In the "debate" over 9/11, those who support the official story show little concern for facts or logic. What few "facts" they present were "found" by suspect sources. We need new mythology about this event to spark a better debate.
"... a story full of heroes, which the public loves, but no evidence that anyone died, let alone become the victim of a terrorist murder."
We are about to go through another onslaught of misinformation by much of the media. Here is what we are bound to hear about:
The brave passengers on Flight 93
Nineteen members of Al-Qaeda
Planes hitting the towers
Crazy conspiracy theories debunked
Here is the truth:
Flight 93 (aka United 93) on September 11 flew toward the West Coast long after its alleged "crash". There have never been any passengers verified for this flight, let alone anyone fighting hijackers.
There were no hijackings on September 11. Two of the flights alleged to have been hijacked NEVER EVEN TOOK OFF!
As there were no hijackings, there were no hijackings, let alone hijackings by Al-Qaeda.
No passenger planes hit anything that day.
People like me feel "crazy" listening to lies told by the media.
Source: Planes without Passengers (2nd edition) and Rumors Fly, Truth Walks, both by Dean T. Hartwell
After the shooting in Ferguson, who are the real winners?
As evidenced by this article on gun sales, gun sales are going way up in the area near Ferguson Missouri, where a police officer recently killed an unarmed young black man. Maybe this is not surprising.
But what if this event was staged? The possibility may shock you, but take a listen to this.
Staged event + escalating gun sales = a small group of people winning until society figures it out it has been had!
The best rivalries and best games in the National Football League Were in the 1970s!
The envelopes, please!
See no evil, fear no evil, speak no evil
See MH 370 fly
Don’t see MH 370 crash
Don’t see pieces of MH 370 plane
See the months go by
See MH 17 fly
See MH 17 veer from regular path
See MH 17 blown up
…in a war zone
…bodies said to be dead BEFORE the crash
See the flight listings
MH 17 was canceled that day!
Then it flew again the following day!
What's with that? MH 370 did not return for weeks!
Turn your TV off and find out more!
Years ago, I played Little League baseball. Those were good times. I was a pretty good player and I played on some winning teams. I learned about teamwork and sportsmanship.
I also learned a little about the dark side of some people. Not the players. They were kids like me, getting exposure to the kind of competition we would be accustomed to years later.
It was the parents, and specifically, some of the coaches. I will never forget what happened one season.
In Little League we had split seasons. There were two halves. Teams competed to win at least one of the half seasons to assure a spot in the championship. If a team won both halves, there was no championship – that team was declared the winner.
My team lost the first half narrowly to our rivals. In the second half, we were poised to win and face our rivals in the championship.
Then something happened.
Our rivals were set to play a game against another team. My brother, who was on my team, and I went to see the game. We hoped our rivals would beat the other team, which was challenging us for the second half.
We saw our rivals take the field. Some guy who had never pitched the entire season took the mound. He threw pitches in the dirt to a catcher who had barely gotten the equipment on! We tried to find our rivals’ best player, who had clobbered several home runs that season. He was not on the field: he was on the bench.
The other team came to bat. The first hitter grounded a ball toward the second baseman, who started to step toward it. Then he stopped and watched the ball roll by. The next batter popped the ball into the outfield. Two outfielders looked at each other and laughed as the ball dropped.
The game went on like this. My brother and I watched for a while, stunned that no one was stopping it. We went home and told my dad, who called the league commissioner’s office and relayed our account. The commissioner said he would get back to him. He never did.
Who would throw a Little League game?
People who put their self-interest before respect for the rules.
As I grew older, I realized this tactic was quite common. Friends shoplifted. Classmates cheated on tests. Co-workers embezzled money.
And this was small fish, compared to the prizes at stake in our society.
I have written three essays recently which accuse people of putting their self-interests before respect for the rules in presidential elections and other significant events in recent United States history:
The 1980 Election: How the Reagan Campaign Made History - and Foreign Policy
George W. Bush Wins Job in December 2000 to Play President in September 2001 Movie about Terrorist Hoax
Our Next President - and Who Will Pull Their Strings
Those who deceive and flaunt rules will always have the advantage. With no concern for ethics, they can achieve their goals using every option available.
