Go to: => TOP Page; What's New? Page; ROAD MAP; Shopping Mall; Emmaus Ministries Page; Search Page
F. Earle Fox
Introduction; Conspiracy Theory???;
Part I: Pancakes & Physics;
Part II: Black Clouds;
Part III: Qui Bono?
Part IV: Mind Control
Part V: & the Winner...
NOTE: the following article is based largely on a video called "Loose Change", at least parts of which are available at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501# Also: http://www.loosechange911.com/
Or type "Loose Change video 9/11" into Google. Also, type "Confronting the Evidence video" into Google. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4iJT4_RRRI for partial explanation of the dark, falling clouds.
This article has been edited several times, and will continue to be as I learn more. I do not want to go beyond the available evidence, but the very least one must say is that there must to be a serious reopening of the 9-11 investigation. There are clear and abundant reasons for doubting the reliability of the government-issued NIST report on the 9-11 carnage.
The matter, I think, is much more serious than only reopening the investigation, but the only way to resolve things is a reopening of the official investigation of what and who caused the collapse of the Twin Towers, building #7, and the collateral destruction of the whole of the Trade Center complex -- with independent investigators. I give my opinion below.
For a view contrary to mine, go to Popular Mechanics at http://architecture.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=architecture&cdn=homegarden&tm=77&gps=229_48_1003_588&f=20&su=p284.9.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html%3Fpage%3D4 See my partial replies below.
See also http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php for a raft of civil engineer articles (also contrary to my view), most of which leave us in ambiguity.
See also report (inserted here 1/20/10) by demolition specialist, Brent Blanchard at http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1 He gives the most credible response, but even so there are many, many questions to be asked. I would want to hear him and other explosive experts who disagree with the government report go head to head. I think there are weaknesses in his report. He does not address the freefall speed of the collapse (right through the path of greatest resistance, straight down through all the massive support beams which were cold and uncompromised), which is the core of my argument. And he does not address the Pentagon event or flight #93.
Go here for the evidence assembled by about 1800 licensed architects and engineers in contradiction to our government's official story -- www.ae911truth.org. This is electric and compelling material. Read letter to NIST head researcher from Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. Watch this YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I And read this pdf brochure.
Some with whom I have shared these resources and thoughts respond with a refusal to believe any "conspiracy" theory. They do not clearly define what that means, except that they think my position so outlandish as to be unworthy of belief. I think they may be scared, as I was, that it might be true.
My response is that we each need to present our views on the merits of the case, not prejudge the matter and discourage an open, honest discussion of some very troubling issues. That is the only way to get at the truth of a matter. These issues are scary and painful, but we must put them on the table into the light of day -- wherever they may lead. To do that, I see no course ahead but a reopening of the investigation. That will almost for sure not happen. Not until Jesus returns.... when all things will be out in the open, living in the light.
If you have wondered about Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Oklahoma City, or the shooting of JFK, they may have been a run-up by ugly forces in our government to the Trade Center Towers. They all have left unanswered questions. And relevant evidence in three, at least, was apparently taken from the site before the evidence could be independently inspected and assessed. That is, I believe, criminal behavior.
I suspect that in these events the government was testing the waters, seeing how much we, the people, would fight against, endure, explain away, or come to justify - government violence in our midst. I believe also leaders in our government wanted to create (as one report recommended in the 1960's) "another Pearl Harbor" experience, a devastating challenge which would drive American citizens into the benevolent and waiting arms of Government Nanny. I remember my shock at those possibilities being seriously discussed in the '60's and '70's. They were discussed also in the runup to 9-11 (see www.ae911truth.org, look for DVD, "Loose Change".
Until I saw the above DVDs, though I had suspicions, nevertheless, like most Americans, I did not believe that our government could be involved in deliberately bringing such a disaster upon America -- with the intent of creating a new Pearl Harbor so as to draw us into centralizing our government (nevermind that Roosevelt may have done exactly that with the first Pearl Harbor, to draw America into a war with Japan). It was just too scary, so I too (without investigating) resisted the "conspiracy" theory, vaguely suspecting the worst, but refusing to believe it. Some friends recently sent me the above very relevant DVDs, and I believe it now. It was a very painful change of mind, and I would be most happy if someone could prove my doubts wrong and show what really happened.
