Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Let's Get It Straight, Folks: First We Hang Bush, Then We Try Him, Finally We Investigate!
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Study > Debate
bgaede
I. Free speech

I came on board the 'Pilots' ship a couple of days ago. I was shocked to receive an offensive message of a member named SanderO. He told me that no one around here believed the 'bs' that W and Co committed the crimes of 9/11. This was not what I was expecting to hear from THE organization that is supposedly at the forefront challenging the official story. Fortunately, the administrator set me on the right path the next day and told me that Sander is quite 'popular' around here for his views.

First, I want to say that it is admirable that Pilots does not censor opponents. This alone elicits my utmost respect. Perhaps Big Brother should re-learn a lesson from this generosity that the present-day inheritors of Washington and Jefferson long ago forgot. It would be nice to hear dissenting voices in the mass media for a change, at least in proportion to the numbers in the general population. Yet, in spite of the rampant censorship out there, if it was up to me, I would continue to allow dissenting voices in this forum, even if they come here to disinform and mislead. The buyer simply needs to 'beware'!


II. Case closed!

I am convinced that the Truth Movement will never succeed in bringing the culprits to trial. George Bush and Co simply got away with murder. I think that many of you sense the same thing. We are farther and farther away from 2001 and there isn't a single politician running for office at any level who would even dare insinuate that the US Government was behind 9/11. That politician knows that he would never make it to office. The best you'll hear is that there was probably military incompetence; there is no talk whatsoever about guilt (i.e., stand down). The best you'll hear is that the Government did not investigate properly, suggesting that there was some vague bureaucratic oversight on the part of the 9/11 Commission. There is no talk on the campaign war paths -- never a straight answer from a politician with balls -- about bringing the folks in Washington to trial. The best you'll hear is a vague promise to 'look into it'. And to top it off you have these buzzards like Sander hovering around for whatever reasons...

But even if there were ever to be a reopening of the 9/11 case -- which is what people like Sander are here to prevent -- it will certainly end up like the the United States House Select Committe on Assassinations (HSCA): it is more likely that nothing will come out of it. High school textbooks continue to peddle the 'little red book' line: Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman! No one in the US Government was ever imprisoned for that crime. The vague wording of the of the HSCA guaranteed it. There is simply no way that the US Government will ever admit that Kennedy or 9/11 were inside jobs. No matter what! What would that do to 200 years of US history? Who would ever believe in 'the' Government again? The consequences would be staggering.

Therefore, all these incidents that we 'know' Washington manufactured -- the two Kennedys, MLK, 9/11 -- always end up mired in the quicksand of politics. They are never treated and can't be treated as ordinary crimes. They will never be brought to an honest courtroom. In fact, the hallmark of an inside job, the way you discover that the US Government is behind such crimes, is that it is instantly politicized. If the Cubans or the Soviets had done Kennedy, for instance, would the US just sit back and say, "Oh well..." and block all researchers? If push comes to shove, the incumbent Government can always use the National Security 'get out of jail free' card and thwart any further nosying around by the peasants. Revisionism is for scholars, not for the masses.


III. Case closed?

So? Is there any hope? Is that it? Should we close the doors of 'Pilots' and sister organizations and let Big Brother get away with it?

The fact that disinformers such as Sander are here and take so much trouble to mislead you is probably a good thing. It should give you hope. It could be that he's just a lone wolf. It could also be a measure of the amount of fear people like George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld live in secretly. They are pretty sure that no investigation will reach them and are somewhat concerned about how their names will look 50 years from now, but there is always that remote chance that something unpredictable might happen.

For instance, we cannot know what the Government did with some of the 19 alleged hijackers. Is Mohammed Atta still alive? Did he collect his pay and retire to the Bahamas? Was Barbara Olson murdered? Was she simply at the wrong place at the wrong time? Took the wrong plane that day maybe? Was John O'Neill murdered? Did he really die when the South Tower disintegrated? Or were all these individuals willing participants? Were they all part of the plan? Are they being protected under Witness Protection aliases today?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all of them were willing participants. It's hard to imagine that the Government would risk having any of these individuals come out of the shadows tomorrow. What if Barbara was a willing participant, now living under a different name somewhere, and decides one fine day to blackmail the Government?

No. Barbara is dead. And so is Mohammed Atta. The Mafia would have never allowed these people to make it to the witness stand under any circumstance. The risk is simply unacceptable.

