At the 10 year anniversary of 9.11, I have to come out and admit that I just don’t believe the official version of events; I don’t see how the evidence justifies the account that was used as the launch pad to fight two wars off of – not to mention what has become known as “kinetic military action” in Pakistan and Yemen, which receives little notice in corporate media no matter how many wedding parties are incinerated by US drones.
From another angle, it is the very existence of all the war that was triggered by 9.11 that, in terms of grand strategy, suggest that the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were an opening gambit in a plan for geopolitical dominance by Western “muscular” liberal interventionist governments. If we in the West can say that the corporate interests that our governments really represent are benefitting from what has spewn forth, then the 9.11 atrocity was very likely part of the design.
It’s not as if false flag attacks do not have historical precedence, and it must be obvious that they would be especially convenient in countries where an electorate is under the impression that their government, who now wants to turn its assets towards belligerence, is representative of them; why stir up the deep seated anaesthesia with an act of unprovoked aggression? Even Hitler must have been nervous of causing such a shock of realisation. A man who had flummoxed and then frightened Germans into not being desirous of issuing final approval of their government ever again (similar to how we are being hoodwinked into a totalitarianism, ironically by devices which are the legacy of 9.11, and that will eventually be reinforced with deadly force) got German SS to dress up as Polish and attack a site at Gleiwitz on the home side of the border.
The Tap blog recently had a very entertaining post which was very accommodating of a 9.11 theory that holds that it was a remote control drone, not a commercial passenger airplane, that crashed into the south tower of the WTC. The image of the plane was only later added by computer onto any and all footage of the impact (which means, you will note, that any amateur video ever in existence would have had to be tracked down and sequestered – but then again, the people are conditioned by now into instinctively handing their material to the corporate media, aren’t they?).
What the doctored footage is said to be hiding is a ball shaped drone, and an aberration in the rendering of the image is meant to account for the infamous and unexplained node on the undercarriage of Flight 175; a growth that we do know that Boeing had been ordered by the FBI not to discuss.
Of course, the big flaw with the theory is that it is based on footage that shows a spherical object descending at speed towards the south tower, and if something as detailed as a plane can be added to a movie after the fact, then so can a run of the mill, glitter ball UFO.
The drone theory is not one that makes it into the book that I have been reading, 9.11. The New Evidence, by Ian Henshall, which has been so helpful to me in clarifying discrepancies between official evidence considered by the 9.11. Commission and other evidence that for some reason (a-hem) it did not consider, and what is feasible, and between all those things and the official story.
As the book makes clear, spectacular science fiction conspiracy theories are not required to doubt that the WTC and the Pentagon were attacked by Jihadists. Much has been made of the World Trade Centre Building 7 which offers some really compelling evidence for an inside job, and I’ve included some video at the bottom of this post of some of the main movers in what we can loosely call a 9.11 truth movement discussing this and other incredible events that are supposed to convince us of the orthodoxy. However, hints at the truth lay all about us in the most conspicuous places (like that mysterious debris on the Pentagon lawn that proved a greater priority than attending to any wounded for government men as they rushed about, headless-chicken like, to gather it up).
Consider, for instance, how very difficult it must be to pilot a modern passenger jet airplane, at speed, into the low lying Pentagon building, or how tricky it must be to steer one at what looks like a matchstick from 5 miles out and with less than half a minute from impact.
Indeed, as Henshall points out in his book, flying at around 555mph, Flights 11 and 175 would be a mile away from their targets, and 5 seconds away from collision; “an error of a few degrees of arc or a fluctuation in side wind, and [either] plane would miss”.
Likewise, very experienced pilots have pointed out that Flight 77 was more likely to crash into the ground before it hit the Pentagon. It’s not to say that any feat of piloting that was performed that day was impossible, but that it was only likely for a skilled pilot. Indeed, it is extremely likely that the poor abilities of the Jihadists would have rendered them unable to accomplish the task. Consider, for instance, how in June 2001, Hanjour, pilot of Flight 77, “tried to fly down the Hudson corridor as a trainee, but the instructor was so unnerved by his lack of skill that he refused a second run.” (Henshall)
The official narrative does indeed have enough gaping holes in it even for some serious people to be concerned. Political analyst – but constitutionalist first and foremost – Judge Andrew Napolitano is a heavyweight name. Even Ron Paul backs calls for a fresh enquiry. But most significantly are the huge numbers of “deniers” in the public who are families of 9.11 victims, and first responders on the day. Recently, a survey was commissioned by Remember Building 7, a transparency group led by 9/11 family members, NYC Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). The poll found that 48 percent of New Yorkers were in favour of the Manhattan District Attorney or New York City Council opening a new investigation into the collapse of WTC 7. Even in 2006, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that 53% of Americans thought that the Bush government was hiding something about 9.11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks, while 28% thought that it was mostly lying.
It is quite evident that there is more than enough doubt around to make the intentions of UK and US governments to teach 9.11 in schools as factual history look decidedly sinister. Boris Johnson, sometimes touted as a replacement for Dave to do things expected of a conservative, but actually, a perennial moron, launched the UK’s own initiative the other day. It’s a move that makes it look as though the Establishment is playing a banker for the future and doing what all despotisms do – indoctrinate the children. The process of establishing the orthodox history in this way rather mirrors the attempts to establish the orthodoxy regarding global warming – a proven fantasy, and a scam by which to steal from us. But frightening and worrying kiddies makes a fantasy real in the physical world, and as Voltaire pointed out, believing absurdity makes you prone to committing atrocity. Our children have for a long while been trained for this less than auspicious future, whatever specific form it is to take.
That the 9.11 narrative is going to be taught at schools at a time when there are more people than ever questioning it provides another glimpse of the rot underneath the peeling whitewash on the facade that is British representative government. As another plank in the deck of the ghost-ship of state pings through another rusty nail, and peels back to reveal holes down through the superstructure to the hull, don’t worry – we can’t be taking on water and sinking because the government is telling us that we aren’t, and more importantly, teaching it to the kids.