The question before us is not whether the 9-11 event was a "conspiracy". It clearly was a conspiracy, if not by Americans, then by Muslims. The question is rather, what is the meaning of it, who caused it, and for what reasons. Of course it was a conspiracy - people conspiring in secret to do evil, whether by radical Muslims or by some in our own government is the issue raised. Or, by both.
There has probably never been a time in history when some few were not conspiring to take over their known world. Why would that stop now? Why would anyone who grew up in the 20th century believe the inane nonsense - that American politicians do not engage in conspiracy? To believe that our present crop of politicians are not capable of such betrayal is to blind oneself to the realities of all known history (see R. J. Rummel's website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/) .
We either get the facts, or the facts will get us. We must hold each other's feet to the fire on truth-seeking and truth-speaking. Not in a nasty way, but gracefully and persistently.
Please note that this article explores only a small part of the total case against the "official" government-given explanation for 9-11.
Other unexplained items include:
(1) Building #7, the 48 story office building, also collapsed. It was not hit by a plane - raising questions even more difficult for the government report to answer.
(2) The Pentagon hit was so clearly misinterpreted as to boggle the mind. Unless the videos above were stupidly doctored, it was not a commercial airliner which hit the Pentagon. It was a rocket. The facade of the side hit bore no marks at all of huge wings and two six-ton engines crashing into the Pentagon wall at 500+ mph. There was only a circular 16-foot (or so) diameter hole, far too small to be caused by the assumed airliner. The facade, except for the area right at the impact, was still standing in the video clips (until it later collapsed). If that is true, it is absurd to say that a commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon.
(3) Flight 93 which allegedly crashed in a Pennsylvania farm field is, as they say, a mystery. The field when investigated showed no body parts. The coroner on the scene said he stopped being a coroner after a few hours because there were no bodies to examine. That cannot happen. As we know from grim experience, when a plane crashes headlong into the ground, there are body parts and plane parts all over. That, according to witnesses, was not the case.
(4) And the alleged cell phone calls from 31,000 feet up never took place because cell phones could not operate from that distance above the earth until a few years later. That is what private investigators have found. There is apparently also some evidence that flight 93 landed quite safely.
The investigation must be reopened, either to put the rumors and challenges to rest, or to get the real truth on the table.
For more, see the videos noted above, and visit http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/00Pol.htm#Theories
I have written this below, concentrating on the Twin Towers, because it is intuitively simple, and appeals only to evidence which is easily and publicly available, such as the videos of the towers collapsing, and high school physics. But if I am wrong, I want to know.
It is also becoming clear to me how God may be using these events. Read on.
The matter before us is not rocket science. You need no more than some common sense, a persistent desire to get at the truth of the matter, and some knowledge of high school level science. Yes, high school level.
We have been told over and over that the World Trade Center Twin Towers collapsed because of the intense heat of the kerosene aviation fuel, which softened or melted the steel frame work of the burning floor, eventually collapsing that floor into the one below, leading to a continually collective collapse down to the ground (the "pancake theory" of collapse) of the 70+ floors of the one tower, with the same procedure happening in the other tower.
"Kerosene aviation fuel" sounds like "pretty serious stuff", so the public was convinced that the fires caused by it were sufficient to do the job. But...., according to the physics which one can get quite adequately in high school, this explanation is not a physical possibility.
Fact #1: the kerosene fuel might well have not burned hot enough, nor, apparently, did it burn long enough (well under two hours), to compromise the extremely durable steel used in the tower core framework, not even if it is "aviation" kerosene.
The Popular Mechanics (PM) article noted above replies to this charge that steel needs only to be weakened, not melted. No doubt there is truth in that statement, but then why have other steel framed buildings not collapsed, some of which burned much hotter and longer than the towers? According to the reports above, if true, building #7 was only the third such steel-framed building in history to have collapsed due to fire. And, the first and second of those buildings would be the two towers which collapsed just a few hours previously. If this is untrue, we need to know. If it is true that other metal framed buildings have burned but not collapsed due to fire, then that also needs to be recognized.
PM says that the black clouds rushing out the building would be caused by the expulsion of air from the pancake collapse.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
That, I think, is patent nonsense. It does not fit what one sees in the videos of the collapse. The enormous energy of the black clouds coming out of the building do not look at all as though they were caused by air compressed from the falling building. They look like explosions, and are expelling large objects like beams, into freefall speed. Those clouds of heavy, pulverized concrete dust, which inundated all of lower Manhattan and reached even (or almost) over to New Jersey, could hardly have been the result of the huff and puff of collapsing buildings.
