dionysusal has left a new comment on your post "The Pro-Defamation League":
I find this offensive in the extreme since it was the Zionists who destroyed the WTC buildings in the first place as a "false flag." Disgusting beyond words.We're discussing this again?
My opinion on "9/11 was a false flag operation!" is still "not proven either way".
"9/11 was an inside job" makes as much sense as "A farmer killed his chickens because they looked at him funny." State insiders are very conservative. They'd be reluctant to do something that might ruin their scam. A farmer doesn't kill his own cattle, except to eat them.
Are there people evil enough and influential enough to do such a thing? Yes. Did they actually do it? I'm not sure.
It's an interesting attitude. There's enough anti-State sentiment in the USA, that people would believe "State insiders would murder their own cattle, just to scare them!"
I'm more inclined to believe "Pat Tillman Was Assassinated!" than "9/11 was an inside job!"
Did politicians ruthlessly exploit 9/11 for their own personal gain? Yes. That doesn't prove it was an inside job. That reinforces the appearance that it was an inside job.
After the WTC terrorist attack, State parasites said "We failed miserably! We didn't do our job! Give us a raise! Give us more power! Give us more resources!" When the State fails, the solution always is "More power for State parasites!" Why not organize a false flag operation, and use it as an excuse to claim more power? Alternatively, wait for the next disaster, and then use it as an excuse to claim more power.
Some discussion forums, especially Ron Paul forums, now ban people for discussing "9/11 was an inside job". This creates the illusion that they're supporting a coverup. They're concerned that being associated with a radical idea undermines the more mainstream things they're doing. "Ron Paul for President!" is much less radical than "9/11 was an inside job! The State is one big scam!"
They're concerned that the mainstream media will say "People who support Ron Paul also believe that 9/11 was an inside job! Therefore, Ron Paul and all his supporters are wrong." Jesse Ventura was censored, regarding his discussion of "9/11 was an inside job!" That reinforces the idea that there's a coverup.
The mainstream media doesn't cover "9/11 might have been an inside job!" for the same reason they don't mention "Taxation is theft!" It's forbidden to discuss anything that questions the legitimacy of the State. The "9/11 Truth Movement" indirectly questions the legitimacy of the State, and is therefore banned.
"9/11 was an inside job!" is censored because it comes too close to the real truth, "The State is one big scam!" However, "9/11 might have been an insider job!" is a useful stepping-stone to help someone realize that government is one huge scam. The fact that State parasites might have had an incentive to organize a false flag operation, illustrates how evil the State is.
The WTC terrorist attack really was a "burning of the Reichstag" moment for the USA. It's been an excuse for cracking down on personal freedom.
There are three things for which you can jail someone indefinitely without trial:
- mental illness
- sex offender
- terrorist
"You're a terrorist!" is the new "You're a Communist!" It's an accusation that allows State thugs to jail someone without trial.
It's wrong to be overly obsessed about the World Trade Center. Inside job or not, the State is one big extortion racket. Whether it was a false flag operation or not, your best strategy for fighting State evil is still agorism.
My answer for "9/11 was a false flag operation" is "I'm not sure." If you disagree, that doesn't invalidate the other points I make. The State is one big scam. I'm not overly concerned with "9/11 false flag!", because it's a minor issue compared to other State evils.
3 comments:
FSK.
Again, thanks for the "shoutout." I've told you before, I no longer investigate 9/11. I've proven it to be scam (within a bigger scam called "government") for myself and myself only, and that's good enough for me. I've moved on to trying to improve the world (or what's left of it). I believe promoting (and eventually practicing) agorism is an important part of that, and I know you feel the same way. I now look at 9/11 as nothing more than a "litmus test." If you know 9/11 was a scam perpetrated by Israel and criminal elements in the USA to implement their evil agenda, you're "awake." If not, you're still "asleep." If you're straddling the fence on it, you're partially awake. As for your comment that a farmer doesn't kill his own cattle except to eat them-- have you ever heard the expression "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs?" Tbe State has no moral compunction about sending its so-called "citizens" into the meat grinder if it's in their ultimate best interests of expanded power and control (see WW1, WW2, the US Civil War, etc). Surely you must know this. Maybe you should just avoid mentioning 9/11 if you truly feel it's a minor issue compared to other State evils. And I will try to resist the temptation of commenting on it.
Nearly every argument I've seen "proving" it was an inside job contains serious errors, such as those making claims about previous airplane crashes involving smaller airplanes, and the heat to melt metal which is irrelevant compared to heat to weaken metal.
Was Building 7 demolitioned? It's quite possible. It held an important CIA intelligence gathering office. Some of these are set to self destruct to protect state secrets in the event of catastrophic emergency.
Were there Israeli agents taking pictures nearby? Yes, same as every other day. New York is a popular place for Israelis to visit and nearly every one of them has seen military service, many in intelligence. Could they have been there because they knew of al qaeda plans and wanted to observe? Maybe. Would the US have done anything differently if they were told? Not necessarily. The US lets attacks go through when a counter attack serves our agenda. We saw this at Pearl Harbor. Besides, there already was plenty of information on this one. It's not as if they exact same terrorist organization hadn't launched a bomb attack against the same building only a few years before - they had.
The only thing that to me is unexplained, and which is completely ignored by everyone, is that after the first strike people started evacuating both buildings. A voice speaking in an unusual accent got on the second building-wide emergency intercom and told people to return to their offices and stay in place as there was no danger. And many people followed this advice. Who was on the intercom? That question has never been answered.
Nor has the Bush family reasonably addressed why the only non-military flight allowed in the entire United States on 9/12, by special presidential permission, was to shuttle the bin Laden family members, all friends of the Bushes, out of the US.
"There are three things for which you can jail someone indefinitely without trial"
Add to this list "contempt of court". If you refuse to testify or are unable to testify what the judge expects you to, you can be held indefinitely without trial, habeas corpus rights, or right of appeal. There was a lady in the Jones/Lewinsky investigation that was imprisoned this way and later released. I can't recall her name as it seems to have been scrubbed from public records of the case, but it was a big deal when it happened.
You can also be held indefinitely in internment camps in the US if you are suspected of being an illegal aliens. They now have camps that hold entire families including small children, in violation of international human rights acts. All kosher though since "it's not really a prison, it's just a secure guarded complex you are not allowed to leave from."
You can also be held indefinitely if police feel you have not complied with identification requests. In some states, you now can not be fully booked until ID is confirmed, and you can not be released on bail or set for trial until you have completed booking. Therefore some people are being held without any possibility of trial because they are unable to comply with specific identity demands. I am not talking about someone refusing to say who they are. I am talking about people who have a birth certificate and a passport in states in which those are not considered acceptable proof of identity.
Post a Comment