Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Copyright:Gerard Holmgren. Aug 14 2006. This material may be freely reproduced as long as it is not for commercial purposes. Please cite the authors name, the date, the web address where you found it, and the copyright notice.
WHY IT MATTERS THAT THERE WERE NO PLANE CRASHES ON SEPT 11.
This is a transcript of a speech which I gave (by telephone from Sydney) to the TV Fakery Conference in New York on August 13 2006.
Hello, I’m Gerard Holmgren and the topic for my talk is an often raised question—why does it matter that there were no planes?
I have 6 points in response to this question.
The first is what I call “the mirror”.
Imagine yourself listening to a speech by a mainstream peace activist who says something like
“The hijackers who flew those planes into the buildings were fanatics and George Bush is a fanatic. We need to be rid of the fanatics on both sides. A violent response is not the answer to this problem.”
Afterwards you say to them
“That’s fair enough in so far as it goes, but what you need to realize is that there weren't any crazy Arabs flying those planes. The Govt did the whole thing itself.”
And they say
“You’re nuts”.
So you start giving them some evidence—to which they have no answer, and as they start to see that they can’t refute your evidence, then they shift ground and say
“Well, why does it matter, anyway ? We already have more than enough evidence to show that US foreign policy is both unjust and a total failure and the cause of the problem.”
To which you reply
“I’ve just demonstrated solid evidence that the Govt planned and carried out the attacks itself and you say that it doesn't matter ? And that people don’t need to know this ? Indeed that they should *not* be made aware of this ?”
They respond
“Look. It’s hard enough to get people to oppose Govt policy without hitting them with these wild conspiracy theories about the Govt murdering thousands of its own people. Even if you’re right, people will never believe you. It only discredits the peace movement. And it doesn't matter, because we can already show them that a violent response only makes the problem worse.”
To which you reply
“So you still believe in crazy Arabs flying the planes?”
And they answer
“I’m saying that it doesn't matter who flew the planes. We need to be rid of the fanatics on both sides. The hijackers who flew the planes were fanatics. Bush is a fanatic. A violent response will not solve the problem.”
This is a classic fruit loop.
Do you feel frustrated with conversations like this ?
If so, and if you are someone who asserts that it doesn't matter whether there were any planes—then take a look in the mirror, because in the previous conversation, the person with whom you were arguing was yourself.
2.
Point two is the question of truth. This word is used ad-nauseam in relation to the debate over Sept 11. Crashing planes are at the core of the official story.
If you are saying that it doesn't matter whether or not the plane story is true, then you are saying that the truth doesn't matter.
If you believe that some other kind of agenda is more important than the truth, then say so up front and openly argue the philosophical position that truth does not matter.
But if so, then do not call yourself the “truth movement” and do not keep talking about exposing the truth of Sept 11. This is double think.
Either finding and exposing the truth—wherever it leads—is your mission or it isn’t. One or the other.
3.
My third point is that bad founding assumptions lead to bad conclusions no matter how careful the subsequent chain of research and logic. And bad conclusions lead to bad decisions.
The previously mentioned speech by the mainstream peace activist is an example. If their founding assumption had been correct—that Arab fanatics flew planes into buildings, then everything in their speech would have been perfectly reasonable. Instead, they were talking destructive and misleading babble, working directly against the cause which they claimed to support.
This destructive effect was due entirely to a false assumption being at the root of their entire position. This basic principle applies to everyone involved in public debate of any sort. As long as your founding assumption is wrong then you’ll finish up talking up rubbish, no matter how well researched, thought out and how well intended the subsequent steps may be.
There is enough danger of false assumptions due to genuine mistakes and due to difficulty obtaining accurate information without deliberately manufacturing them through a conscious policy of building one’s entire case on what one knows to be a false assumption.
4.
It’s sometimes asserted that we have all the evidence we need to show that it was an inside job. I’ve already demonstrated the problem with such an approach, by means of the argument with the peace activist. But there is a further problem with such an approach.
An inside job by who ? The Govt ? That’s only part of the story. The TV fakery on the Sth tower hit proves that the media was just as big a player as the Govt.
Govts come and go, but if the media which was a major player in organizing the psy-op remains in power, then nothing has changed. Hanging out a few patsies who have outlived their usefulness -like Bush and Silverstein—may satisfy a primitive thirst for revenge but it leaves fully intact the criminal infrastructure which organized the deception. In fact it strengthens it by giving the misleading appearance that the truth has been exposed and that justice has been done, while actually leaving the high level perpetrators fully in control and ready to move on to the next chapter of their deception.
If the media gets away with showing us a cartoon and passing it off as news in such brazen fashion, and then gets Govt patsies to take the fall, do you think they’ll only do it once ? And with continuing improvements in digital technology, the next one will be harder to pick if people have not been made aware that this sort of thing is happening
Also, this is strongly relevant to my previous point—that bad information leads to bad decisions. There is an obsession within the movement with trying to use the mainstream media as the vehicle to tell the so called -truth about the event.
If it were the case that the Govt had organized the whole thing, and that the media had been simply swept along by the tide, not knowing how to deal with the situation, and fallen into line because it simply didn’t have the courage or the knowledge to resist the situation, then exposure of the truth through the mainstream media might be a plausible aim.
But the knowledge that the media was a full and willing partner in organizing the entire deception, should make it obvious that disclosure of the full truth through that same media an absurd and impractical aim. If they allow limited amounts of truth to leak into the media, this is only because it is part of their plan to continue the deception and move it forward to the next chapter.
Selective truth can be as deceptive as lies.