And, if such a pancake collapse got started, it would quickly meet steel that was not hot at all, and thus not weakened, at the very least, measurably slowing, if not stopping cold, the downward collapse. That slowing (it does not have to stop the descent) would be fatal to the pancake theory because it would not be consistent with the known freefall speed of the descent.
PM also says that the fire descended down the elevator shafts. According to diagrams in the videos, the elevator shafts were divided into sections, specifically so fires could not spread past those dividers. You had to take three different elevators to get to the top, and the sections were virtually hermetically sealed.
Furthermore, the pancake theory cannot explain the 1000++ temperatures down in the subbasement still days after the collapse, where there were indeed found huge lumps of molten steel. That kind of heat requires high explosives on the spot, not kerosene 70+ floors above. The heat could remain for days because it was trapped underground.
PM enjoys arbitrarily contrasting its own view as "scientific" as against us "conspiracy theorists". That makes good propaganda, but not a credible PM.
Fact #2: one of the towers fell from top to bottom at a speed nearly equal to that of freefall, the top reaching bottom in under 10 seconds, the other tower at a similar rate.
A body falling in a perfect vacuum at earth's surface accelerates at the rate of about 32 ft/sec2 (32 feet per second per second). In other words, during the first second it falls 32', the second second it falls 64', the third second it falls 96', thus adding on an additional 32' to the distance fallen during each second it falls. At that rate of acceleration, an object dropped will, from the burning floor of the tower, reach to the pavement in just under 10 seconds. If you throw a brick off the tower, or if you jump off the tower, you and the brick will likewise arrive at the pavement in less than 10 seconds.
If you drop a feather, because the feather has a small weight-to-surface-area ratio, it will float down slowly. The air will "push back" on the small-weight-but-large-surface-area, causing it to slow down. On the other hand, the relatively small surface-area-compared-to-weight of you or a brick will not have enough air pushing backwards on it, and the two of you will plummet quickly. Parachutes have a large surface area compared to the small weight, which makes them act like large feathers, slowing down your descent so that you can land with relative safety.
Now suppose up about 78 stories high, a tower floor gets hit by a jet airplane, dousing it with kerosene aviation fuel. Most of the fuel will be burned up in the initial explosion. The remainder will burn within the building. It will likely lack a sufficient flow of oxygen to keep it hotly burning, but what is left will burn up relatively quickly even at a slow and "cool" burn. The slow burn with little oxygen explains the black clouds billowing out and upwards from the building. The heat, in such a case, some experts say is not likely to be high enough to sufficiently soften the supporting high quality steel columns -- all the more so in a fire of less than two hours, as was the case in both towers.
Yes, the spray-on insulation was knocked from much of the steel, but that is a matter which must be subject to inspection, as to whether the steel would likely have been compromised sufficiently by the kerosene to begin a pancake collapse.
If our floor is 78 stories up (approximately where one of the towers was hit), it will have 77 stories below which will resist its fall. Air provides some small resistance to a falling object, but floors designed to withstand earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and (literally) planes flying into them, etc., are going to offer considerably more sturdy resistance than air to a floor collapsing onto it from above. The Twin Towers were among the strongest commercial buildings ever built. They knew enough to protect against airplanes because a WW II twin engine B-25 had already, several decades earlier, flown into the (still standing) Empire State building. And B-25s used gasoline which burns hotter than kerosene.
But, let us give supporters of the pancake theory a good shot at it, and let us say that the floor below will hold up the collapsing floor from above for only one second before collapsing to the next floor below. If each floor held and delayed the fall for just one second, the falling building would be delayed 76 seconds -- resulting in a total time of the freefall 10 seconds + 76 seconds of delay = 86 seconds = 1 minute + 26 seconds to reach the bottom, not 10 seconds. Almost eight times longer, well over a minute.
But given the relatively low temperature of kerosene burning and the resistance of the floors below, and given that almost all of the floors will be cool and full-strength steel, the time of the fall could be minutes, or hours, even days. Or, never. The top floor with the original fire might hold, the fire run out of fuel, and burn out. Or get put out, as in several other metal-framed building which, despite longer burning and perhaps hotter flames, did not collapse (see the videos).
The burnable stuff already in the building (itself built not to burn) was mainly office equipment, papers, etc., materials which would likely be in too short supply to keep a fire burning for long, and also would not burn hotly enough to compromise the strength of the supporting structure. The building was designed that way.
