Implications of 9-11 Truth - Where Will We End Up?

[Andrew Johnson]

There are now many hundreds - thousands even - of articles published that discuss the many aspects of 9-11 Truth and the history behind it.

It takes a while to get a feel for what the evidence really shows and it then takes a bit longer to divorce yourself from the old reality - the one where international terrorism actually is a real threat.

Once you have done this, however, and realised the basic truths i.e. that WTC buildings 1,2 & 7 did not collapse as a result of fire and jet impacts alone, it is necessary to consider the wider implications of this.

In the early stages of truth acceptance, one seems to be given to ask "Hang on - this is so obviously true, and I'm generally an average sort of person - how on Earth can those who are supposed to have dealt with this issue, have missed a truth as obvious as this one?"

This is one of the really key questions - and trying to answer it will, in my opinion, cause a subconscious reaction in some people resulting in a blind rejection of the evidence and truth with which the rest of us have now become familiar. This is one of the central areas of what Jimmy Walter described as the "rude awakening". It is the point where some people seem to reach out and press the "Snooze" button. Which implies that, after "5 minutes", the alarm is going to go off again and you are going to have to wake up, get up and "face the day's work".

Quite quickly, the realisation seems to be that all our institutions have failed us - Government, Media, The Academic Community, the Church, Banks - Big Business. They have all failed to flag the problems with the official story in a significant enough way - they have had almost 4 years to do it, and none of them have. There seem to be 2 reasons for this. Firstly, it shows our views and opinions are influenced so much by what is reported and the way that it is reported in the media. Secondly, some group of people (lets call them "The Control Group") must be manipulating events at an international level to be able to execute something like 9-11. It is my view that because none (or a number very close to zero) of the institutions have flagged up and presented any of this truth, they have either been manipulated, or they are simply rotten at the core (but not necessarily rotten to the core) and this has served to prevent the truth from coming out.

I also feel now that The Control Group have been going around and creating trouble for a fair number of years. Recent revelations that no attack actually took place in the Gulf of Tonkin (the event which precipitated the Vietnam War) are good evidence that this view is basically correct. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution)

The Control Group want us to be angry (and confused as much as possible) - it allows them to keep their power over us. They prefer to see us in chaos - and in situations where our intellectual capacities are arrested or diminished. Many people rant and rave at Bush and Blair, but to me it is likely that they are, or will be, the Power Patsies. They may end up getting booted out of office, and possibly accused of War Crimes of one kind or another, but which courts will try them? How would they get a fair trial? Even if they are "locked up", how much will that help us deal with the 9-11 Truth issue in general? When we have people like Michael Howard, Leader of the Opposition in the UK, calling for a "limited enquiry" into the London Bombings (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4673083.stm), doesn't this show that the issue is unlikely to be addressed by any of the main political parties?

It seems that no one in authority will truly engage with this issue yet - there is too much vested interest at stake. One of the things I feel quite strongly is that we need to engage each person in an individual capacity, rather than an "institutional" capacity. I have a feeling that, as the ripples of 9-11 Truth get bigger, few if any of our institutions will survive (in anything like their current form).

The paradox for me is that this is the worst, most horrible truth to deal with and yet if we are angry and scream about it, we will end up being shunned and put in a corner. So I think we have to stay calm and just debate the evidence and what it means and what it proves and trust in a higher force that people really will wake up in time to stop civil war, or something approaching that, from happening.

There was another hearing in New York on Sept 9th 2004 (similar to Jimmy Walter's event). At this hearing, Dr Kahn, a New York MD, also spoke about how the opinion of Peace Activists has been intellectually arrested. I found his remarks particularly appropriate.

http://checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Dr%20Kahn%20at%20911%20Truth%20H earings%20NYC%209-Sep%202004.mp3

You can download all of this hearing here:

http://www.911busters.com/911-Commission.html

I therefore think that, whilst we have to try and educate people, or point them in the direction of information, so that they can educate themselves, we also have think about our final destination and what the journey may be like. We are certainly in for a wild ride and, if we can reveal even wider truths in time, and in the correct way, we could end up living in a world which is utterly and completely transformed in ways few would care to imagine.

Andrew Johnson
Jul 30th 2005

[Keith Mothersson]

I really liked your post, Andrew,
You may like to check out the article by Tova Gabrielle in the essays section of www.911research.wtc7.net which is entitled 'The Psychology of Patriotic Denial' and draws on addiction and hypnotism models - also stuff by Joanna Macy on Despair and Empowerment work.
As well as helping people with the subconsious roots of of their identification with the overall canopy of power as Good - we also need to sharpen our own thinking on conspiracy and avoid falling into conspiracist mindsets, which are unconsciously motivated by desires to stake out identities, not find out the truth with a view to helping society/the planet escape all these terrible knots we are caught in.
Anyway, its late, hope to meet you someday soon when we have our long delayed national get-together.
Cheers, keith

[Jim]

I have tried to get the message across to many people in different ways and I always find that more emotionally involved discussions produce negative results. It seems to me that just calmly informing others of the situation in small doses with a view to building up a bigger picture seems to work very well. I'm also beggining to think that by e-mailing, talking, showing DVDs etc. we do that very effectively and the result is a subtle and powerful increase of awareness in our (human) group conciousness. The group (collective-individual) effect is not as obvious as a DVD but it creates a shift in the way that people behave and respond to information around them. That in turn affects changes in government, media, business and other ares of society. As a result, I hope that, in the long-run, we may be able to change the way in which we all operate together. In a nutshell, small changes can produce big results given time and determination. If we keep up the momentum and keep informing we will succeed - every time.

