911- pięć lat później - refleksja (Emanuel Sferios)

agentsmith

W morzu mniej lub bardziej sensownych "rocznicowych" publikacji otrzymałem i tą, którą mimo iż długa załączam w całości.
Zmusiła mnie, czy też skłoniła do głębszej refleksji.
Smutne jest to w jaki sposób "911 Truth Movement" ulega dezintegracji i atomizacji.
Tym cenniejszy wydaje mi się głos Manuela Sferiosa, faceta, który potrafi zachować czyste spojrzenie i nie lęka się przyznać, iż on sam dał się wpuścić w kanał...
Bardzo ciekawa lektura, jak znajdę czas to przetłumaczę - może ktoś pomoże ?
agentsmith

9/11 FIVE YEARS LATER: WHAT HAVE WE ACCOMPLISHED?
An Assessment of the 9/11 Truth Movement

By Emanuel Sferios
September 11, 2006

Five years ago--on my birthday--the shadow government of the United States
murdered over 3,000 of its own citizens (and hundreds of others) in a
"false flag" operation designed to galvanize public support behind a war
for control of the world's last remaining energy reserves. Many of us
quickly saw through the "big lie" of 9/11 and began a movement to expose
it, to reveal the truth, in the hopes that this would bring an end to the
War on Terror, a war destined--if it continues--to turn nuclear.

And now, five years later, what have we accomplished?

In short, everything and nothing. We began this movement to convince the
American public and the world that the official story of 9/11 was a lie,
and that ruling factions within our own government were the real
perpetrators. This we accomplished. Opinion polls conducted over the last
two years show that the majority of Americans believe the US government
was complicit. We bombarded every mainstream and alternative medium
available with information, from Air America to internet blogs. We handed
out leaflets in cities and towns across the country, held signs on street
corners, wrote letters to everyone we could think of. And you know what?
It worked. Today it is rare that I talk to a person who doesn't believe
the US government was involved in the attacks in some way. Compared to
just two years ago, when people would look at us like we were crazy for
suggesting such a thing, this is an amazing success.

Or so it seems. For at the same time, not a single perpetrator of 9/11 has
been prosecuted, and the War on Terror continues unabated, as does the
endless stream of lies and propaganda designed to keep us fearful and
compliant. Why this discrepancy? What accounts for the 9/11 Truth
Movement's seeming victory in shattering the American public's blind
acceptance of the official story, and the stark reality that nothing has
changed politically? In other words, why, in the midst of total success,
have we failed?

This is the question I have been asking myself over the last few years. As
co-founder of the first national activist organization for 9/11 truth, the
9/11 Visibility Project (http://www.septembereleventh.org), I devoted two
full years of my life to building this movement. And to see it grow from a
handful of struggling yet dedicated individuals into the enormous yet
ultimately ineffective movement it is today, saddens me to no end. Thus
for me this is not merely an academic question. I mean it honestly: why,
in the midst of a seeming total success, have we failed?

The answer to this question, many have concluded, involves the lack of
political will of the people of the United States. It is one thing to know
the truth, and quite another to act upon that truth. Democracy Now is a
case in point. A great many of us have had conversations with Amy Goodman
and the other producers of Democracy Now, and they all know the official
story of 9/11 is a lie. Yet except for a few segments we forced them to
air as a result of our public pressure campaign (where they for the most
part ridiculed us), they have chosen not only to ignore 9/11 truth, but to
affirm the official story again and again in their programming.

Many other examples can be given, not only from the left media, but from
senators, congressmen, Eliot Spitzer, etc. How many of these people know
the truth, yet do nothing? (Cynthia McKinney may be the one notable
exception). Where is the political will?

But to blame the American people alone for their lack of courage in
opposing US imperialism fails to ultimately answer the question, for we
must also ask why such a lack of courage exists in the first place.
Certainly it isn't a lack of courage in general. The American population
regularly demonstrates great courage and political will when it comes to
social and domestic issues. And neither do I believe, as some cynical
observers claim, that the majority of Americans secretly support US
imperialism, that given the choice they would rather see millions of
innocent foreigners die than reduce their own oil consumption and
powerdown. If such was the case, there would have been no need for a 9/11,
and there would be no need for the ongoing lies and deceptions. Simply
citing the lack of political will among the American public thus begs the
question, for the answer we seek is exactly that which accounts for this
lack of courage when facing the truth of 9/11.