The pancake theory requires that the floors below the initial fire would not delay the descent even by one second, so the "pancake" theory cannot reasonably be said to work. It cannot explain the fact that the floors collapsed at near freefall speed, the same speed as a freely falling brick. Even if the pancake got started and continued, the cool steel below the first few floors would at least measurably slow down any such collapse, disallowing a freefall speed.
And, at the bottom, there were no signs of a pancake pile of floors. 90,000 tons of concrete floors had been pulverized to dust. No floors left at all. No pancake crash in the world could produce that.
And, indeed, it was obvious that the fires in both buildings were not covering the whole of the floors in either case up to the time of the collapse. People were looking out the blackened hole created by the plane in at least one of the towers, with little or no visible fire in sight -- so what happened to the steel-softening/melting inferno?
A fire chief had made it with his men up to the burning floor in one of the towers and radioed that he was forming a plan to put the fire out. If the fire had been the raging, steel-softening/melting inferno described by the "official" report, he could hardly have gotten to the floor, and if he did, he would not likely have been able to put it out. Videos showing persons peering out the openings on those floors which had already been hit, no flames in sight, prove there could not have been the inferno described.
So, what then prevented the fire chief from putting out the fire? That "prevention" is what is certainly reasonable to suspect happened next - which, if true, must have been pre-planned over weeks, and deliberate.
There are just two possibilities of which I am aware which could explain the collapses, one being the wholly inadequate pancake theory. The only other explanation which has surfaced and which can explain the neat plunge of those extraordinarily tall buildings straight down into their basements is that the buildings were, just as it appears, victims of planned detonation from within.
Many have seen pictures of buildings being detonated - which were being replaced by newer buildings (or whatever). One could hardly watch the Twin Towers collapsing without having such a memory at least blink in the back of one's head. The descent of these high towers was almost picture perfect (well, behind all that smoke and powdered cement...).
There is no possible way, we are told by some who are demolition experts, to produce such a result other than by a well-planned internal demolition. Demolition charges would have to be placed at all the "joints" of the building, all the places where girders and other structural elements came together. And that normally takes at least two weeks, and perhaps a couple of months, all the more so in the massive sizes of the three buildings which (say us "conspiracy" advocates) must have been charged with explosives.
If the joints of one's body were all demolished simultaneously, one's body would immediately collapse in a neat pile on the ground. It would probably not lean to one direction or the other, it would plop straight down.
Detonating the bottom out from under the top would be necessary to keep the building from leaning and falling one direction or another. You remove anything that might keep gravity from doing its straight-to-the-center-of-the-earth efficient work. That is exactly what a properly internally detonated building does. It drops the floor into freefall, or sometimes guides the walls toward the center of the building. The towers (as contrasted to building #7) were too tall and narrow to guide towards a center. They went straight down. In what other manner could one accomplish that drop into a (relatively) neat pile at the bottom?
The pile, of course, was not really "neat", it was scattered over an area, affecting other buildings, as would be expected from such a large, tall mass falling down by any means at all. But the fall was freefall speed. That it scattered somewhat at the bottom was inevitable.
As one learns to watch the videoed details of the towers collapsing, one begins to see new things. Right at the top where the fires are supposedly raging and heating metal up to liquid temperatures (and, yes, with people are watching out the holes in the wall), we see suddenly huge clouds of very black smoke blowing out and then plunging straight down. The clouds are dark and full of large objects falling at brick-like speed. Freefall. No pancake collapse within could produce such dense, heavy falling clouds. And only a violent explosion could get those large beam-sized objects so forcefully projected out of the building.
Fire clouds tend to go up, explosion clouds, full of heavy debris, can much more readily go down. The clouds coming out did not go up, as does hot smoke, they fell rapidly, right along with the collapsing floors because they were filled with heavy powdered, pulverized cement along with beams and other heavy objects. The weight of the 90,000 tons of powdered floor cement drove them downward. Imagine how much dynamite had to be brought into the building and placed to virtually vaporize 90,000 tons of cement.
Such pulverized cement is impossible to produce with the pancake theory of floor
collapsing. The cement from the floors could have been
powdered only by very strong explosions, such as are designed to pulverize the
joints of a building. Not only was cement powdered, but also computer
parts, mercury from fluorescent lamps, other objects from the floors -- and
Pancakes do not do that. Pancakes squash, not finely pulverize or vaporize everything
in sight. There should
have been large chunks of concrete floor at the bottom, and considerably less
pulverized concrete powder all over New York City.
