Hammer of Los wrote:
8bit, that's your funniest one yet. And lets face it, youre a funny guy.
I don't think he's funny at all. I've spent hours and hours researching and posting to expose the fakery (and, as Hugh said, "false framing") that 8bit insistently embeds in his voluminous rants about the supposed hijackers, "Arab elites" (!!!!?!), "Muslim financiers", and how silly it is to ask "cui bono?", how even sillier it is to trace the role of very powerful Israeli-connected players at every stage in the planning, execution and cover-up of the 9/11 attacks, not to mention the ensuing War on Muslims which has already claimed millions of innocent lives with no end in sight. His analysis is like a popcorn machine, with factoids and bullshit and genuine nuggets of fact all flying in the air, along with a few balls of lead from the Official Script thrown in. Like his insistence on the accuracy of the 'hijackers' story: when he was cornered with overwhelming evidence that it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, even he admitted it didn't make sense. But then he popped up with it again, just as he does with everything else, quoting from the same script.
We shouldn't be distracted by all the efforts to mystify what is, in essence, a crime. Like any other crime, the 9/11 attacks must be examined first, by asking the question "who benefits?", then by sifting through all the scientific, empirical evidence available that shows
how the crime could have been executed (and eliminates hypotheses that violate logic and natural laws), and then narrowing down the list of suspects by using the standard criteria of means, motive and opportunity. Finally, one must compile a list of those who participated in the suppression and/or destruction of evidence after the fact, examine how they were able to do so, and what, if anything, ties them to the list of those who had the means, motive and opportunity to commit the crime.
Yes, the 9/11 attacks are one part of a much larger picture, but they cannot be accurately located within that large picture until and unless they are first dissected using the standard methods that are used to solve any other crime. Who wanted/needed such an event to happen? What specific elements were necessary for the operation to be successfully pulled off? Who had the power to ensure that those elements were in place? Who just happened to be in a position to directly profit (financially and politically) from the attacks? Who had the authority to order the confiscation and/or destruction of physical evidence and who had the influence to get the mainstream media immediately and monolithically on-message with a cover story riddled with contradictions, lies and physical impossibilities?
These are the questions we should be focusing on, to eliminate suspects that could not have been involved in the planning or execution of the attacks, and to shine a light on those who
could have actually pulled it off (and
did).
They happen to be the very questions that obfuscators try to bury under an unintelligible mountain comprised of lies, half-truths, red herrings, ridicule and feverishly mystical mumbo-jumbo. The "truth movement" may be infested with such obfuscators, but even they have not been able to make it into a "failure", not for lack of trying. The questions and inconsistencies and a great deal of evidence remain available to anybody who cares to look. There is already much more than enough to justify a new, independent investigation of this crime. The reasons why it's not happening are, first of all, the media's true role as a weapon for agitprop and psychological warfare against the public, where none of those questions, inconsistencies and evidence exist, and where only "nuts" reject the hole-ridden official narrative. Second, the so-called 'public' institutions may be financed by the public, but they are run by and for the very people who planned, carried out and profited from the attacks. Duh.
So, to answer your strange question, 8bit, it is not "9/11 Truth" that has failed, but the political and legal system in the United States, and the highly centralized corporate media that have been exposed as utter, abject failures, unless their true purpose is to serve the interests of a tiny number of predator elites at the expense of everyone else, including the American people. In that sense, they've been very successful, although in the process they've outed themselves to a growing number of individuals whose dawning realization that "their" government and "the 'respectable' media" are not only untrustworthy, but hostile and dangerous as hell has been confirmed by all that followed 9/11, culminating in the mammoth wealth transfer to rich con artists represented by the 'financial crisis' and the War on Terra; hence the accelerating transformation of America into a totalitarian police state. None of that would be necessary if the 9/11 Truth was such an abysmal failure.
For the record I never believed 9/11 was an "Inside Job", as in the "neocons, Cheney and Bush" plotted 9/11 or purposefully allowed 9/11 to happen. Nor do I believe "Ramzi Yousef on his laptop, KSM, or bin Laden" were the real brains or mastermind of 9/11, as much as I believe there were clear willing tools. I definitely do not believe "9/11 was hatched by the American government"...see, 9/11 when you look at the facts is a lot more sneaky and clever.
