Thursday, March 24, 2005

Time May Show 9/11 Paranoia is Not All Crazy

We're all paranoid By Steven T. Jones
"Sure, the people with the 9/11 conspiracy theories are a little odd.
But not everything they're saying is entirely crazy."

An alternative media article about 9/11 from The San Francisco Bay Guardian, which goes beyond the knee-jerk response of 'conspiracy nuts' and admits that:
"Time may prove them correct – just as polls now show most Americans don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone – but justice is probably a long way off."
The article does not present comprehensive detail of the skeptics case -besides a few tried and trusted issues. And as usual, a key 'conspiracy theorist' quoted is 'peak-oiler' Mike Ruppert -who is presented as the most rational face of the 9/11 skeptics. But the really interesting bit (unintentionally) is this:
"People began to take note. A Zogby poll taken just before last year's Republican National Convention showed that 41 percent of New York State residents, and 49 percent of New York City residents, agreed with the statement that some U.S. officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around 9/11/01 and that they consciously failed to act.

"But as the public reached its pinnacle of being open to considering alternative views of 9/11, the truth movement fractured into disparate subgroups, each pushing its own pet theories, torn by internal divisions over strategy, and unable to mount a cohesive strategy that would break through the din of election-year politics.
This fracturing was, of course delberately engineered by the disinfo agents in the 9/11 movement. Indeed, the 'splits' were a carefully planned and integral part of the coverup from the start. The establishment has been actively 'managing' the 9/11 skeptics all the while -with a focussed plan which relied opon the guaranteed reelection of G.W. Bush. A 9/11 movement was inevitable. When it arose, the establishment was there in advance, waiting for it with open arms.

Many genuine people play key roles in the 9/11 movement, but are outnumbered by the operatives. 'Management' of the aftermath was always integral to the plot, and was likely resourced more heavily than the attack scenario itself.

Did you think it would be any different?

However, the 9/11 Movement will mature to become more broad-based; more savvy about the use of red herrings, 'management' etc..; and far harder to lead by the nose than heretofore.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my humble opinion, this may be one of best summations on both conspiracies. The "Official" vs. the "Crackpot". One thing for sure, the "crackpots" aren't dripping with blood, slathered in oil, nor really have anything to gain in talking about their theory. While on the other hand, our Officials have much much more to loose should they fail to maintain the Kean commission.

10:00 pm  
Anonymous Reynard T. Fox said...

By trying to paint this as nonsense, and bringing up the subject, they are also trying to deflect attention away from the known fact that they had info on the potential of airline hijackings well before 911, but failed to act on them (purposely?) All they had to do was raise airport security levels, which seemed to be no problem after 911...

9:37 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home