One sees flashes of light emerging out some of the windows, suggesting explosions within the building (often easily seen with buildings being demolished).
There were repeated reports from by standers and from persons who made it out of the buildings of hearing explosions, one after another, "Poom, poom, poom," they said as they gesticulated with their hands. The firemen were particularly graphic about the explosions they heard and saw -- as they might well be, having just lost 300+ of their own number to someone's coldhearted violence. One janitor heard a horrendous explosion in the subbasement of the building, shattering glass and wall panels in the first floor lobby. How could this be caused by fires 70+ floors higher on top?
That captain at the top with his men getting ready to put out the fire and those watching out the holes in the walls would have been consumed, vaporized by those detonations, not by the original fire itself being so intense and collapsing the floor. The floor below them would literally drop out. The floor on which the captain and his crew had stood, along with any others there, was suddenly pulverized and out the window -- or collapsing under them, in either case at freefall speed -- why? because there was no floor left under the one upon which they had stood to slow them down even one second. That is how detonations are planned when a building is being deliberately detonated and demolished.
So, does not common sense tells us what made the Twin
Towers fall? Someone, the evidence tells us, was seated safely in a distant enough building,
clicking his mouse or punching keys to electronically detonate carefully planted explosives,
the charges presumably having been placed in the spaces between the floor above
and the drop-ceiling. Some speculate building #7 was the place where the
detonators were hiding. Building #7 did not go down until hours after the
towers were on the ground (or wafting in the air), and so provided a perfect
place from which to operate -- even a shielded, insulated bunker built in case of
danger for the mayor of NYC. If so, all of that above inconvenient evidence
would have to be vaporized.
The center columns of the towers were massive at the
bottom, tapering and thinning upward as the weight needing to be borne became
lighter and lighter. The rest of the building was suspended from those
center columns, perhaps with help from the outside framework. As the
alleged cement floor pancake proceeded downward, it would shear off the
horizontal, lateral supporting
beams from the central verticle columns, slowing down the fall at each floor. But there would be no
horizontal shear force to cut or break or bend those
massive verticle columns themselves. The falling debris would tend to
slide down the vertical columns, not shear them off. Why were they not standing upright for many
stories with the pile of rubble deposited around the bottom of them? Why
were the visible sections of column flying through the air looking exactly the same length -- the
height of the floors? What
can account for those huge columns being sheared off in pieces, lying at the bottom,
other than internal, hugely hot explosions -- which could be set to cut them in convenient
pieces for quick shipment off site (get rid of the evidence)? Such lateral breakage would have
required enormous lateral shear force against the vertical columns, for which a pancake theory cannot account.
But thermite explosive would.
And then building #7 was, as they say, "pulled".
That is, Larry Silverstein, the man who leased the building with huge amounts of
insurance which specifically covered terrorist activity (typically excluded in
insurance policies), said he told the
fire department to pull (detonate) the building because it allegedly had been severely
damaged by falling and burning debris. But fire departments are not
trained to detonate buildings. They are not going to carry with them the
probably tons of dynamite necessary to "pull" such a huge building.
Firemen put fires out, not start them. No one but an oblivious idiot would
carry dynamite into a burning building. In such a
large building, it would likely have taken another two weeks or two months, not an
hour or two in an already chaotic situation, with
specially trained personnel to place those
charges so as to produce the proper "pull" effect. Larry Silverstein
forced the public to choose between whether he is a liar or a fool.
Again, this is only a small part of the evidence contradicting the government report. Building #7, the Pentagon, and flight 93, allegedly crashing in Pennsylvania, even more obviously than the towers, are in need of explanation.... The Popular Mechanics article is, in my opinion, wholly inadequate and misleading....
...leaving a bunch of very painful questions which MUST be asked and answered. What kind of people can knowingly create such murderous chaos, and then innocently walk around town? and why? to provide a unifying New Pearl Harbor? to justify going to war against Iraq? Words like 'sociopath' and 'psychopath' come to mind.
So, indeed, who could benefit from this?
If the above explanation is accurate, then, the terrorism must have been planned on the "inside", not by foreign Muslims. Is so, then the perpetrators were almost for sure using the Muslims as "useful idiots" (Gramsci-wise) for their treachery.
Somebody had to get into those huge buildings to plant the explosives -- a monumental task. And, it turns out, as explained by the www.ae911truth.org website, there were "elevator repairs" made about a month prior to the attacks -- a perfect cover for planting charges which could bring the buildings down.
