The Real Questions that separate 9/11 skeptics

Letting it happen "on purpose" is morally and even substantively the
same as "making it happen." When the state intentionally facilitates a
crime, it is the same as the state committing it directly.

Both are treason, both are engineered events to get the same benefits
(casus belli for "necessary" wars, domestic repression, economic
transformation, plunder, crisis management, psychological trauma and
acceptance by population).

We should at least describe the splits among 9/11 skeptics and
researchers accurately. They revolve around HOW the attacks were
"made", as exemplified in the following broad questions:

1) Is there an actual Osama Bin Ladin involved in 9/11? Was there an
actual hijacking plan by foreigners to do what happened on 9/11? Were
there no hijackers at all, or were they simply "pure" patsies (i.e.,
they weren't out to commit a terror crime on 9/11/01, whatever their
backgrounds)?

2) Were the buildings demolished with explosives?

3) Was there plane-swapping? To what extent were the passenger stories
faked?

4) What hit the Pentagon?

5) Was UA 93 shot down?

6) (INSERT YOUR FAVORITE PIECE OF DISPUTED "PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.")

I get a lot of abuse because most of my answers to these are "maybe";
because I am unrelenting in calling bullshit when I see it, even on
evidence that seems to support "inside job"; and because I keep
pointing out that we don't need any of the above items to demonstrate
that 9/11 was an inside job.

(Now allow me to ramble...)

I have no doubt on #1: there is a real network, whether you want to
call it al-Qaeda (a CIA designation) or not. It was originally created
with CIA help among the "Afghan Arab" mujahedeen fighters in the
1980s, but has roots in the "real" Islamist fundamentalism of the
Muslim Brotherhood.

It obviously functions as an asset to the mil-intelligence complex (as
designated enemy and covert ally in certain places like Kosovo) but
consists mostly of genuinely motivated foreigners who do want to
strike the U.S. to make a political point. Despite this, at the top,
its elite financiers commingle with the American ruling class and the
spook establishment! Money never smells.

While it's wrong to commit murder and terror, the motives of a terror
footsoldier are easy enough to understand. This network's size and
power is vastly exaggerated to promote a bogus "War on Terror." It is
a criminal, not a military problem, and not even the primary criminal
problem for our society.

But it exists and it's rather naive to think there wouldn't be plenty
of Arab men who would love to strike a blow against the power that has
brought so much suffering to their countries. (It's also rather
cartoonish to think that EVERY terror attack on civilians anywhere in
the world is automatically the CIA-Mossad nexus or NWO at work.)

The "Why" of 9/11 is a lot more important than the "How," and the most
important question is surely: WHO!

We have evidence enough to be calling out the engineers of that part
of the operation that we can call "the planned negligence": Myers,
Eberhard, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Winfield, the FTU guys at the FBI,
etc. And those who carried out the cover-up (like the Commission, and
those who destroyed evidence) are also vulnerable on fraud charges.

Would I love to get "the elites" or "the bankers" or the NWO in the
process? Certainly, but there's no evidence yet that nails whoever the
real masterminds were, the way Gen. Myers can be nailed as a liar
under oath (about his movements and actions on 9/11 - see the current stickdog thread on this).

It's not enough to say that Brzezinski or Dov Zakheim or whoever
promoted some essential idea or invented some essential technology for
carrying out 9/11. Do we have any direct connection that's actionable?

For god's sake, let's start where we can prove the most about specific
individuals, and get criminal cases. Then anyone can be theoretically
called as a witness.

If you want the top of a racketeering organization, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up. Of course, the very thought that we might have a shot at prosecuting the likes of Myers is already very high up compared to anything that seems achievable.

These actions do not take away from the grassroots work of local
meetings, film showings and the like. They do not prevent
demonstrations, acts of CD, or whatever your group wants to do.

It is not true that the entire criminal justice apparatus simply
kowtows to the official line on all issues. The people of this country
have become more diverse in their attitudes and secret thoughts than
in the 1950s. For example I have spoken to cops and prosecutors who
don't believe the official JFK story. There are dissident law
enforcers out there. We only need find one to have our Garrisson and
our next breakthrough.

Many institutional actions that appear pointless (like appeals to
Congress, etc.) actually serve to publicize, inform, organize and (at
least) expose the institutions that don't respond as fraudulent. (
Just think of how much ammo we got from having had a 9/11 Commission,
with all its omissions and contradictions, as opposed to how it would
have been if there had been nothing official going on with regard to
9/11 last year...)

The really sickening thing is when 9/11 skeptics waste time attacking
each other for their tactical and strategic differences. If you don't
like what others are doing, criticize it; but there is no need to
defame those people, or to insist that they come around to your point
of view, or to make a crusade out of it.

If you're serious, you can organize your own actions, right?

---

What we need is an open forum where certain individuals don't take it upon themselves to dictate to others what is legitimate inquiry. Just say no to GATEKEEPERS.

in questioning things like the Pentagon hit, since it has become such a major gatekeeper issue.

Did you see me banish anyone?

My OP was in two parts: First, I tried to define the real questions that separate skeptical researchers (as opposed to the meaningless "LIHOP/MIHOP" distinction).

Then I gave my opinions on a couple of the questions.

Is this gatekeeping? Or are you trying to gatekeep me with empty slogans?

Who is arguing LIHOP vs MIHOP on this board? The regulars here spend no time on that at all.I figure if a person is LIHOP then they are on their way...maybe I can help them see my viewpoints. That's all.

Yo Phil, you only ever refer to this website. Did you happen to write it or work for the people who did? I discovered that the League of Conservative Voters is not a nutty right wing organization, but don't you have any other sources? Just wondering. I like the site, but it doesn't cover every base. What else do you turn to for your info? - R.C.

This seems like a fruitful line of attack to me.

FOIA act requests could also prove valuable.