Here is my assessment. The reason for the discrepancy between what people
know about 9/11 and what they are willing to do to stop the War on Terror;
the reason we have ultimately failed, in other words, has to do with the
scope and sophistication of the political and social control mechanisms
used against us; namely, disruption and disinformaiton. I have been an
activist for 20 years, and I have seen and experienced COINTELPRO-style
disruption many times in the past. Yet never before have I witnessed it
used on such a scale and with such precision as I have within the 9/11
Truth Movement. There are thousands of examples, but let me give you just
a few.

1. When we launched our Democracy Now campaign, we asked activists and the
general public to send them emails requesting they have David Ray Griffin
on their show. We provided a sample letter, but encouraged people to write
their own, and we asked them always to be polite. We also provided them
the email addresses to send their letters, and we included our own email
address in the mix, so we could see what kinds of letters Democracy Now
was receiving. What happened was very telling. For every two or three
emails they received that were respectful and well-written, they received
one that was either highly insulting, vehemently anti-semitic, or
down-right ludicrous. The timing and repetitive use of specific phrases
among many of these emails revealed a coordinated effort to disrupt our
campaign and convince Democracy Now not to associate with us.

2. When we launched our campaign to get the attorney General of New York
State, Eliot Spitzer, to open a new investigation into 9/11, we began an
online petition drive and received thousands of signatures. Shortly after
our campaign website went up, another website was launched duplicating our
campaign and promoting preposterous claims designed to make the 9/11 Truth
Movement appear ridiculous. Thus a clear message was sent to Eliot Spitzer
that opening a new investigation into 9/11 could easily destroy his
reputation by associating with people who believe, among other nonsense,
that the planes on 9/11 were merely holograms inserted onto TV screens.

And these are just examples of reactive disruption efforts (in response to
things we do), which aren't even the primary methods they use against us.

Controlling Your Opposition by Becoming It

One lesson the shadow government has learned over the last 40 years is
that the best way to defeat your opposition is to become your opposition,
and like many of those phony socialist and anti-war groups on college
campuses that suck rebellious student energy and dissipate it
ineffectively, preventing the formation of a legitimate, effective
opposition, so have they taken over a large part of the 9/11 Truth
Movement itself, channeling new skeptics (and old) into endless debates
around physical evidence and other ineffective actions. During my entire
time within the movement, I never once named publicly any individuals or
websites I thought were intentionally promoting disinformation, or leading
us down useless avenues, nor will I now. (This is to protect myself from
reprisals, to avoid the further disruption caused by the endless cycle of
"snitch jacketing," and because you can never really prove who is an agent
and who is simply duped by the disinfo itself, much of which is easily
believable on the surface.) But to prove that agents are among us, and
that they have succeeded in taking over the bulk of the movement, one
needs to go no further than compare the number of people who believe no
plane hit the Pentagon with the number of people who know about the
simultaneous wargames that were taking place on the morning of 9/11, and
that prevented NORAD from intercepting the planes before they hit their
targets.

The former claim, widely believed, is perhaps the most successful and
sophisticated disinformation campaign injected into the 9/11 Truth
Movement. Supported by doctored video footage released by the Pentagon
itself, it has almost single-handedly made the movement the laughing stock
of Washington DC residents, hundreds of whom saw the plane hit the
building, and thousands of whom have relatives or friends who did. And
this was likely its intention, for it has successfully alienated from the
movement precisely those DC professionals (senators, congressmen, federal
judges, prosecutors, etc.) who hold enough power to effectively
investigate and prosecute the crime. It has also been the primary wedge
used to divide the movement from itself. While there is no space here to
delve into the details of the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax, I am
forever indebted to Mark Robinowitz for having the stubborn persistency to
keep challenging me back when I, too, believed the hoax. I am also
immensely grateful to Jim Hoffman for his unparalleled analysis of the
Pentagon physical evidence (http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon).

On the other hand, the wargames comprise the very heart of the operation.
On the morning of 9/11 itself, the FAA and NORAD were occupied in air
defense drills simulating none other than multiple airline hijackings.
These drills included fake blips inserted onto their radar screens, as
well as remotely controlled aircraft in the air posing as passenger jets.
Thus the perpetrators of 9/11 (those overseeing the wargames) were able to
incapacitate the US air defense system without having to order a
stand-down, allowing the operation to succeed. Because of the wargames,
NORAD personnel did not know where to send the fighter jets when the
supposedly "real" hijackings took place (likely also being flown by remote
control). They acknowledged this during the 9/11 Commission hearings, with
no follow-up questioning of course.