So why do we, who are aware of these deceptions, bother to bring them to the attention of others?
Because life is a lot like baseball.
We may hit the ball or we may strike out.
But we won't let someone make a fool of us.
SEND THIS TO SOMEONE FRUSTRATED WITH OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM!
If we knew who decided presidential elections, we could determine who will win the Presidential Election of 2016.
I have pointed out in two recent articles that the decision makers are certainly not the voters or even the Electoral College. Groups of individuals have had enormous influence on election outcomes.
The 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign, a group of private citizens, effectively made foreign policy by convincing Iran to keep our hostages past the election in exchange for the promise of weapons. Twenty year later, groups of people determined to make war in the Middle East manipulated public opinion to help George W. Bush get “elected” president.
Similar efforts have taken place in other elections. Anna Chennault, a high level supporter of Richard Nixon, convinced her friends in the South Viet Nam government to withdraw from peace talks before the 1968 election. Consequently, the talks fell apart, which enabled Nixon to edge Hubert Humphrey, Johnson’s Vice President, in the election.
When we combine this type of interference in our elections with assassinations and assassination attempts, we see a clear picture of who is behind these actions and what they want. The assassination of JFK promoted Johnson to the presidency, whereupon he escalated the Viet Nam War. The war continued in large part because of the assassinations of two people who argued that it must end, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy.
The attempt on the life of candidate George Wallace knocked him out of the 1972 presidential race and with it any chance that Democrat George McGovern could win (with Wallace as a third party candidate siphoning votes from Nixon). A near-fatal shooting of President Ronald Reagan gave Vice President and former CIA Director George H. W. Bush control over the Administration long before he won election himself.
From these events alone, it should be clear (1) successful politicians are disposable puppets who represent interests (wittingly or unwittingly) and (2) the interests involve power, wealth and war. I refer to them as the “War Party.”
Why would those who control these interests allow elections to alter their control?
The simple answer is that they wouldn’t. They stand to lose too much.
Other events have influenced the selection of presidents. I have written extensively about the hoax of 9/11, in which the War Party planted stories of passenger flights hijacked by terrorists who flew them into buildings, including the World Trade Center.
The fall of the towers was planned well in advance, in part to give owner Lawrence Silverstein billions of dollars in insurance money. Whether anyone actually died as a result is in serious debate.
I suggested that the War Party needed a president who would not ask too many questions and would allow the hoax to play out in September 2001. They got their man in George W. Bush, who mysteriously won the election against a far superior opponent.
Two wars, which Bush and his Administration cited the events of 9/11 as reason to invade, followed.
In recent years, a war of sorts has been brought home to us. We keep hearing in the media about incidents of gun-related violence. Because of the media coverage of Sandy Hook and other events, the public perceives these shootings as commonplace. Some politicians, including President Barack Obama, have called for tougher gun control, while others calls for less or even no gun control.
As in war, truth is often the first casualty in this debate. The organization FactCheck.org called out Representative Donna Edwards for overstating the number of school-related incidents, Rep. Louie Gohmert for misleading statements about gun-concealment laws and Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign, for overlooking the fact that gun-related murders have gone down.
The debate over guns gets played over and over in the media and few, except for organizations like FactCheck, bother to challenge all sides. Why is that?
Someone is winning the real “debate” here. “Almost as many guns -- 26.1 million -- were produced during Democrat Barack Obama’s first term as president as during the entire eight-year presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the ATF data show,” says Bloomberg.com.
Townhall.com states that “The FBI has released new statistics on NICS background checks showing 2013 gun sales hit a new record.” After noting that Obama has used executive orders to attempt to implement gun control, Townhall goes on to note that “President Obama is indeed the best gun salesman in U.S. history.”
Obama, a two-term president, is a successful politician. Is he a puppet for the interests of power, wealth and war, like the gun sellers? Hoaxes often ask us to ignore facts and respond instead to perception, like the 9/11 hoax’s use of “phone calls” from relatives in passenger planes.
Was Sandy Hook another hoax used to promote the underlying interests in our society?
We should ask less about the next puppet who will reside in the White House and more about who controls public perception of events like Sandy Hook. Then, perhaps by 2016, we can get our view of those who pull the puppet strings.