The media might hang out the Govt , but it wont hang out itself, and this means that it will never facilitate disclosure of the full truth.
It’s like knowing that the police are running the local drug gangs and yet still going to them with information, expecting them to genuinely act on it, and then cheering because eventually they bust one of the gangs, when in actual fact, they’ve done it only to make people think that they’re doing something, and all it represents is a change in alliances within the trade, and a change in the details of how they’re going to keep running the trade.
If you can get something into the media without actually lying, then fine. But the moment you start making deals with them and calling that truth, then you become as bad as, if not worse than the Republicrats.
5.
Point five goes well beyond the implications of Sept 11 as a specific issue.
Sept 11 is not only a major driver of world policy and community attitudes, it’s iconic images are a major driver of the fundamental psyche and world view of the whole planet. Iconic images in people’s minds—things like a mushroom cloud, a Nazi rally, a starving African child, the moon landing—form a very important part of people’s views in the area where fact meets mythology.
There can be little doubt that the image of cartoon 175 approaching the Sth tower has already become one of the top iconic images of the last 100 years. And that if unchallenged, then it will continue to heavily influence the psyche of much of the world for many years to come—perhaps several generations.
There will be widely differing responses to it, both emotionally and in terms of political and social responses. There will be furious arguments over what it really means, why it happened, who did it, how various people should have responded and whether it could happen again.
All of this analysis and emotional response over a cartoon. A delusion.
This means an entire world gripped by mass delusion. An entire world where even the most intelligent analysts and compassionate activists are effectively insane. This relates strongly to my previous point that bad assumptions and bad information lead to bad decisions. If a cartoon is allowed to become one of the most iconic images driving people’s world view— thinking that the cartoon is real—then everyone will be making a lot of bad decisions. *No-one* will be able to make intelligent analysis or good decisions about almost anything, not matter how well intended or otherwise intelligent they may be.
For the manipulators, having the entire world worrying and arguing over the meaning of a cartoon as if it were real means mass delusion, which means that mass mind control, however and wherever they choose becomes easier than ever.
6.
The final point is if we are to look at each single piece of evidence on Sept 11, purely from the point of view of how well it covers the events of the day, then the TV fakery is *the* most important thing.
Why ? Because it proves many other points of evidence as well as itself.
For example, demolition proves demolition, but does not prove stand down, or hijacker ID fakery. They remain as completely independent arguments.
By contrast, TV fakery solves all three questions in one hit. It proves demolition—no more arguments about jet fuel fires, no more arguments about whether there were any Arabs on the planes, and it solves the mystery of why we haven't found the stand down order and why no one in the Air Force has come forward—it’s because there wasn’t any stand down order, because there didn’t need to be, because there weren't any hijacked planes.
Every other piece of evidence, while useful in proving one specific point and in demonstrating in a general sense that we have been lied to, leaves many significant loose ends.
Let me give you an example. The demolition by itself enables the whole hijacker myth to stand. A criminal group within the business community simply knew what was going to happen and decided to take advantage of the situation by using it as a cover to demolish the buildings and then criminal elements within the govt covered up for them retrospectively.
So then we need to add the stand down evidence to show that the Govt was also actively complicit in allowing to happen. While that research is excellent in so far as it goes, in showing that the official story is impossible to believe, it creates as many problems as it solves. It leaves us with a vague and embarrassing silence on trying to be specific about the exact mechanism of how such an order would have been issued, distributed enforced, and then covered up from top to bottom.
That would require a coordinated conspiracy of a far greater magnitude and risk than the TV fakery , which could have been done by a relatively small group of people.
Secondly it leaves us with a real headache in terms of logically extrapolating from the stand down situation. Put yourself in the position of the hijackers. What kind of idiot would plan to crash two planes into the towers, and then expect to be able to attack the pentagon 3/4 of an hour later and then expect to be able to attack the White House another 1/2 hour after that ?
The hijackers were seriously so stupid that never even considered the question of likely response from the air force ? They made an incredibly stupid plan which had no hope whatsoever of succeeding, but by an amazing coincidence the Govt had found out about it, and decided to let it happen ?
Not very plausible really. So to get around this, you have to conclude that the hijackers actually knew that the air force was going to be stood down for them.
Which means that hijackers and the Govt were actually working together. In which case why would Islamic fanatics commit suicide to help the US govt ? Which means that they weren’t Islamic fanatics. They were USG agents.
In which case, is it normal for top USG operatives to do suicide missions ?
So you try to solve this problem by considering remote controlled planes.
Which then creates the problem of why electronically hijack real flights with crew who might be able to ruin the plot, rather than use decoy drones ? Which then leads you on to substitute drones to try to solve that problem. Etc, etc.
As long as there are planes in the story, then each layer which is peeled back creates as many new problems as it solves.
This of course, is inevitable with any story if its central core is fiction. The most efficient way to bust a fictitious story is to go straight for its fictitious core, rather than keep chasing the tangential lies which were spin offs to try to cover the main lie.
As soon as you realize that there weren't any planes, then every significant loose end is tied up. The only remaining loose ends are things which are as a result of simply lacking enough specific enough information, such ,as who of the alleged passengers is a real dead person and how did they actually die ?
And although they are unsolved details they do not actually inconsistent with any of the answers which have been found, unlike the problems we saw earlier in the stand down story.
They are merely finer details , waiting to mopped up.
As long as planes remain in the story, it’s like slamming cupboard doors. You close one , and another swings open, and leaves the so called truth with almost as many holes as the official story.
Leaving planes in the story condemns opponents of the official story to a constant game of chasing ones own tail in a futile effort to tie up the loose ends.
|
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/matters.html |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
