JFK and 9/11

[Guest guest]

SharinSharAlike

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 00:54:19 EDT

JFK and 9/11

 

 

 

" When a well-packaged web of lies

has been sold gradually to the masses over generations,

the truth will seem utterly preposterous

and its speaker a raving lunatic. "

~~Dresden James~~

 

I hate being called a conspiracy theorist. I was never a grassy knoll

person, not that I believe the official version. I never investigated

it or followed it that closely so it's simply that I don't know enough

to say.

 

But I do know that a huge building does not come down in it's own

shadow without a plane even hitting it, and the steel would not

disappear. They explained the other two buildings by saying it was the

jet fuel. I don't even quite buy that because even though jet fuel is

hot, it is not hot enough to have destroyed that much steel without

burning for a long long long time. Jet fuel is hot but it is not the

temperature that melts steel. And there were bodies

inside...temperatures to melt steel would have melted everyone. Their

clothing was not even melted.

 

I probably would have accepted it though -- if it were not for

building 7, the third building. Many people do not even remember that

there were three buildings that came down that day. Building 7 had two

small manageable fires. Other buildings in the area had much worse

fires with much less steel protection.

 

The 9/11 inquiry report does not even mention building 7. Even without

all the other questions, that building 7 pretty much speaks for

itself. If it came down with explosives that were planted in advance

(that takes weeks to plan), then the other two buildings came down

with explosives, demolition style also.

 

Some say why not just say terrorists blew up the buildings, why have

the terrorists flying the planes and all that...because Marvin Bush

owned the security companies in those buildings. He would most

certainly be asked how it was that terrorists were allowed to roam

around the building carrying explosives. And that his last name is

Bush would not have gone over well.

 

82% of the country now believe they are covering up about 9/11. As

this article below says, even if you didn't buy into it at first, with

all the things we are seeing now, it makes it hard to accept their

version simply because it makes absolutely no sense.

 

Was the other plane supposed to hit building 7? I know we have told it

was headed for the Capitol, etc...but how could they say it was

supposed to hit the very building that came down anyway? They know

building 7 makes no sense and that is why they would not allow any

questions about it in the inquiry. That alone should send chills down

your spine. An entire building falls to the ground with no steel left

at all, and no one wants to investigate to see why to make sure that

never happens again?

 

C'mon. The conspiracy is to pretend to go along with something that

doesn't even make sense. There is no way building 7 came down in it's

own shadow without explosives being set in it.

 

****

 

 

 

JFK and 9/11

By Jon Korein

Original Article at

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jon_kore_060412_jfk_and_9_2f11.htm

April 12, 2006

 

Doug Thompson recently recounted a discussion he had many years ago

with John Connally, the Texas governor who was shot during the Kennedy

assassination.

 

Connolly was both gracious and charming and told us many stories about

Texas politics. As the evening wore on and the multiple bourbon and

branch waters took their effect, he started talking about November 22,

1963, in Dallas.

 

" You know I was one of the ones who advised Kennedy to stay away from

Texas, " Connally said. " Lyndon (Johnson) was being a real asshole

about the whole thing and insisted. "

 

Connally's mood darkened as he talked about Dallas. When the bullet

hit him, he said he felt like he had been kicked in the ribs and

couldn't breathe. He spoke kindly of Jackie Kennedy and said he

admired both her bravery and composure.

 

I had to ask. Did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed

Kennedy?

 

" Absolutely not, " Connally said. " I do not, for one second, believe

the conclusions of the Warren Commission. "

 

So why not speak out?

 

" Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will

never speak out publicly about what I believe. "

 

I'd gone back and forth on the JFK thing, it seemed possible to make

arguments both ways. But once I started researching 9/11, and

understood more about how this kind of thing is done, it became quite

obvious that JFK, as well as RFK, were not shot by " lone gunmen " .

 

When I'd looked at this before, it didn't seem that relevant. At

worst, a historical injustice.

 

My point of view has changed.

 

In many, many ways, the JFK assassination set the stage. It proved to

those who did it that you could do something that dramatic, that

heinous to the average citizen, and get away with it. It proved that

you could fabricate a cover story and that the press would cooperate .

It proved that you could quash dissent and investigation. And it

proved that you could do it in America.

 

There seems to be a strong feeling on the left that, somehow, 9/11 is

irrelevant. That to focus on it distracts from " real " issues such as

Iraq and domestic spying. Again, almost to minimize the importance of

9/11, treat it as bygone history, and concentrate only on the misuse

of the event by the administration.

