Originally posted by Crazy_Mr_Crowley
In my personal experience with all this stuff I've seen enough holes punched in the Bush Admin story that would make the Titantic look like a bath
Okay here we go... I think it's time for a new installment in the "Overlord Lecture" series. Class, take out your notebooks...
If there's one thing that history has taught "serious" conspiracy researchers, it's that government tend to conspire to deceive
those they govern. In some cases, a conspiracy of deception or coverup may have noble intent... I can image there are some hard-working patriots deep
within the CIA working hard on ethical but secret projects that are for the general benefit of the nation. But, as we've all learned, the
"leadership" of any nation develops habits of conspiratorial deception of unethical and grand scale. If you've held an interest in "conspiracy
theories" before 9/11, you're first reaction that day was very different from everyone else. "We" know
there are likely a myriad of
intricate connections between dozens of complicit parties within those we should trust to protect this country.
But while many of we "conspiracy theorists" may feel we're benefiting from the Internet's ability to connect us and help us reveal these theories,
I contend that we're loosing the battles.
All we have to do is focus on one part and prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Here is our collective problem. What part will that be? I'd love nothing more than to find a singularly focused attribute of this event that can
rally all noble critical thinkers to a theme that will eventually open the floodgates of truth. But where shall we start?
The Grand Conspiracy:
Since 9/11, I firmly believe that a subtly more nefarious conspiracy has been systematically perpetuated on we "internet
regulars" with the specific goal of preventing exactly what you're asking for. That conspiracy is the expert creation of dozens (if not hundreds) of
conflicting and sometimes wild conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 events with the intended goal of creating so much confusion on the topic, any
effort to decipher the truth will be nearly impossible.
This atmosphere of "manufactured deflective disinformation" is pervasive throughout clandestine groups, and honed to art form via UFO
"disclosure". Within learned conspiracy circles, it's rather well-known that the Ash-Shiraa story on Iran Contra was researched and fed via the
small but growing subculture of online BBS systems (dial-up back then). The current strategy to counteract a repeat of that exposure is to feed an
overwhelming amount of disinformation into the "Interweb" as a tactic of coverup. And you don't have to believe me, this is a growing lament from
deep within the "911 Truth" investigators and researchers.
Poke one big gaping whole into the offial 9/11 story and the skeptics don't have a leg to stand on. Then they'll know that they are in denial
and afraid to question their government.
There was once
a growing hole that has long since disappeared from online availability. Within the first six months of the attack, there was
some interesting information surfacing about a factional feud within the Pentagon. Reasonably well-connected sources were discussing the likelihood
that the Pentagon attack was an aggressive act by one faction to end the operations of the other. The entire event, according to those tracking down
this angle, was designed to "look like" a terrorist attack (even in NYC). However, the researchers claimed that they believe no one expected the
severity of the NYC attack, and a coverup strategy was being developed.
The Timing is Suspect:
At the time (3-6 months after the attack), no one questioned a 757 hitting the Pentagon. At the time, no one presented
theories of bombs in the WTC. Nearly all serious conspiracy thinking (back then) was focused on how those planning this attack organized and deceived
the hijackers... or how the planes may have been remotely controlled. And everyone was talking about the "coming coverup." Well, within 6 months the
Internet exploded with a massive amount of all manner of 9/11 theories and claims.
In my mind, any research into this needs to focus on the "low hanging fruit" to have any hope of gaining traction in the general direction of truth.
With that in mind, I think it might be easier to locate and expose disinformation efforts, then move up the chain from there.
What do you think?