So the only danger to George Bush and Co is that something unexpectedly pops up out of nowhere, something that no one thought about, and the case goes to trial. Of course, the US Congress has already moved some pieces on the chessboard to prevent anything like that from ever happening. It passed legislation barring lawsuits against security companies. It also authorized the NIST to prevent disclosure of data used to simulate the collapse of the WTC buildings. Section 7 (d) of H.R. 4687 NIST Director Gallagher denies access ). Granted FOIA requests trickle like drops from the ocean. See if you can get hard evidence on black boxes, for example. Certainly, bin Laden has very little to do with any of this.

But again, is there any hope of bringing George Bush to the gallows before time spares him the embarrassment? Will there ever be a correction in the history books or in the Wikipedia or in the New York Times or in the BBC saying that the US Government 'did it'?

I think that there is a way to defeat Big Brother. They can take the microphones away from you and bombard you with propaganda and deny you evidence and prevent you from taking them to court, but what they can't take away is your conscience and ability to reason. They can tell you, but they can't make you believe that white is black. Buzzards like Sander may try to waste your time, arguing that it is a little bit grey here in the corner and that there is an even darker spot over there... but the sheet is white! Sorry, Sander! We got to get that straightened out up front. You can waste your breath on feeble-minded people with all this grey BS about fuel tanks and 'initiation' theories... I mean, if your mission is to recruit numbers by sowing dissent among the members of the posse, you will succeed to some degree. But at some point you reach a wall of people who will not sell their souls.


IV. The proposal

The way I suggest we can defeat Big Brother is by embarrassing 'him'. The vehicle is the Internet. What if on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11 in 2021, the powers that be go to Ground Zero, host a big shindig where they spread the bull about Muslims and the 'heroes' who stormed the cabin, but 300 M Internet hits say otherwise?

If you can't get into court because the doors are locked and they've thrown the key away, the next best thing is to jeer. What will they do? Shoot you? Cover your mouth? What will the BBC tell its viewers then? That 9/11 was done by bin Laden, but that it now unfortunately has a new anthem, that people are singing a different tune?

Or would you rather hear redneck Johnson singing that he doesn't know the difference between Iraq and Iran at every anniversary? Would you prefer to hear dumb blonde-types asking in their appalling ignorance, "So what were you doing on 9/11 when those mean Arabs attacked us?"

If 9/11 Truth ever goes to trial, fine. If not, you can still hold your head up high while whistling the tune even if they treat you like a lunatic as they drag you to the Gulag! They can kill you and they can eat you if they want, but they can't wipe the smirk off your face!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKACl5VANKc







GroundPounder
does seem daunting, doesn't it? have you ever heard of micro-cracks? imperceptible to the naked eye - present nevertheless. the monolith of state has been developing microfractures for many decades; it really is just a matter of time.... that hundreth monkey will be along soon.
bgaede
QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Sep 13 2011, 07:04 AM) *
does seem daunting, doesn't it? have you ever heard of micro-cracks? imperceptible to the naked eye - present nevertheless. the monolith of state has been developing microfractures for many decades; it really is just a matter of time.... that hundreth monkey will be along soon.






“the monolith of state has been developing microfractures for many decades”



Just in case, don’t lower your guard. Big Brother is very powerful as shown by the ability to silence 9/11 and make people believe that it was an Arab plot of some kind.

Big Brother has learned from his mistakes and today we see the results. The JFK incident at least triggered an immediate ‘investigation’. Then, there was a subsequent trial followed by a second commission. The 9/11 incident barely got the first commission to ‘investigate’. I doubt that there will be another one.







GroundPounder
QUOTE (bgaede @ Sep 11 2011, 10:51 AM) *
Big Brother is very powerful ....


sounds very wizard of oz'ish. feet of clay, i say. only worthy of ridicule and scorn.
bgaede
QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Sep 13 2011, 08:50 AM) *
sounds very wizard of oz'ish. feet of clay, i say. only worthy of ridicule and scorn.





"worthy of ridicule and scorn"

No problem there, but again, try getting one of these guys to court for the 9/11 stuff. That's where you show that Big B is really just a myth. Don Quixote attacked windmills which, in his delirium, he confused for giants. Stabbing Big B or Uncle S is likewise kind of pointless. If you're going to use a sharp object, the wound has to be made into something a little more substantial. We can't put Uncle Sam behind bars. But we can lock up 'his' representatives.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.