How many people have heard of the wargames compared to the "no plane at
the Pentagon" theory? How many 9/11 Truth websites make reference to the
wargames compared with the Pentagon hoax? And how many 9/11 truth activist
organizations do you know emphasizing the wargames as opposed to all the
various physical evidence arguments? The answer to these questions will
tell you a lot about the state of the movement, and who really controls
it. (Incidentally, the world should be forever indebted to Mike Ruppert,
who put the pieces together about the wargames and presented them in their
proper light, first on stage to a small audience in Toronto, which
included myself, and then in full detail in his book, Crossing the
Rubicon.)

So we shouldn't place all the blame upon those individuals who willfully
ignore the truth of 9/11. Certainly there is an element of cowardice
involved, a lack of integrity, and a selling out. We know, for example,
that Democracy Now received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Ford
Foundation specifically to report on 9/11. But what would happen to
Democracy Now if Amy Goodman chose integrity over money? The same thing,
perhaps, that happened to Mike Ruppert?
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081606_burning_bridge.shtml)
This is not to excuse Goodman's willful ignorance, her selling out to the
very government she professes to oppose. (I don't listen to her show
anymore, but I read From The Wilderness every day.) I simply want to
recognize the immense power of that government, a power that can murder
3,000 people and get away with it, a power that can induce good activists
to sell out, and better ones to flee the country. (Living to fight another
day is not so condemnable, after all.) Herein lies an important factor in
our failure.

More About Disinformation

One of the characteristics of 9/11 disinformation a lot of people have a
hard time grasping is that much of it is designed specifically to convince
people of US government complicity in 9/11. This might seem like a
contradiction, until one understands that 9/11 disinfo is part of a
broader system of mass manipulation where the opposing perspective plays
an essential role. The basic idea is to control both sides of the debate,
and frame it in a way that makes the opposing side ineffective (not
necessarily unbelievable). In the end it doesn't matter whether even a
majority of the people believe the US government was complicit in 9/11
(this is already the case). What matters is only that the perpetrators can
never successfully be prosecuted. Thus they pollute the body of evidence
with red herrings and false lines of inquiry. If, in the process, they
happen to cause some people to disbelieve the official story (as in the
case with the "no plane at the Pentagon" hoax), all the better, because
the end result is a weakening of any legal case that might be brought
against them.

There is an important quote by E. Martin Schotz from his book, History
Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of
President Kennedy. It is: "One of the primary means of immobilizing the
American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion
in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known." Conspiracy
theories, in other words, provide the perfect cover for real conspiracies.
When anything can be believed because the available information is a
convoluted mix of truth, falsehood and probability; when the actual truth
itself is convoluted, involving deception, mystery and illusion; then one
is ultimately left to their own emotions to decide. And emotions, of
course, can be easily manipulated. What do you *want* to believe? After
all, it's up to you. You'll never know the truth, or at least you'll never
be able to prove it in a court of law. Do you really want to be
marginalized and ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist? You get the idea.

The World Trade Center Collapse: A Necessary Illusion

In my two years of 9/11 truth activism, I never emphasized the physical
evidence. I always knew it was a dead end that would suck the movement's
energy and accomplish nothing. But let me be straight up for a moment, if
a bit speculative, because thinking about these things is helpful. They
demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives. I have no doubt
about this, just as I have no doubt that the planes were flown by remote
control. I also believe that hijackers did, in fact, board the planes
(despite the articles claiming some of those named are still alive). I
think the hijackers were trained US operatives (patsies), and that they
likely did not know they were going to die. I also think the most probable
explanation for the shoot-down of flight 93 is that the passengers did, in
fact, storm the cockpit, only to discover that the plane was being flown
by remote control. And so in order to prevent any of them from calling
their loved ones and blabbing (yes, phones can work on planes), they had
to shoot it down. Or perhaps the hijackers themselves learned their real
fate and allowed the passengers into the cockpit to try to regain control
of the aircraft. We'll never really know, and this is the idea. "Anything
can be believed," and so it is equally plausible, as others have
speculated, that the shoot-down of Flight 93 was planned from the
beginning.