I have to conclude, if this is an "inside job", that the whole of American federal government must have been perverted, probably over decades, and become a haven and center for the most evil forces imaginable. If so, it is shot through with moral and criminal corruption from the top most levels perhaps even down to the lower, where, no doubt, it begins to shade off into the ignorant and "useable". A careful reading of American politics for the last seven or so decades supports just that thesis (explained in the "Confronting the Evidence" video and other places).
There are also, no doubt, honest persons working in our federal government, but they are naive and ignorant (as most of us have been) to the point of self-destruction. It appears that we have been made accomplices to our own enslavement, useful idiots to be spit out and trampled as we wake up to our chains.
Skeptics of this viewpoint ask how such an event could be carried off without someone from the inside coming out with the truth. That is a very good question. But since that event, we have globally witnessed the demise of the alleged evidence for global warming. Global warming has been promoted since at least the early 1990's, for many years longer than since 9-11. Yet it took all those years clear up until 2009 for someone to breach the walls of secrecy, for someone perhaps with a burning conscience to spill the beans about the deception and dishonesty among the so-called scientists defending global warming. There are apparently ways of keeping large numbers of critics shut up and silent.
So, indeed, who benefits??? If the official story of 9-11is false, what would be the motive for such a horrendous act, and whose act could it be?
Only one group of which I am aware fits -- that deliberately vague and shadowy government of Globalists, the neo-centralizers, neo-cons, and their minions who desire to create chaos in order to justify increasing centralization of government -- for their own "qui bono", of course. In that case, the officials we elect are mostly paid, compromised puppets, not rulers, not governors. Our elections are a sham, and our once two-party system is now rather one monster with two heads. We need an alternative (I suggest America's Party.)
The strategies of creating chaos in order to justify centralizing of power were subversively current in American politics at least as early as the 1960's Kennedy administration, though Kennedy himself apparently rejected them out of hand. But they go back much further into at least the Nazi and Communist quests for power. They perhaps filtered down in the 1930's into the Antonio Gramsci plots to reject warfare as a way of spreading Communism, and instead, opting for the long march through the institutions of a society -- as we see throughout the West.
None of these possibilities are new to me, only the horrific depth to which they perhaps have sunk.
The link below - 911 Press for Truth suggests a horrendous possibility -- that our government made a bargain with the government of Afghanistan to blame Al Quaida and Bin Ladin for the inside job to which the evidence strongly points.
Part IV. Mind Control
Once these gradualist-centralizers got control of the American education system in the 1960's with the creation of the Federal Department of Education, they were all but assured of success. They were given free and unmonitored access to the hearts and minds of our children and of the next generations. We, in our apathy and ignorance, are reaping the horrible results of letting mind-control experts be our "educators".
Only a group such as the Globalists, which control most of education, the media, industry, the economy (through the Federal Reserve), and have been able to buy out, or at least neutralize, most politicians, could possibly have had the capacity to carry out the complexities of the 9-11 carnage, and then persuade the population that Muslim Jihadists had done it.
I am no friend of Jihadists, but it has been my opinion for some time that the Muslims are tools of the Globalists, "useful idiots" to be dispensed with when they lose their usefulness. Likewise for the homosexual folks -- who are merely the expendable grunts in the moral-chaos-creating plan.
Note: many of those Muslims named and accused by the government report of doing the deed, flying the airplanes, were later found by researchers to be alive and well in various parts of the world, not dead and not involved at all.
According to the above reports, Osama bin Laden did not acknowledge doing the deed. He denied it. The alleged admission we all heard was, it is claimed, a fake, the supposed bin Laden shown in the DVD (when compared with the real thing) clearly not looking like the real bin Laden.
Why then would Muslims allow themselves to be lied about, and accused of such evil as 9-11? ....perhaps in a swap for permission to invade Europe and the rest of the West. More chaos to justify more centralization. Muslims are getting full cooperation from the Globalists on that front, featured positively (right after 9-11) even in our own once-upon-a-time-American education system. Muslim culture is too dysfunctional, and could never have created the threat they have to even our own dysfunctional Western Civilization -- without a Globalist invitation.
But just perhaps the Globalists have a bear by the tail and the Muslims will take over on their own. Not likely given the terrible dysfunctionalism of the Muslim people. They cannot run even their own industry, how can they take over the world without serious help (cooption?) by the globalists?
