by Jay Esbe
9/11: If I knew nothing else about it, I'd know this.
Sat Feb 10, 2007 16:20

February 9, 2007 at 07:05:29

9/11: If I knew nothing else about it, I'd know this.

by Jay Esbe

Theories abound. And really, why shouldn't they. What else could possibly be expected when this government, this President, blocked the creation of the commission to investigate the biggest mass murder in American history. And what else could possibly be expected when this President then hand-picked the commission members after losing his battle for "silence"? And then there was the "mission statement" of the commission itself, or rather, the NON-mission statement: "Our purpose is not to assign RESPONSIBILITY for the attacks". This, by the DIRECTIVE of the President AS A CONDITION FOR THE CREATION OF THE COMMISSION.

I want to leave aside all the thermite, the too small holes in the pentagon, even the incredible "failures" or NORAD and the "mysterious" change of command structure by the Vice President. I want to leave aside for now, everything we suspect. It's a mountain, and whether you think the mountain smells like bullshit or not, it's far too big to just go away. No, what I want to talk about is not what we suspect, but WHAT WE KNOW. What we already have learned is a fact, and facts, beyond any reasonable doubt or further arguments, lest those who doubt expose their own patent dishonesty immediately.

I want to talk about Bush, Cheney, and what they've done SINCE 9/11. Because if I knew nothing else about 9/11, I'd know this: Their "conduct" has demonstrated a number of things which are now beyond debate in this country by anyone serious:

They were willing to repeatedly, knowingly LIE about a "nuclear threat" which they KNEW did not exist, to ***justify*** the mass murder of almost three quarters of a million people on false pretenses, and they did it for OIL.

They could NEVER have accomplished their murderous ambition to destroy Iraq for gain, were they not "enabled" by the endless invocations of "nine eleven" as the supposed ***justification***.

We KNOW this is an administration who's ENTIRE OPERATION, has been based on a concept: "The means justify the end". We have seen it from wire tapping, to rendition, to torture, to the theory of "the unitary executive" to Gitmo, to stolen votes to high treason in violation of the 1982 intelligence act which was written to protect CIA operatives working under cover.

In other words, this administration, absent any talk of 9/11 whatsoever, has proven that they are willing to commit mass murder against innocent people, and every other imaginable crime, for an "end justifies the means" "philosophy" designed only to secure their own power and increase it.

KNOWING THIS, why would ANYONE capable of smelling fire, FAIL to suspect the Bush administration from either –at the very least- complicity in 9/11, or outright direct involvement.

I left that question rhetorical because it should be. People, we are dealing here with a group of criminals with proven track records. In LIGHT of that fact, when we do inquire about 9/11, they are, or ought to be, the very first suspects on our list. The fact that what I referred to as a "mountain" has developed, is then not difficult to understand; were they in fact complicit or actually guilty of the attacks, what would one expect from "the prosecution"? A mountain. It's what we have, and regardless of whether or not it smells like B.S. to some, it must be understood that even if only half of it is real, no, a quarter, no a tenth, no, ONE STONE, it's enough to justify the prosecution of these people through a new investigation, independent, and without prejudice.

I post frequently at a political free for all called "debate both sides", and it was there I encountered one of many in a long line of people I suspect of actually working for the government in some capacity, as agents of propaganda for the purposes of shaping public opinion. It was in fact a statement by a key employee of the site who alleges himself to be a liberal, which finally lead me to this tack; "I am certain the government was NOT complicit". The person in question will remain unnamed here, but it is not entirely irrelevant that when I did a little homework, I learned that he's a member of a think tank which also happens to be a "futurist society". "Certain", that was the claim, and a veritable shit-storm following my attempted interrogation of this person online (through questioning) finally resulted in my being banned from the site. This has ultimately lead me to formulate this thesis of probable cause as a response not just to him, but to anyone who misleads, or is mislead. I was also banned at Daily Kos for my very first post, arguing for a re-investigation of 9/11. Was this fear, or was it something more sinister? Consider the word "certain" for a moment. I seldom if ever use it for a reason. Never trust anyone who uses it in times like these. Ever.

So it's something more sinister. Realize therefor, that anytime you read anything, or interact online, regarding the crime of the century, you really don't know who, or what you're dealing with. A little paranoia, just enough to keep you in doubt of the voracity of everyone, will serve you well.

Call them gate keepers, call them whatever you want, but there is a growing assault on the so-called "truth movement", and it's often taking place supposedly from a "liberal" perspective. It takes very few of these "re-directors" to attain a goal: Sycophants are easily gained by self-proclaimed "nay-sayars" and "de-bunkers", for the most common mistake made in a failure of critical thinking, is to confuse it with "popular thinking" and unreasoned "skepticism". Eventually, even the sycophants gain the confidence to become "directors" . "An unconscious agent is an effective agent". How true, especially in all of this.

This article then, is a re-drawing of the lines where I believe they can, and ought to be drawn, to separate the wheat from the chaff. I believe the supposition I've set forward is unassailable. It is enough. Enough to justify a finding of "probable cause" not only to re-open the investigation, but to assign the label "prime suspects for 9/11" to the Bush administration. The case is based only upon known motive, and known conduct after the crime. When a known "molester" moves into the neighborhood, and little boys disappear, It's enough.

Let us then remove the "conspiracy theorist" broad brush from the hands of children, and from their gate keepers by rendering a moot point. Let us return to basics. The "mountain" is still there, and even if it were not, I assure you, a mountain will indeed form as soon as a legitimate, independent re-investigation of 9/11 is conducted.

You were told this crime was committed by Osama Bin Laden 24 hours after it took place, and most of you believed it. Why did you believe it? When you honestly answer that, you will know why what I have put forth ought to be believed after 6 years of proven criminal conduct and continual abuse of power, mass murder, and obstruction of justice. When you honestly examine the record, absent any other claim by so-called "conspiracy theorists", you will be left to look at the "character" and known conduct and choose reason, or to choose the prejudice foisted upon you by a "decider" who's also a proven denier.

Think about that.

Related article:

Jay Esbe is a writer with a background in cultural anthropology and comparative religion and lives in Seattle Washington.

What If?

Ok, Let's say a cabal of Globalist bankers and their principal clients all emerged from the shadows, came forward and told their story about how and why they did 9/11? What then? Then the Zionists, Al queda, CIA, ISI(Pakistan) BI (British Intel) and various Industrialists etc. all fessed up and said who they really are and even shared their Agenda with no holds barred frankness, what then? They even admitted how they control your life, what would you do? That's right nothing. So get over it!

We're all bought and paid for, fed and housed by these people. Capitalism on the global scale is at best a thinly vieled Facism. Who's gonna be the first to walk away from the trough?

by hosshoss777 (0 articles, 74 comments) on Saturday, February 10, 2007 at 9:35:31 AM

Subject: Politics: General ActivismErnest Hancock, Sat Feb 10 13:21

Main Page - Thursday, 02/15/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)