But the World Trade Center demolition is obvious, which leads to an
important question: why did they do it? Wouldn't simply crashing the
planes into the buildings have been enough? Why bring them down
completely? The typical responses here apply: They needed their "New Pearl
Harbor," a mass casualty event to shock the public into supporting a
retaliatory war. They also needed a spectacle that wouldn't be easily
forgotten. These explanations are true enough. Another often cited and
plausible one is that they needed to make the lie obvious enough that the
people who mattered (government, corporate, and military leaders, for
example) would know that they--the secret government within the
government--did this and got away with it. This sends a powerful message
of invincibility to anyone who might be thinking of opposing them. And the
fact that they demolished building 7 later that evening in a classic-style
demolition sure seems to support that argument. It's as if they were
saying, "just in case you didn't get it the first time, we'll show you one
even more obvious."

But there is another reason they demolished the World Trade Center towers,
in my opinion the most important reason, which is that they needed the lie
to be incredible. As Hitler and Goebbels understood, the bigger and more
incredible the lie, the more people will believe it, because they will
have to make a bigger psychological leap in order to disbelieve it. Mass
manipulation of this kind plays on the natural desire many people have to
conform, and it is much more difficult, psychologically, for the
conforming individual to disbelieve a popularly-held incredible lie than a
mundane one, for to do so would set one widely apart from the herd. To put
this another way, imagine if they had merely crashed four planes into the
ocean. How much easier it would be then for people to speculate that the
government may have done this as a pretext for war. To do so would not
require a really incredible contradiction of the official story,
marginalizing oneself from the mainstream. It would not be so easy to
dismiss such claims as "outrageous conspiracy theory," and ridicule would
be less effective. What is important to remember here is that propaganda
of this sort is not designed to fool critical thinkers, but to provide
conforming individuals with a reason not to start thinking critically.
Thus the total destruction of the World Trade Center in such a dramatic
yet obvious way was, in my opinion, an essential, psychological component
of the operation.

Note: I have assumed that the reader of this article has some familiarity
with the 9/11 Truth movement, and at least a rudimentary understanding of
the physics involved in the World Trade Center Collapse. If not, there is
an excellent, brand new DVD available: an in-depth analysis of the WTC
Collapse from scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. Steven Jones is a
professor of physics at BYU, who has risked his reputation to challenge
the government's official "pancake" theory of the collapse. A sincere and
courageous academic who dared to come forward with the truth, he has
subsequently been approached by less honest persons who many believe are
trying to tarnish his reputation, in part by association with repugnant,
anti-semitic viewpoints. And Kevin Ryan is a former lab manager at
Underwriters Labs, the company that tested and certified the steel used in
the World Trade Center. He was fired when he went public with information
about the cover-up in a whistle-blowing letter we first published in
November of 2004. In this DVD he explains in detail why the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the World Trade
Center collapse is a lie. This is a professionally produced DVD with
high-quality illustrations and graphics. Even if you are not new to the
physics of the World Trade Center Collapse, it's worth watching.
Conclusion

In the Spring of this year, I gave a presentation on 9/11 truth to the
Howard Dean supporters during a Democracy For America conference in
Portland, Oregon. (Here is an mp3 of my talk if you want to listen to it:
http://septembereleventh.org/documents/deaniac.mp3) I felt bad afterwards
because there were a lot of new and enthusiastic 9/11 truth activists in
the audience, folks who had only recently broke free from the matrix, so
to speak, and I basically told them that I felt the movement was over,
that we had failed, and that the window of opportunity for obtaining
justice for 9/11 was closed for good. While I still believe this, after my
talk I realized I didn't leave any of these new activists with much hope.
I want to try and do that now. Yet I don't want to reaffirm a false hope
that the perpetrators of 9/11 will ever be prosecuted. Rather, I want to
try to help people transcend and integrate the truth of 9/11 into a
broader awareness of the state of the world today, a world where there is
much to be hopeful about.

The world today stands on the brink of a confluence three major, global
crises: peak oil, global warming and the imminent collapse of the global
banking system. All of these are inter-related, and have greed as their
ultimate cause. Greed is the common human trait of wanting more than one
really needs to be healthy and happy. It exists in all of us, to varying
degrees. Gluttony, for example, the desire for more food or drink than one
really needs, is a form of greed. So is lust. Envy, the desire to have
what others have, is another form of greed. Greed, to put it another way,
is the psyche's unquenchable thirst for ever-increasing amounts of
material energy. It is the false identification of the Self with the
material world, and while I don't want to get overly religious or
spiritual here, it is important to understand this, because it allows us
to empathize with those whom we may perceive as our enemies, those whom we
believe are somehow different from us (yet there really is no "other"). It
is only with compassion that we can begin to see the true nature of 9/11,
the truth behind the truth, so to speak.

