " the plume footage. " Narrator Dave

Von Kleist states in the film that this plume of smoke began rising

from the base of the Twin Towers BEFORE either of the towers began to

fall.

 

Salter, using the previous work of researcher Jim Hoffman, noted that

the film had been fudged, and that in fact, the South Tower had

already begun to fall.

 

Von Kleist, when confronted with this news at a recent 9/11 skeptics

conference in New York City, told several different stories about the

issue to different people. A few days later, he cobbled together a

defense of his footage on his website, but has since refused to

respond to anyone with questions about the incident.

 

In addition, Salter's questionsquestions.net produced a story that

regards Jayhan's spectacular video analysis of missiles apparently

being fired from the planes that hit the towers as subject to

interpretation.

 

When the subject was brought up in a recent e-mail debate triggered by

a question asked by serendipity.li's webmaster Peter Meyer, it

resulted in an incredibly abusive barrage of insults from all those

9/11 skeptics who are committed to the " no-plane theory " (which

theorizes that based on their intense video analysis that no planes

hit the Twin Towers on 9/11). Principally, these irate no-planers

include The Webfairy, Gerard Holmgren, and Scott Loughrey, all of whom

have distinguished themselves with various discoveries of the 9/11

puzzle. Jayhan is not a no-planer, because he believes the planes

fired missiles.

 

The incredible scattershot barrage of accusations against all those

who merely asked questions was culminated by Jayhan's remark that I

didn't care about the 9/11 victims because I disagreed with what he

was saying, and was typical of the level of abuse being spewed by all

of them. So on the basis of their personal behavior, I would tend to

distrust anything any of them said.

 

However, we all say things in the heat of proving our arguments that

we wish we hadn't, so I don't base my opinion of the evidence they

have produced (and in Holmgren's case, it is undeniably compelling and

apparently authentic, particularly in regard to proving at least two

of the 9/11 flights never really existed) on how stupidly or rudely

they behave when challenged.

 

What remains at issue is the plume footage in " 9/11 In Plane Site " and

the apparently false claim made by Von Kleist. My concern about the

film has always been that if part of it is proven false, will all

those who are converted to 9/11 skepticism as a result of the film

abandon their judgments when they realize they were not told the truth?

 

That has always been my concern about the film. As some of you may

remember from my previous review, I enthusiastically endorsed the

Pentagon segment of the film and left it up to the viewer to decide

about the rest of it.

 

Now, after VonKleist's initial dissembling and subsequent silence, I

would advise the film be viewed paying particular attention to his

claim about the plume and the especially subjective interpretation of

the planes firing missiles.

 

That I don't believe any of those parts should not be accepted by

viewers. I would like you to decide for yourselves.

So ... the principal reason I have reaped so much scorn from those who

prefer their own exotic interpretations of what happened on 9/11 is

that I have suddenly gone conservative in what I choose to believe

about that fateful day.

 

No, not conservative as in " neocon " or " fundamental Zionist. "

Conservative as in wanting to point only those 9/11 questions which I

know can be proven, or as Peter Meyer asked in that original e-mail,

the " incontestable " 9/11 issues.

 

First and foremost, as I outlined above, are the government lies, the

heaps of them which prove to any reasonable skeptic that uncountable

officials have simply not told the truth about that sad day, and that

numerous crimes have been committed, including obstruction of justice,

treason, and mass murder.

 

Second, I believe the government has failed to produce any evidence

that the so-called hijackers were responsible for the tragedy, that

there is no evidence they were even on the planes and no demonstrable

proof they could fly such planes if they were, and that since they

undoubtedly used false IDs, there is no way to affix blame on any

country (except the one that specializes in stealing people's

identities), so that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were

monstrous mistakes, as is blaming the Saudis.

 

Third, I like the phrase " the time the towers took to fall. " When you

realize that debris ejected off to the side of the falling Twin Towers

fell at the same rate as the towers themselves, you realize there was

no resistance to the towers falling, which means they were demolished.

Otherwise, they wouldn't have come down so smoothly; each floor, as

well as the very strong 47 core columns, would not have collapsed

evenly had they not been blown up. Combined with the mysterious,

on-demand collapse of WTC7 later in the day, there is absolutely no

doubt in my mind the Twin Towers were demolished and the plane crashes

were merely staged to cover up the demolition and then conveniently

used an excuse for the corporate power elite to make war on the whole

world.

 

Fourth, the clearest path to me to determining who was responsible for

this horrible celebration of greed is identifying the pre-9/11

investors who reaped billions with their savvy financial bets based on

foreknowledge of the events to come. That the FBI has declared these

investments not to be suspicious is simply more evidence that the FBI

does not work for the American people, but for the billionaires who

control the government, the media, and the jeopardized lives of

everyone in the world.

 

And fifth is the great unspoken " elephant in the living room. " It is

the aspect of 9/11 least mentioned, and recently prohibited by law

from even being discussed.

Yes, Israeli involvement. Jewish influence on the political process,

undeniable, yet mostly unspoken out of fear of financial ruin, or

being murdered. Israel is the country running around the world,

killing tourists and stealing their IDs. Israel is the country that

gets billions in U.S. foreign aid every year and never pays back a penny.

 

Israel is the country that controls the American media, so that you

don't get any news about its continuing butchery of Palestinian

children, or Zionist fingerprints on the church bombings and bloody

beheadings in Iraq. Israel is the country that completely owns George

W. Bush and John Kerry.

 

So ... in deciphering the 9/11 distractions, I prefer to stick to the

core issues, that I can tell people right off the top of my head and

convince them that the government has not told the truth.

You can keep your missiles and holograms (and your shallow insults,

too). The government lied and the world is in grave jeopardy as a

result of it.

 

It's easy to prove that 9/11 was an inside job devised, executed, and

then covered up by the highest levels of the American government. We

don't need exotic film footage that may or may not have been doctored

to prove it. My great worry is, as with the VonKleist video, that when

aspects of these theories are disproven, it will actually hurt the

9/11 skeptics movement much more it could possibly help it.

Enough ordinary evidence already exists to indict and convict thousands.

 

America's wholly corrupt judicial system is another question entirely.

The real problem now is an American populace that is hell-bent on

denying what I've just said. This continuing denial on the part of

those who refuse to listen and understand will take both them and us

to exactly where their denial is headed — straight to the hell of

widespread slavery, poverty, disease, more acts of suspicious terror,

and ultimately to World War III and the end of human society as we

know it.

 

John Kaminski is the author of numerous Internet essays, many about

9/11, that have been collected into several anthologies. The most

recent collection is titled " The Perfect Enemy, " which is available at

http://www.johnkaminski.com/