The events of 9/11 were a hoax. I spent several years researching the event and have presented my conclusions on this topic. People are free to read what I have to say and agree or disagree with those conclusions.
My question now is: what should we who are convinced of the falsity of the official theory of 9/11 want?
We will never convict those responsible for this fraud.
We will never get the mainstream media to show our side to the story.
We will never reverse the policies that came about as a result of the fraud.
With that in mind, we can and should focus on something that we can attain. It is something far more basic than any of these other goals and perhaps even more useful.
It is the simple concept of freedom.
The controversy over what happened on September 11 and many other events before and since has stoked the fears of all of us.
Fear of terrorists. Fear of foreigners. Fear of flying. Fear of freedoms being taken from us. Fear of the future.
In the words of Franklin Roosevelt, we need freedom from fear.
We can work toward this goal by untangling us from what makes us so afraid: the unknown. Answers to a few simple questions would be helpful.
Are you afraid the government will take your guns (or other freedoms)?
Do you often believe what the same government tells you about 9/11 and other events?
Do you believe history repeats itself?
Do you believe the future will be much different than the past?
If you are willing to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time, will you ever achieve freedom of thought?
Welcome to a future that will be a lot like what we have already experienced. The government and media will continue to lie to protect interests. People will continue to predict Doomsday. The truth about anything important will be known but never stated openly until it no longer matters.
Clear your mind and follow the way of the world. Not a straight line to disaster but one big familiar circle instead.
If I had free will, what would that mean?
Would I still have to deal with the uncontrollable things in life - my DNA, the weather, and decisions made by others?
I am skeptical of the idea of free will because our freedom to will is so limited.
I am under six feet tall. Even if I will to be an NBA star, does it matter?
I doubt free will.
I do not like the concept of fate, either. I reject the idea that my life is guided by some force or that it has been determined ahead of time.
How can anyone prove their fate, anyway?
We are handed a number of characteristics and circumstances. We play the cards we are dealt. Not everyone gets a chance at a royal flush.
We are free to imagine things being better, but our choices are as limited as the people we are. We can work on freeing ourselves of limitations but in doing so, our will really is not free.
We are free to make what for most are easy decisions - pay the rent, don't commit a crime - but when the decisions get tougher, we are reminded we are not free to disregard consequences.
Nothing is really free. Fate is only understood in hindsight where it can be explained but not proven.
We realize at some point in our formative years certain truths. Only one kid is the smartest kid in the class and it is not us. The person we have a crush on may not have a crush on us. We get privileges like driving at roughly the same rate that we get responsibilities (like paying for gasoline or insurance).
The harder truths welcome us to adulthood. We have to find a way to pay the bills, to work with bosses and co-workers who see the world differently than we do and some of us get interesting neighbors.
These are the truths that we handle. We go to work, we play by the rules of society and we deal with the consequences when we do not.
But some truths make us feel uncomfortable. These truths typically come to our attention when the rules are murky and we have no one to ask for advice.
Take, for example, a situation where one is a witness to a crime. The rules of society urge us to report the activity to the police, and I am sure most people do so. But what if the police are involved in the crime, or one’s employer? The consequences of acting approach the consequences of not doing so.
Let’s say the witness to the crime is an advisor to a candidate for high office. And the witness sees the candidate involved in illegal campaign contributions and falsifying campaign finance reports.
The witness now has several factors to consider: Do I tell anyone? Who would I tell? How badly will I be harming the campaign (that the witness otherwise believes in)? Whom could I ask for advice who won’t tell the candidate? Can I tell an authority this information anonymously? If my name is given to the candidate by the person I tell, will I be fired? Will I then be able to get another job?
The truth of what happened here is indisputable. The truth of what to do about it is far more complex.
Some accounts of the truth depend upon the teller. People who have much to lose typically show no interest in giving the whole story about what they know.
A man goes to a workshop entitled “Finding the Truth.” He listens to the lecturer drone on and on about a number of different topics. Afterward, he decides to approach the lecturer and ask him, “What is the truth?”
“The truth reveals itself every day.”
Puzzled by this response, the man asked others attending the class what the truth was. They replied that “the truth is as the professor says.”
Frustrated, he went to the cashier’s booth to ask for his money back. The cashier looked at him and asked why.
“I didn’t get my money’s worth about finding the truth!”
“The truth is that if you walk away now, you will lose your opportunity to join the elite club.”
The lecturer, the other attendees and the cashier all told the truth, but simply failed to mention one fact to the man: they were involved in a pyramid scheme.
So some truths do not dare speak their name. And some questions with certain individuals will be completely ineffective. For example, if you ask a devout Christian whether the Resurrection took place, do you really think their answer will be anything but affirmative?
Getting the truth about any topic of interest rarely involves one question. The witness to the campaign crime cannot determine the best approach without going through a series of questions like the one described.
And some questions are misplaced. The man who attended the lecture could have asked the professor what the lecture had to do with finding the truth. And one could ask a devout Christian why they believe in the Resurrection.
Setting the truth free involves going through the circumstances around it and then picking a set of questions that pinpoint what one needs to know.
I want to change the Pledge of Allegiance.
The one we have been reciting from kindergarten on for over fifty years does not represent the values we as citizens of our nation should live by. First, here is, line by line, what is specifically wrong with the current pledge:
I pledge allegiance
The dictionary defines pledge as a “solemn promise.” Usually there are consequences to breaking promises. But what are we pledging are allegiance to?
To the flag
We promise to be loyal to a flag? This makes no sense. We need loyalty to something more substantive than a piece of cloth.
Of the United States of America
Should we be loyal to those who wave the flag of our nation on the one hand and commit acts of treason on the other? The perpetrators of the crimes of 9/11 did not burn the flag; they wore and continue to wear it on their coats.
And to the Republic
Yes, we live in a republic. This means other people vote on our behalf. But does a republic exist when the representatives consistently vote against the interests of the people they serve? How about when decisions made, like the decision to go to war in Iraq, are based on lies told and lies believed?
For which it stands
So the flag stands for the Republic. This sounds like we should believe in our flag and the Republic. That works fine unless you doubt the words of those who carry the flag on our behalf.
One nation
We are one nation composed of many states and jurisdictions. When the federal government contradicts a state government or forbids or discourages a state to carry out an investigation of a crime (as in the JFK assassination), the idea of one nation becomes a bit confusing.
Under God
The Knights of Columbus urged Congress to include this line during the days of Communist scare. To assume we have the blessing of a deity after our nation’s actions of invading helpless nations and killing innocent people is either chutzpah or it suggests that God is not watching us.
Indivisible
Divisions tear our nation apart. The last time our nation resembled indivisibility was after 9/11 but that division required several government lies about the attacks to stick it together.
With liberty and justice for all.
The Patriot Act alone has taken away several liberties by substantially weakening the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. People are harassed for speaking out against government policies. Laws are proposed to send dissenters away. Forget about freedom of speech. There is so little freedom to even think about liberty and justice for anyone except those in power.
What should we pledge loyalty toward?
We ought to promise to ourselves to seek the truth about those in power, tell the truth about ourselves, act with ethics toward others and show compassion to the rest of the world.
RSS Feed