9/11 was a pretext to launch the War on Terror, a war to control the
world's remaining energy reserves in order to maintain the
over-consumptive lifestyle that Dick Cheney insists is "not negotiable."
And the War on Terror was conceived in response to peak oil, which
threatens to end the current system of corporate greed, over-consumption
and exploitation. That system requires ever-increasing amounts of material
energy to continue, and peak oil is nothing less than the end of that
increase. The War on Terror is, therefore, a war on "terra" to maintain
the illusion of perpetual growth, the myth that over-consumption can go on
forever. It is an extreme manifestation of the ego's desperate attempt to
live forever, and it is doomed to fail. The earth is finite, and we cannot
continue to to deplete its energy forever.

This can be seen as a crisis, which certainly it is, but it is only so in
the sense that it demands a transformation of our political and economic
systems, our consumption-based lifestyles, and our self-identities. As
such it is also an opportunity, an opportunity to transcend our own greed,
to face the truth of who we really are (interconnected with everyone else,
and with the earth), and to make the necessary and inevitable sacrifices
required of us. (Remember that sacrifice is not the giving up of the
things we need. It is the giving up of the things we don't need, including
our illusions.)

The neocons are so far unable to make this necessary transformation. They
are trapped in the very system they have created, but there are those all
across the planet who are trying, starting small and making some of the
necessary sacrifices. People are struggling everywhere to create
cooperative institutions of mutual aid and solidarity, to resist the
forces of ignorance and greed. One needs look no further then the
Bolivarian Revolution sweeping across Central and South America to
understand this. And there are many people here in the US, as well,
exerting the same efforts, implementing a powerdown strategy and working
towards the re-localization of social and political institutions.

The question lies in whether the forces of light (reason, compassion,
truth) will overcome the forces of darkness (greed, fear, ignorance),
whether the spirit of the Bolivarian Revolution will sweep over the world,
or whether the neocons and their counterparts in other countries will
sweep the world away. This is up to us to decide, both collectively and
individually, and we are constantly making that decision every moment, in
every action we undertake. In that light, let us always remember that we
can't really fight fire with fire. We fight fire with water, and to the
degree that we have failed thus far to end the War on Terror, is to the
degree that we have based our own actions--our own activism--on anger or
fear. I am no exception, and yet like many, I aspire.

Thank you for reading this.

And remember
the real path
Towards Peace and Truth
begins within.

Emanuel Sferios
Webmaster, SeptemberEleventh.org

Marcepan

Witam,
Jestem nowy na forum i bardzo chętnie bym zapoznał sie z tym artykułem. Minął już rok i może go przetłumaczyłeś lub ktoś inny z forum?

Voltar

"hundreds of whom saw the plane hit the building, and thousands of whom have relatives or friends who did".

Setki osób widziały uderzenie w Pentagon, a tysiące mają krewnych lub przyjaciół, którzy widzieli" ? No co za bzdety... pewnie na antenie FOX News...

Możliwe że samolot uderzył w Pentagon, zwisa mi to, jednak nie wyjaśnia to faktu:

1. Braku foteli lotniczych i silników
2. Zniszczeń na drugim piętrze i powyginanych krat z dala od toru lotu - zdjęcia już prezentowałem
3. Braku zniszczeń w miejscu gdzie jakoby uderzył ogon - nawet ryski na elewacji tuż nad "dziurą"
4. Śmierci kilkudziesięciu księgowych którzy dziwnym przypadkiem znaleźli się w nieodpowiednim miejscu o nieodpowiednim czasie
5. Uderzenia w jedyny malutki fragment poddany pracom rekonstrukcyjnym pod kątem wzmocnienia wytrzymałości na uderzenia i wybuchy...
6. Braku turbulencji wśród samochodów stojących na drodze tuz pod przelatującym samolotem
7. Akrobatycznych umiejętności pilotów ze szkółki niedzielnej
8. "Połknięcia" przez wybity otwór całego samolotu wraz ze skrzydłami - przypadek niespotykany w historii katastrof, skrzydła zawsze ulegały rozbiciu na fasadzie
9. Pilotowaniu AA77 przez kpt Berlingama, który kilka lat wcześniej pracowal w Pentagonie przy "war drillach" związanych z atakami samolotem na Pentagon - no co za "niesamowity" zbieg okoliczności...

Być może na TYCH punktach należałoby się skoncentrować a nie na bzdetach BYŁ-NIE BYŁ