At any rate, this pandering to Muslims also illustrates the "cognitive dissonance" strategy -- of giving the American population contradictory messages so as to confuse and render them apathetic. Keeping open borders while pretending to make war on Islamic radicals -- is such a strategy, or -- kicking Biblical religion out of American education (church and state, you know), yet inviting Muslim religion in.
If the Globalists were indeed the perpetrators of 9-11, as I now believe the evidence at least strongly suggests, then they might know that the borders were not likely to be a route for weapons of mass destruction to enter the US. They would know (just perhaps) where such weapons were being deployed, that we are not in danger (not, at least, until they deemed violence again "necessary" for their purposes), all the while issuing dire but empty warnings of terrorist threat -- to justify centralization of government.
Such people think they are God, but are in fact puppets of Satan, with (I predict) ample participation in occult, orgiastic, and demonic activities among them. Sooner or later, almost everyone creates a "religion" for himself, something to personalize the otherwise lifeless and barren planet of secularism. Even Satan might seem a better option than vast and eternal emptiness.
At the very least, the case must be reopened so that there can be a public contest of the evidence. Any refusal by the government to comply, to honor the right of we, the people, to petition the government for redress of grievances, is only further evidence of the truth of the government "conspiracy" charges. And in that case, it is the government which is guilty of "conspiracy", falsely charging Muslim radicals and its own citizens, not to mention first degree murder, and high treason against their oath of office and against the people of America.
There is too much at stake for the people of America not to force an open and independent investigation. If the government report is the truth, let them prove it honorably.
"Conspiracy" theorists do not need to prove that it was an "inside job" (though publicly available evidence seems very much to point that way), we need prove only that there is reasonable evidence to question the "official" theory. A reopening of the investigation is demanded.
A speaker in one of the videos explains how the neo-cons of the 1960's had come to believe that there was no way for America to retain a unified focus other than by having a Great Satan figure to fight against, like Hitler or Hirohito. The neo-cons were almost right. Without God, moral focus indeed collapses. Already by the turn of the 20th century, Western civilization was fast losing its Biblical moral and spiritual focus, just drifting. So the neo-cons of the '60's, in their wisdom determined to either find or manufacture a focus, some even talking about a "new Pearl Harbor" to regalvanize the people (see DVD video, "Loose Change", put out by www.AE911Truth.org).
But there is a self-contradiction built into tyranny, and thus into the program of any tyrant, that they must first destroy the moral infrastructure of a people so as to divide and conquer, to fragment -- but then they must rebuild and reunite under their own pseudo-morality. A strong Biblical moral consensus is the surest barrier to a tyranny. It alone can unify the people against evil.
But, having destroyed the spiritual and moral unity, they then have the task of reuniting the people so they are governable. A morally fragmented people are ungovernable -- except by concentrated, centralized power (a clue...). Having destroyed the moral good as a unifying focus, they have only evil to which to appeal. So they are almost forced into the Great Satan ploy. They needed, just as they thought, an enemy to unify the population, some threat against which to unite. Lacking a real enemy (other than the conspirators themselves) they made one up. Radical Muslims appear (a bit ambiguously) to be the enemy of choice.
Enter Jesus into power politics....
Jesus prayed (John 17) for the disciples to be one -- so that the world would know that He came from the Father. The world cannot produce an inner unity, it can produce only an externally enforced unity which requires a mighty project (WW II, or getting to the moon), or an outward enemy against which to focus (almost any war will do, or, e.g., global warming). When it does not have that unity, the world wanders and drifts, as today, into apathy, self-satisfaction, and feel-good mentality. It loses its focus, just as with America of the late 1940's and '50's. WW II was over, and we had a rapidly declining spiritual life. By the 1960's, with the Supreme Court's dismissal of God, the moral and spiritual floor was, like the towers, almost in freefall. So, America was ripe for takeover by government centralizers.
The only way to have a stabile unity among a population is to have an intellectual, moral, and spiritual unity, i.e., a common worship. There is no other. All else leads to just those problems of a fracturing population wrestled with by the neo-cons -- and to their kind of solution for those problems.
The axe fell when our Supreme Court (in 1962, Engel vs. Vitale) told God He could no longer talk to our children on school time, nor they to Him. God was openly dismissed as Sovereign, and the Church, which is to be the conscience of society, and the leader of worship, said mostly nothing. The moral lid was off. The cultural stats tell the story.