 

There are a number of problems with this approach. It leaves in place

the people that did it, and the mechanisms used for covering it up. It

leaves in place the use of the " war on terror " as justification for

the current administration's abuses, and allows the 9/11 rallying cry

to continued to be used, and often accepted, to justify these abuses.

And it leaves open the very distinct possibility that this kind of

attack will be used again to justify further abuses.

 

There's a misconception that there is no proof for 9/11 being an

inside job. There's plenty of proof. Obstruction of investigation

before and after the fact, the NORAD failure, buildings collapsing in

ways that could only be explained by planted explosives, planes being

flown in ways the alleged hijackers could not have flown them, some of

those very hijackers still being alive. There isn't just one smoking

gun here - there are dozens of them (this is a good place to start

research). What the left seems to want is some sort of " official "

acknowledgement, one that will never come - just as Connally would

never acknowledge publicly what he knew.

 

There is a strong tendency to deny and try to explain away the

evidence. Part of the difficulty in accepting the reality behind 9/11

is confronting the significance not just of the nature of the event

but what it and the surrounding cover-up implies. The harder part is

not necessarily believing that some people in our own country would do

such a thing, but that the entire government and media would assist in

the deception that followed. An essay in 911truth.org says it best:

 

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate

awakenings.

 

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the " official 9/11 story, "

is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study,

logic or curiosity. ...

 

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of

that knowledge -- and what it says about our media, politics and

economic system today -- is by far the harder awakening ...

 

I found that reflected exactly what I had to go through. After seeing

the overwhelming evidence on 9/11, it was Kristina Borjesson's essay

on her experience investigating TWA800 in her book " Into the Buzzsaw "

that was the final straw. It showed that the prototypical " conspiracy

theorist " mechanisms of false investigations by the FBI and

suppression of investigation by the media were, in fact, in place well

before 9/11; that even under the Clinton administration, one that was

far less repressive than the current one, such things occurred.

 

This is one of the reasons it is important to confront 9/11 directly.

In a sense it is like a flare that was sent up to illuminate and

expose those willing to do such an act and those willing to go along

with it. Not acknowledging it means living under the illusion that the

media honestly reports the news, something that I've learned is

patently false. And this dishonesty is pervasive: most people

understand that Fox distorts the news; far fewer realize that the New

York Times does as well.

 

One of the keys to changing the current system is to discuss events

such as 9/11 as openly as possible. To not be afraid of the

" conspiracy theorist " label, which is exactly one of the fears those

doing this use to try to socially isolate and ridicule people who

understand their actions and try to publicize them.

 

What they do works because they create a world view, a " reality " , so

that people who question it, especially about something so important,

seem crazy. As a Bush aide once said, " We're an empire now, and when

we act, we create our own reality " . Nowhere was this more successfully

done than with 9/11. Given the patriotic fervor the cover story for

the event generated, it was relatively simple to suppress any

expressions of doubt in its veracity.

 

But this changes as more and more people begin to connect the dots and

see how the administration uses 9/11. Most of those trying to

publicize problems with the official version now, such as David Ray

Griffin and Steven Jones (1,2), only looked into it when they noted

the abuse of the event by the government; many more are doing that

every day, and the notion is not nearly as outlandish to most now as

it might have seemed a few years ago.

 

There is a fairly direct lineage from the perpetrators of the sixties

assassinations, through the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals, to

9/11; the group of people who seem to enjoy and are able to implement

covert actions in the name of maintaining power and modifying policy

is alive and well and stronger than ever. They're currently attempting

to consolidate their control through vote fraud, an effort that

started showing results in the 2000 elections. There's no reason to

think they won't continue to use these techniques if they continue to

go unrecognized and unpunished.

 

There have been a number of false terrorist attacks abroad since 9/11,

and domestic ones still appear to be on the table as an option. A GOP

memo conjectured how another " terrorist " attack might help Bush's

ratings, and Cheney discussed the possibility of a 9/11-like event

precipitating an attack on Iran. As more people catch on, it makes the

selling of the false reality of an attack difficult, and the attack

less likely to take place. So, for example, when Ron Paul says " Fear

of imaginary nuclear weapons or an incident involving Iran †" whether

planned or accidental †" will rally the support needed for us to move

on Muslim country #3 " he may actually be lessening the possibility of

such a " planned incident " .

 

A lot is at stake here. Jim Garrison once said that " fascism will come

to America in the name of national security. " Incredibly prescient;

that's exactly what's happening now. It's no coincidence that this

administration has borrowed on the " big lie " technique perfected by

the nazis. In fighting it, it's best to face reality, and not believe

one of their biggest lies.

 

Authors Website: mopso.blogspot.com