Dwight's Proposal for a Central Point of Consensus

sure, we love our jewmoonhoax as much as the next conspiracy kooks, but we are first and foremost advocating for a real investigation into the demolition of the world trade center. i registered this domain as a kind of statement when it seemed clear that the "official movement" was not going to place it at the top of their priority, even though it IS, as you point out the site of the most murders, as well as the scene of the crime for the most part.

but you're going to run into the problem that I've had, which is that when you look at 9/11 from a point of view favoring the issue of the towers'collapses (which some pretenders to trutherhood still claim to doubt) you notice that the story is one featuring prominent Zionists (not just people who believe that Israel has a right to exist--wealthy and politically connected fund-raisers for Zionist causes with links to the foreign country that has sent America more than a few spies.

and whether or not you notice this, it is the exact reason why some people prefer focusing on so-called "warnings" or "foreknowledge" as if it mattered who knew what about the planes when the planes did not bring the buildings down. Bad what THEY did, those evil Bush/Cheney people, whether it was let leak the dates of our war game exercises involving false radar injects for simulated hijacking scenarios.

Hmmmm... does seem so... OBVIOUS no? And every individual has plausible deniability, since they only had to know what mattered to completing their part. So that many people focused on may well have the airtight alibi of REALLY NOT HAVING KNOWN exactly what was going to happen. But someone somewhere knew the entire plan, of course, 9/11 didn't "just happen" like "shit happens"--someone made this shit happen by demolishing two buildings on top of hundreds of innocent people.

Those who are complicit in one part of course may be technically innocent, but they know that their role will be suspected, so they bend over backwards to please those who must be pleased to keep that information from becoming general knowledge.

Seeking the truth about 9/11 means seeking to know 9/11 entirely. No truther worth her salt is going to claim to believe anything else. Part of understanding 9/11 means understanding how people could have done something like it. And there exists no doubt the gamut of reasons for which people decided to play a role--from actual ignorance of their role to sheer psycopathy. The citizens of America must cast a wide enough net to not miss anything important, but this doesn't mean not setting aside certain fish for special scrutiny. It is patterns that emerge when suspects begin to be outed that provide us our best chance of determining all who should be held accountable.

If focusing on the political and business associations of key players in the life and death of the twin towers is going to be frowned on, then these patterns will not become known by those who deserve them become known--the real victimsâ„¢ of 9/11--those who actually were killed and who did not fake their deaths to collect from one fund or another.

I told y'all I have adopted any and every friendless/family-less person who died on 9/11, and intend to seek the truth about 9/11 for them--that is to say intelligently idefatigably, but above all honestly. A movement dedicated to seeking truth must hold honesty above all other virtues, but especially above unity.

-- gretavo

I think Dwight should post it as a blog at 911blogger.

If it were a judge other than 9/11 Judge Alvin Hellerstein "raking Bush over the coals" I might be less inclined to think that it is meant to strengthen the evil muslim myth, but as such I must say it seems fishy. The issue frames the debate as "Bush may have done something wrong, and the muslim terror threat is real". Then the usual characters proffer their views after which conversation about anything terror-fraud related can be eased into something safe like "how bout that tape destruction eh? Yeah, I wonder what was on those tapes? Waterboarding, I heard. Really? Oh yeah, but you know, it's not for us to decide what is morally justified in the epic battle against evil muslim terrists.

From Dwight:

I'm referring to her allegation in her August 2004 letter to Thomas Kean that an intelligence asset provided agents and a translator with information that Osama bin Laden was planning an attack, that this was reported to Thomas Frield, and that he did nothing. OK, she names a name, but how does she know what his response was? This appears to be second hand info, and I have doubts about how she came to be privy to so much information so quickly as a new part-time translator. Farsi was not her primary language, and the Sunday Times has not gotten more specific that she was hired to work on backlog in a nuclear case. Regardless, the ultimate truth of the information is not proven, even if the Iranian asset believed it was true, and saying that 9/11 proves it was true is just swallowing the myth uncritically.

All this adds to the official story of how the buildings were destroyed: hijacked planes. I'm saying that we know that hijacked planes did not bring down the buildings, so it is utlimately irrelevant to explaining how most of the people were murdered.

You're missing the broader theme of Tarpley's book. myth-mongering. He criticizes spurious leads to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He quotes a Pakistani general, Mirsa Aslam Beg, as stating that none of the "evidence" the U.S. government provided to the Pakistani government in demanding cooperation on Afghanistan would hold up in a court of law, and that the attacks were the work of highly trained experts "who used high technology for destruction." He points out that none of the bin Laden tapes have been authenticated. Pasties on the ground training to fly may have been part of that myth-mongering, and honest FBI agents may have seen that, and moles may have interfered to keep the cover story intact, but we must not forget that this is all part of the myth. More importantly, this myth, even if it were true, is demonstrably, by physical evidence and argument alone, not the cause of the buildings "collapses" that killed most of the people and injured so many rescue personnel.

I am also saying that the rest of Sibel Edmonds story is irrelevant to even the myth of 9/11, other than as an anecdotal example about how the FBI might be compromised. And there are holes in her story as I have pointed out. If she is discredited, either as fabricating or as having sincerely misinterpreted what she saw, where does that leave us?

Part of her story---bureaucrats telling translators to slow down so they could justify hiring more translators---supports the myth that better translations would have stopped 9/11. It has also been discredited for me by her claim (repeated by Giraldi) that the FBI's Inspector General supported her allegation, which is false. I also find it implausible that this occurred, especially after 9/11.

Given the marginal relevance to 9/11, where the relevant part merely supports the Phoenix/Minnesota story, I don't see the benefit in critically sorting through her complex story, as anyone holding it out as useful is morally obligated to do. I did so, and found problems.

Ultimately, I'm urging the old saw of trial lawyers: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Pakistani general had money sent to Mohammed Atta? Good luck proving it. And even if you can, so what? Atta didn't kill most of the people.

Goss and Graham meeting with Pakistani general on 9/11? So what? Duh, preparations for attacking Afghanistan were being made. The Northern Alliance leader Massoud was killed on September 8. Since you're citing Tarpley, his view is that this was not done by Al Qaeda but by CIA, because Masoud was a proud nationalist that would not take orders.

Remember: Keep It Simple, Stupid. Somebody blew up those buildings.

I have heard the argument that all eggs should not be put in this basket because (1) you can't prove it, and (2) what if there is an official admission that it really was wired by "Al Qaeda," and this was not revealed. Bush's reference to KSM saying they wired the buildings is cited.

(1) It has been proven. It is self-evident

(2) That would not fly, after NIST, and the insurance trials, and all the denials and mockery of our self-evident observation.

To respond to your argument, Arabesque, NORAD and the war games are not the cause of most of the deaths, they are just part of the cover story. It is not speculative that massive amounts of energy were added to "collapse" the Twin Towers. I don't care how many lying engineers you trot out to say differently. This is not a "perception," it is a fact.

Posted at 911b by Dwight