Navigation
User login
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 1 guest online.
Syndicate
Blogroll feed
- The 1916 Effect - updated
- The dog that didn’t bark
- Colonization by SARS-CoV-2 NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH INFECTION, (different, disimilar) screening study highlights:
- 2020: A Propaganda Masterpiece | Perspectives on the Pandemic XVII
- Covid Vaccine Effectiveness 2.9% ( Negligible to non existent effectiveness)
- Haiti and Cuba: Drug Running, Windward Passage, Panama - Location, location, location
- "Proof that puts an end to the Sars-CoV-2 Narrative" | Professor Sucharit Bhakdi
- Is That Rush for a Third Covid Vaccine Booster Jab Necessary?
- Russia, Iran, Turkey reject unilateral Syria Sanctions, Oppose Oil Theft & Separatist Ambitions
- Lockdown Lovers Lack Faith In Their Vaccine Saviour? From Fear To Folly
- Canada's Covid Vaccine Weekly Harm and Death Update; More Vaxxed Deaths and More People Who Die w Covid are Vaxxed
- Trudeau's Election Ploy- Identity Politics/Native Issues and Prepping the Arctic for Encircling Russia
- Part 2- Covid and Climate: Tales of Two Hysterias
- Turkey and US Negotiations Continue for Kabul (Hamid Karzai) Airport- Still No Final Agreement
- "Why most people who now die with Covid in England have had a vaccination" The Guardian
American Everyman
Crooks And Liars
Google News 9/11 & False Flag
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Were Planes Really Hijacked by Arab Muslims?
- NFL Coach Apologises For Comments About 9/11 Attacks - Pedestrian.TV
- Cayuga County-area sports schedule for Dec. 9-11 - The Citizen
- Mike Johnson's 9/11 moment: The House speaker comes through for the World Trade Center Health Program - New York Daily News
9/11 was an inside job
hat tip to Big Dan, a well-referenced site of consensus points proving the official story's falsehood http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
Comments
Thank you
Thanks for posting this. I think it is a very important website.
Something lacking...
A search of the front page and the entire linked website reveals NOT EVEN ONE occurrence of the word, "Israel." Are you kidding us? Talk about a limited hangout!
N/A
The article is entitled - "The 9/11 Consensus Points - Factual Evidence Contradicts the 9/11 Story" (emphasis mine)
If you have factual evidence and can demonstrate that there is a consensus regarding its accuracy, then lets have it!
I don't think anybody here at this site doubts that Israel was involved and was certainly the prime beneficiary (along with its banker/owners) but that opinion does not fit the parameters of the article linked to.
The article (if I can speak for the author/s) is a summary of the generally agreed on evidence. So it's first things first - start with the evidence - What Happened. If the article was about what all this evidence means and particularly the "Who"-(ultimately), "How" and "Why" and it left out israel, then you could very reasonably call it a "limited hangout" and I would agree with you.
many things lacking
To expand on Sinclair's point, there are many things lacking. If I recall correctly, not only is there no mention of Israel, there is also no mention of Saudi Arabia, no mention of Pakistan, and no mention of Germany, even though if you start digging a bit, it's hard not to find traces of involvement by agents of all these countries.
To expand on James's point, I think it's fair to say that this site doesn't even try to say What happened? let alone Who did it? or How? or Why? I don't even think the authors would approve of our headline here, since they never say outright that 9/11 was an inside job. The site is focused entirely on pointing out the most glaring defects in the official story.
The importance of this work, in my opinion, stems from the comprehensive manner in which it demolishes the official story. No matter where you poke it, the government's tale falls apart almost immediately. The official story is not true, it cannot possibly be true, and these are the most obvious and most agreed-upon reasons why we know this.
So rather than denigrating it as a limited hangout, it may be easier (and more useful) to think of it as a solid starting point -- a base upon which a more thorough understanding of the events can be built.
9/11: Israel did it When an
9/11: Israel did it
When an event occurs that that fundamentally changes the dynamics of global geopolitics, there is one question above all others whose answer will most assuredly point to its perpetrators. That question is "Cui bono?" If those so indicted are in addition found to have had both motive and means then, as they say in the US, it's pretty much a 'slam-dunk'.
And so it is with the events of 9/11.
Discounting the 'Official narrative' as the absurdity it so clearly is, there are just two organisations on the entire planet with the expertise, assets, access and political protection necessary to have both executed 9/11 and effected its cover-up to date (ie the means). Both are Intelligence Agencies - the CIA and Israel's Mossad whose motives were arguably the most compelling. Those motives dovetailed perfectly with the Neocon PNAC agenda, with it's explicitly stated need for "...a catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" [1] in order to mobilise US public opinion for already planned wars, the effects of which would be to destroy Israel's enemies.
This article marshals evidence for the proposition that "Israel did it".
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it
I'd like to take this seriously
I really would, but when they apparently haven't even proofread past the 6th word, I find it hard to do so.
If you're the author, I beg you for the sake of your readers and your credibility, to remove the duplicate word and go back and proofread for anything else like that.
it's an accurate quote from the linked page
... and that is why -- if you keep reading -- you will find the notation "[1]" which does not refer to anything in the comment ... it refers to a note at the bottom of the linked page.
before that, you'll find "it's" where it should say "its" ... so ... how to say this? ... this is what it says.
More to the point: is the information correct?
yes my beef was not with the
yes my beef was not with the comment but with the page from which it was quoted and to which it linked. I can expect misspellings etc in comments, but in an article that's "published" and being posted around, personally I expect a higher standard. I guessed that the author of the comment might also be the author of the article, but I have no idea. If they didn't check their spelling and grammar, do we trust that they checked their facts?
And to your comment below ("Israel did it" is too simplistic) I completely agree.
too simplistic, in my opinion
I am familiar with most (if not all) of the claims made in the page linked above, but in my opinion, the statement: "Israel did 9/11" is too simplistic an explanation.
It is, to be sure, far from simple. The claims made to support this argument, taken in aggregate, posit a very complex conspiracy. But do these claims -- even if taken as true, even including all their implications -- explain everything that happened?
I don't think so. I think they show the complicity of certain Israelis.
But there was certainly a lot of complicity on the part of non-Israelis, as well.
So, in my opinion: Israel helped to do it.
Post new comment