I'd like to comment further about yesterday being 9/11. This was definitely the most feeble commemoration ever. Trump went to the Pentagon- a short hop. No trip to Ground Zero for him, which was a break in tradition. And Pence went to Pennsylvania, where a plane supposedly crashed with no wreckage. It all disappeared into a hole. And supposedly, it was because brave passengers finally decided to stand up to the terrorists and fight them. But, don't you think that would have happened right away? Why would they take orders from the terrorists? Because of boxcutters? It really isn't that effective a weapon. You can't stab with it. It won't go far. All you can do is slash. And sure, if you slash a guy's throat and catch a carotid artery, he's in serious trouble. But, that wouldn't be easy to do if he's upright and fighting you. And, if you had a terrorist fighting one guy, there were other people who could help him. The passengers and crew vastly outnumbered the terrorists.
Think of it as if it were you. You're on a plane. You're one of the pilots. You're in the cockpit. Some guy bursts through the door somehow. Or, he bursts in when the door was opened for someone. He's got a box cutter, and he's ordering you to get out. Are you going to obey him? Or are you going to fight? What would your instinct and training tell you to do? And why bother being afraid of him? Wouldn't you be just as afraid of him flying the plane as him slashing you with the box cutter?
So now, there is this fight going on. And let's switch it: let's say that you're a passenger. You hear this fighting going on. You know that someone is fighting with the pilots. And you're an able-bodied man. Are you going to just sit there, or are you going to get up and go to the aid of those pilots?
The amazing thing is not that some male passengers on United 11 finally decided to resist the terrorists but why they didn't do so immediately. Seriously: why would you ever consider cooperating with terrorists who were taking over the plane, intending to fly it? What have you got to lose by fighting them when them flying the plane is the worst case scenario?
And remember, even if you do get slashed, unless he slashes an artery, you're not going to bleed out right away. And in that situation, you'd probably barely feel it, your adrenaline being so high. The most deadly thing would be if he could get to your neck. But, you're not going to let that happen. You're going to have your forearms up in front of your neck. He could slash you in the arm, but say you're a businessman. You're wearing a suit. It's just a box cutter. He'd have to cut through a lot of fabric before he would even get to your skin. And meanwhile you're fighting him. While he's slashing at you, you are punching at him. Bashing, kicking, kneeing. His advantage is not that great. And those terrorists were not big guys. The FBI said that Hani Hanjour was no more than 5'6". And you're 6' 2". Are you going to be afraid of him because of a box cutter? Are you going to take orders from him because of a box cutter?
You recoil at the idea, don't you? And yet, you think redblooded American men on 4 planes did that?
And besides Trump not going to Ground Zero, there was very light media coverage. Of course, the hurricanes dominated the news. But still, I think they had it planned all along to have light coverage. And that's because when you talk about 9/11, it invariably attracts some attention to the 9/11 truth movement. And it is going strong. I have mentioned the study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks about the real cause of the collapse of Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane and had minimal fire. And what little fire it had was limited to a very small part of the building. The idea that the whole building would collapse from it- straight down- is preposterous. It is lunatic. Really, it is an insult to intelligence. Orwellian is what it is.
And the thing about the 9/11 truth movement is that when they garner a new convert, it's for life. Nobody starts thinking that the official story is a lie, and that the buildings were brought down by explosives, and then changes his mind and decides, "Yeah, office fires brought down the 47 story steel-framed building." It's a one-way trip.
And really, it's the same in the realm of JFK. When someone realizes that Oswald was innocent- that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots- they don't go back to accepting the official story.
But, on the JFK forums there are some people who say they used to be "conspiracy theorists" but then they saw the light and realized that the official story is true. But, there is a word for those people: liars. They are just trying to influence the people who reject the official story. So, what better way to do that than to claim you used to be one of them?
And the very fact that they claim to formerly have been a "conspiracy theorist" gives them away. We don't call ourselves conspiracy theorists. I have never met anyone who defends Oswald who says, "I'm a conspiracy theorist." Why would you put it that way? If you believe in Oswald's innocence then why not call yourself an Oswald defender? That's what I do.
And ridiculously, they apply the same term, "conspiracy theorist" to those who reject 9/11 officialdom. Since 9/11 officialdom claims that there were 19 hijackers and others involved, then 9/11 was a conspiracy. So, what's the point of calling someone who disputes it a "conspiracy theorist"? Wouldn't it be better to call them a 9/11 doubter, a 9/11 skeptic, or even a 9/11 revisionist? Of course, the term that I like best is the one that they use: 9/11 truther. And I have borrowed it from them, referring to myself and others as JFK truthers. But, just as often, I speak of Oswald defenders.
The term "conspiracy theorist" was coined in the JFK world, and not by JFK truthers but by their adversaries. You see: it was decided a long time ago by Leviathan that they would reinvent the JFK debate. They would couch it as: those who believe Oswald did it while acting alone, and those who believe Oswald did it while acting within a conspiracy. And remember that a government entity, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, came to that very conclusion: that Oswald did it but within a conspiracy. That became official.
So you see, there is Official Government Story #1, that Oswald did it alone, as per the Warren Commission, and Official Government Story #2 that Oswald did it with others, as per the HSCA.
But, the HSCA was adamant that the others did NOT include the CIA, the FBI, the US Military, or any one else tied in any way to the US government. They pointed the finger at the Mafia.
So, Oswald, having been a non-combat Marine and only back from Russia since June 1962 and working minimum wage jobs, and with no shooting experience since the Marines except rabbit-hunting in Russia with a shotgun, which he stunk at, according to his friends, and never in his life having done any snipering or anything close to or comparable to the 6th floor shooting, was chosen by the Mafia to assassinate the President of the United States.
But, the point is that Government gave you a choice. "You don't like our first story? Then try our second. If you want to think there was a conspiracy, we don't mind. Just keep Oswald at the 6th floor window pumping rounds into Kennedy. Do that, and all's well between us."
You see, this is perfect for them. The second story doesn't really change things that much. They kept all the essentials from the Warren Commission. By adding the conspiracy angle, they knew that you could spend the rest of your life trying to follow-up on it, looking for that other shooter, and searching for Oswald's Mafia contacts, and you're never going to get anywhere. But, it will keep you busy and keep you out of the way. And if it makes you happy, then all the better. Don't worry: be happy.
And that is exactly why when they hold JFK polls their phrasing goes:
"Do you think Oswald acted alone or acted within a conspiracy?"
They don't even give you the option of saying he was innocent.
The evil of it all. Evil people. Evil, people. I am telling you.