Oh, Im sure Cheney really does believe he is in a dire war with "al Qaeda".
And Im sure most of al Qaeda think its a dire life and death war with the US.
It's manipulation on all fronts, and this is why 9/11 will NEVER be "solved" or "brought to justice". All the players did exactly what they needed to do, without necessarily realizing they were part of it. The US, al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, etc...all got played. But by whom?
And all the endless posting of missile and bomb theories or namecalling won't change anyone's opinion. The magic of 9/11 is that it is infallible, it is holy...and anyone who dares question it is worse than crazy in people's views.
Right, "informed".
...like the missile hitting the pentagon and the passenger-less drone planes?
It seems to me like there's two subsets of "truth" out there. Those that follow the madlibs elephant telephone game and those that disseminate real world facts. You must not be a fan of Jeff's work, because he points out the biggest faux paus of the modern "truther" circus: taking al Qaeda out of the equation. And as all research points to, these little windup jihadist dupes are the bullets in the globalist gun.
Got any more tower death porn to show us?
Its very possible to have a scenario where Dick Cheney is anally obsessed with "stopping al Qaeda" at any cost/using it to advance agendas as well as people like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed to be "obsessed with jihad"(and not caring he's been a puppet of Qatar, Kuwait, Pakistani ISI, etc over the years...and now, a disposable tampon rag)
If I was behind 9/11, I wouldn't want the neocons "in" on anything. I'd want them to be jizzing their pants when this early Christmas golden goose egg gift of 3000 dead people hit their laps 8 and a half years ago. The perfect football to run with. Of course now we know Iraq was all about oil for CHINA, not the US. No balkanization, no oil for the US...in fact, ultimately its possible all these actions are meant to destroy the US from within. This notion that the "US" controls all the worlds operations for the benefit of the US doesn't wash.
The problem I take with the
"Inside Job/al Qaeda innocent" theory is that it doesn't make any sense. It's a very sterile, short narrative that doesn't take into account all of the exhaustive research out there, like
http://www.historycommons.org
I still believe Ptech is a crucial key. As it connects the world of Al Kifah(Care Intl), Saudi terror financiers, bin Laden financiers, etc and connects them intimately to the deepest bowels of the US security state computer infrastructure.
My biggest question is: Why are the CIA, Blackwater, FBI, etc obsessed with killing al Qaeda guys? It's just hard for me to buy the Infowars meme of "al CIAda"
...but as of 2010, do we really have clear evidence of Cheney, Rumsfeld or Bush official complicity?
So why do all the whistleblowers only attack the neocons for Iraq lies, and not for complicity in 9/11? Im just saying, my guts telling me 9/11 is beyond the neat little "neocon BFFE" meme.
When you truly look into 9/11, from the protected terror charity networks, the murder of Rabbi Khahane in 1990, Bosnia, Chechnya, Ptech, and all the disparate nodes it's clear this is much bigger than some old fuddy duddies at the Pentagon.
Where does Ramzi Yousef's 1994 Bojinka laptop fit into the "neocons" did 9/11? Freaking any way you shake it, 9/11 was planned DURING CLINTON's tenure! Shit, there's just as much evidence pointing to the Clinton regime(John O'neil and Robert Wright being obstructed) as the Bush cabal.
Police found blueprints of the WTC with Arabic written on them along with stolen military explosive manuals in the house of El Nossair, the killer of Mayer Khahane. And this was back in 1990. Has anyone on here done any research into Al Kifah, Ali Mohamed, Whadid el Hage, etc?
The 1988-1993 time period is crucial to understanding the deep state's handling of the then fledgling bin Laden network.
Im saying it's all manipulation. Everyone played their role. I seriously doubt Cheney is sitting in his wyoming basement going "ha ha ha! I got away with 9/11, cant believe people believed it was those terrorists who we made up!". Cheney calls up Rumsfeld, Bush and Wolfowitz "Hey, we need to have an anniversary, cant believe we got away with it!"
No...something just doesn't fit. Who were the men secretly helping the hijackers at the airports and hotels? Who were the men supplying the hijackers with credit cards? Who were the ones who picked the flight schools? What was "Angel is Next"?
Who continually stood down the FBI?
Oh thats right, "there was no hijackers" according to the truth(tm)
