Mainstreaming 9-11 conspiracy

[NewKid]

Hmm. Scholars for truth getting op-ed space in mainstream papers. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>9/11 Commission report is a lie <br>RICHARD CURTIS<br>GUEST COLUMNIST<br><br>Writing about a speech by one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, P-I columnist Joel Connelly claimed: "Each of us needs to understand why we are doing what we are doing." ("Sept. 11 show the flaws with protocol," May <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Indeed! The problem is that the "why" we have been told appears to be a complete fiction.<br><br>Connelly seems to assume that because the 9/11 Commission was bipartisan that we should accept its conclusions and recommendations. But is that true? Is the commission's story credible?<br><br>The commission's conclusions and recommendations should be totally rejected. Its story is full of lies, distortions and omissions of fact. Following are two of the more than 40 reasons why the official story about what happened on 9/11 is untrue.<br><br>First, who were the hijackers? We do not know. None of those named appear on any of the passenger lists released by the airlines. Most important, six of the men named by the government are still alive and have never even been to the United States. We know that because European media (as reported by The Associated Press, the London Telegraph and the BBC) have interviewed them. It is not a matter of mistaken identity not being noticed or someone using a false passport. The commission insists that the people they named were the hijackers but that claim is demonstrably false.<br><br>If that most basic claim is false, and the information was available to the commission (which it was), and the commission still claims that it has given us "a full account" of what happened that day based on "exacting research," it's clear that the members are lying. In his book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Dr. David Ray Griffin documents all that and concludes the whole report is one long lie.<br><br>Second, in the months after 9/11 all of the surviving New York City Fire Department personnel who were on the scene were interviewed. Those oral histories were recorded and withheld from the public until Aug. 15, 2005. Only after losing in court three times did the city of New York finally release them. All 503 are now posted on The New York Times Web site. Why did the city fight so hard to keep them from the public?<br><br>It turns out those oral histories reveal details about what was happening in the World Trade Center buildings that are completely inconsistent with the tale told by the commission. Dozens of firefighters and medics reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosives going off in the buildings that collapsed. Why were there explosives, very powerful explosives by all accounts, going off in the buildings? More disturbing, why was the pattern of those explosives identical in some important ways with the pattern used in a planned implosion (or controlled demolition of a building)?<br><br>In spite of Connelly's faith in what commission members say, the report seems to be an obvious cover-up. The question that we all need to ask is: What is the commission covering up? Was 9/11, in fact, an inside job?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/270284_connellyrebut16.html" target="top">seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/270284_connellyrebut16.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>It's the liberal media I guess. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20625_Mainstreaming_9-11_Conspiracy&only" target="top">www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20625_Mainstreaming_9-11_Conspiracy&only</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://yargb.blogspot.com/2006/05/seattle-post-intelligencer-publishes.html" target="top">yargb.blogspot.com/2006/05/seattle-post-intelligencer-publishes.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[HMKGrey]

One of the things that I could imagine happenning is a gradual 'acknowledgement' by the MSM of something not being quite right with the official story of 9/11 but this would come along with a pervading sense of 'but we have to move on'. <br><br>There would also likely be a general 'sense' of government complicity but saying that out loud would still be tricky (the stigma of 'conspiracy nut' seeing to that perfectly.)<br><br>It's the perfect limited hang out in that people are actually able to file it away under "Well, it's pretty much acknowledged these days that something strange was going on there..." but no one would have to actually DO a damn thing about it. <br><br>It's not that far from where we are now with the Kennedy assassination if you think about it. Even UFO's fall in to this category. There's enough testimony and evidence to convict a room full of Generals with ATS clearance but somehow it just never quite coalesces in to anything actually substantial enough to amount to much more than a parking ticket against the boys at AREA 51. (Sorry about all the metaphors)<br><br>I can see the whole 9/11 thing being mainstreamed eventually by movies and books and it won't really matter one iota because the mainstream is a safe haven for the PTB anyway. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>It's not that far from where we are now with the Kennedy assassination if you think about it.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That's right. The farther away from the incident, the more bad shit you can reveal about it. It's okay if it can really be thought of as "history" and has no real implication for the present political situation. E.g., the Gulf of Tonkin disclosures, Northwoods, and an all but admission nowadays that Oswald was not a lone nut assassin. <br><br>However, I think 9-11 still has political implications and I sense that there is some sort of active campaign within certain factions to keep the issue out there. We're not so far away from it that it can be safely labeled as history, and I have to wonder if there isn't something more than the usual conspiracy crowd and truth movement helping to mainstream 9-11 as a political weapon or potential weapon. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

I think it will go farther than "Gosh something fishy sure did happen back then didn't it?" The reason the Kennedy assassination stopped at the above point was because the government is able to control what gets out through the media and people were limited in their ability to colaborate.<br><br>No more. With the internet information is less controlled and collaboration is expanded dramatically. People all over the world are connecting dots and waking up. Putting an end to that is the real reason behind current legislation that will break the internet up into smaller fifedoms that are more easily controlled and manipulated.<br><br>Keep your fingers crossed and fight for net-neutrality. <p></p><i></i>

[4911]

"It's the perfect limited hang out in that people are actually able to file it away under "Well, it's pretty much acknowledged these days that something strange was going on there..." but no one would have to actually DO a damn thing about it."<br><br>I think that is a totally accurate assessment. Check out Olli Stones new movie about the wtc - that s exactly what its saying, far as i could decipher the trailer.<br><br>www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/wtc/<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=4911>4911</A> at: 5/26/06 6:36 am<br></i>