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks for posts - I agree with the idea of disappassionate discussion - it is much harder for the uninitiated though.

I read the Tovia article - very good! Thanks!

[ian neal]

Hi Adrian

I agree the implications of 9/11 are huge. I'm in doubt that it will lead (in words of Justin) to the great unravelling of many taboos and hidden truths and will in need transform the world in foreseen and positive ways

We will soon set up a section where people can recommend articles to post on the main site. I think given that the main pages (once they are updated) seek to inform and involve the 'yet to be convinced' majority rather than preaching to the choir we particularly need articles that put 9/11 in the bigger context that are well written.

Here is one of my favourites; the paranoid shift

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html

[ian neal]

Sorry I mean Andrew

[truthseeker]

Spot on!

I guess we can all read, view, listen, discuss about what we know (or don't knows) about 9/11 till the end of time.

I would like to add to Andrew's subject heading - "What are we going to do with our knowledge?"

This is the hard bit to deal with I feel. What with a media that is Coporate Controlled by and large it's not going to be so easy.

Perhaps informing the masses is the way to go.

Anyway there is no doubt that there is a need for a carefully structured plan to be discussed nationally and even regionally,

Best wishes,

Truthseeker.

[xmasdale]

I very much like most of what you have written on this thread, Andrew. There is just one implication that to me seems illogical.

The fact that there is plenty evidence that governments initiate acts of terrorism and false flag operations, does not mean that all acts of terrorism are the work of governments or "the control group". The one does not follow logically from the other and to imply that it does, does us no favours.

To imply that there is no terrorism independent of government initiation is also poor tactics. Someone approaching 9/11 truth for the first time is not eased into the new paradigm by being told there is no international terrorism. If I say that, I present myself as someone who thinks that everything is a conspiracy. My concern about these issues is therefore more likely to be seen as a medical condition than as an accurate understanding of politics or history.

I believe our tactic should be to present people with enough factual information relevant to 9/11 (including eventually, provable precedents such as Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio and the Project for the New American Century) to raise sufficient doubts in people's minds to encourage them to look into the matter more deeply. After that the facts speak for themselves.

Where it will all lead is hard to discern, but when the public become aware of the degree to which they are manipulated and lied to by their governments and behind that by the controlling puppet-masters, there will be serious presssure for accountability at all levels.

Do we want a Nurenberg trial of the ringleaders? I think not. A trial would lead to the accused hiding the truth in order to defend themselves. A truth and reconciliation commission on the South African model is likely to reveal more of the truth and therefore to indicate ways in which democratic structures can be set up so that history does not repeat itself.

I can't forsee where uncovering the truth will ultimately lead, hopefully towards uncovering all conspiracies and corruption. There is no guarantee of that, but wherever it leads has to be preferable to the current onward march towards an autocratic global superstate.

In opposing that onward march we have natural allies: civil libertarians, environmentalists, Muslims, peace campaigners etc. We need to form broad coalitions of co-operation in which we learn more about the concerns of others and they in turn learn more about ours.

Noel

[Andrew Johnson]

Noel,

I hate to be pedantic - but I did say "international terrorism". If I ever re-use this piece, I will make my view clearer - thanks for the thought.

Yes, I do think there are real terrorists who kill people. But from my take on things, even many of those have been "whipped up into a frenzy" by covert intelligence groups' tactics. I believe this could be a good example of this "whipping up":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5339-2002Mar22

Cheers

[xmasdale]

Would you call eliciting funds in the United States, using them to by arms from international arms traders or from Middle Eastern countries, to conduct bombings and shootings in Ireland and Britain in the name of liberating the oppressed Irish people from British colonialism, "international terrorism"? If not, why not?

How about hijacking four airliners and exploding them in the Jordanian desert to focus global attention on the plight of Palestinians? Or is there evidence that that was a false flag operation to elicit international support for Israel? Did it eleicit more support for Israel or for Palestine?

I don't know.

Noel

[Andrew Johnson]

The simple answer is "I don't know" - but again, I see evidence of covert government involvement in some of these organisations.

Some of these have been documented by Alex Jones (and others).

Here is another story from the Guardian about The Real IRA. And this is what comes out in the regular press - so what hasn't come out?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nireland/story/0,11008,805656,00.html

(You may need to register to view this story)

[Lucy]

Hello, new here.

Even after having had suspicions all along about 9 11 (well after the first month or so) and so reasonably open minded to new information, I feel strange posting here. Kind of of 'guilty', uncomfortably unsure of whether I should believe things.

As if maybe everyone (including me, this is just a feeling not an accusation) is part of what US sites put out about quite a lot of issues they don't like - an 'accusation' of being a "conspiracy theorist"?

Conditioning DESPITE already doubting all the official information that came out?

Fear - of being considered a 'whacko' (I think I got that off a US site too)?

Uncomfortable feeling that it IS me (as in strange)?

AND all this despite being involved in a different issue entirely (also involving a lot of corruption) where all the above (and worse) are regularly hurled if venturing elsewhere (particularly US websites for some reason).

If I feel like this - I can't imagine how hard it must be for people who've accepted what they've been told by the media (cos if the goverment said it then it must be proven) to even begin to take it on board.