All this cultural degradation is, of course, prior to and in that sense independent of 9-11. But the same mind-set and forces are at work.
Jesus prayed for the unity of the disciples because He knew that when unbelievers saw in a population His kind of inner love and devotion, not only to God, but to each other and even to their secular/pagan neighbors and enemies, they would know that it had to come from God. They would know that they could not produce that kind of unity.
That is the fatal dilemma of secularism and of tyranny. Secularists who want a limited government for a free people want something they can have only at the cost of something they are not willing to grant -- the sovereignty of God.
The surest sign of the end of tyranny is when a people begins to restore Biblical worship and thus a Biblical moral consensus (happening now in China). Any alert Globalist would know that, and so they make Biblical faith a primary target.
Not to worry, God has made the Globalists a primary target of His own, and will use His own people to carry out His destruction of Globalist plans (see Exodus 3 on God, Moses, and Pharaoh) -- if we, the people, will submit to His leadership against our latter-day wanna-be Pharaohs. We will never do it on our own (see 2 Chronicles 7:14, and John 15 ).
So, our public Christian witness, "Jesus is Lord and Savior!" (that is a political statement) is the beginning point for renewal of our faith in the public arena. The politics, under Christ, will follow upon the spiritual conversion. It will be very, very costly, but it won Rome, and it can win America back. It can win the West back, and it can win the whole world.
When Christians are united under a God as the source of science, political freedom, economic free market, as well as our personal spiritual freedom to become real persons, as we show the kind of unity for which Jesus prayed, Christians will be able (as tentatively with Rome) to reform civil government to a servant authority -- not perfectly until Jesus returns, but substantially. As we Christians get back our intellectual, moral, and spiritual credibility, Globalists and other power-centralizers will be the ones shaking in their boots and hiding again in the rocks and crevices, out of the light of day. Our Biblical form of government (limited government for a free people) will be restored and renewed, and the righteous among the nations, as the Old Testament testifies over and again, will flock to the government of the Godly and righteous.
That has happened already in the brief life time of once-America. Immigrants came flooding to America for many different and conflicting reasons, but many of them came because they wanted to be under a government such as we had. There was a sufficient measure of Biblical faith among our people, yes, even in many of our leaders. So it seemed to many that our principles of government were those of a Godly people, even though we often and sadly violated our own principles. People flooded here because they wanted to be ruled by such persons under such principles -- that is, under God.
We Christians managed to lose all that and become the laughing stock of the 19th and 20th centuries. But the tide is again turning because Christians are again regaining their intellectual credibility -- becoming truth-seekers rather than position-defenders. Christians are learning that an open, honest contest of ideas is the Biblical way to truth. That will help lead to a powerful moral and spiritual credibility of word and deed.
If Christians in America will not do it, God will find others, perhaps in Africa, China, or Korea -- who know how to die well (see also, Tell My Brothers that I Died Well...).
Secularists and neo-pagans are being exposed (as in the evolution vs. intelligent design debate) for having little credible ground upon which to stand. It will be a long, hard hike, with casualties (yes, martyrs) and many battles to fight, but, under the law and grace of God, it is a very winnable war. God will turn the "qui bono" to His own ends -- love of God and love of neighbor. And we will once again be headed for that unity which only God can provide -- where every honest man benefits.
Again, go here for the evidence assembled by over 1000 licensed architects and engineers in contradiction to our government's official story -- http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence.html . This is electric and compelling material. Read letter to NIST head researcher from Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth. Watch this YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
Conspiracy Theories for further information, & top
** I'm a Recovered Muslim - Bosch Fawstin. A former Muslim speaks his mind on
what is the true Islam and what is the new "friendly Islam". E. Fox commentary.
Video on opening of 9-11 Memorial
May the truth be celebrated....
A few more thoughts from a friend:
the more recent ones by ae911truth.org:
Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 (15 .min)
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; (2:16 Hours)
911 Press for Truth
[This indicates that the US Government colluded with Afghanistan to blame Bin Ladin and Al Quaida for 9-11, to cover up an inside job. Al Quaida must have been in on it because, if the story is true, the so-called attempt to get Bin Ladin was bogus. They let him escape. E. Fox]
and for a deeper look at the issues:
Core of Corruption: Vol. 1 in the shadows
On the ideological roots of the globalist agenda:
The Power of Nightmares
And on propaganda manipulation of society:
The Century of Self
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *