News the mainstream media "forgets" to talk about

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" Gandhi

If you are looking for other information that is not provided in the blog post you just read or viewed ..chances are that the info you are looking for is in another post in the blogroll. please utilize our search this blog button..or contact the blogwriter directly by clicking on the name..that click will provide you with an email address..thank you for your support of Phoenix Rizing
Blog Admin-FaithRMichaels

Translate

Search This Blog

Featured Post

NO TRUMP! NO CLINTON! GET A NEW VIEW!

Written By FaithRMichaels I'm tired of hype, tired of same ole same ole lesser of two evils choice,  wayyyy tired of Clinton and wayyyy...

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

The Parable of the Man Wearing a Suit, Covered In Blood, Holding a Bloody Knife, Before the Body of the Victim, Who is Declared Innocent of the Crime, And the Truth about the Official 911 Narrative

A man, dressed neatly in a suit and tie, is found splattered with blood from head to toe holding a bloody knife before the body of a stabbing victim. The man calmly explains that he is not the murderer and he only just discovered the body. In a calm voice he says that he's a trusted member of the Government and that terrorists were responsible.

During the investigation it is discovered that the only footprints (bloody ones) were found to be from the man in the suit. His fingerprints were on the knife and no others. Regardless of these facts other men in suits focus the investigation on an elaborate tale that centres on the activities of a group of known terrorists.

Eventually a suspect is detained and waterboarded 180 times and confesses to the murder. The man in the suit then declares there will be a war against people who 'harbour terrorists' to protect our safety. The general population believes the man in the suit, since he represents civilised society. They assume he would always tell the truth about something like murder.

Case closed.

When the 911 attacks occurred the police arrested a number of Israeli Nationals who had set up a camera to record the event, prior to hijacked aircraft appearing in NY, and were seen celebrating as the aircraft struck. Also around this time the FBI had uncovered a huge Israeli spy ring and were detaining individuals that served in "military intelligence, electronic surveillance intercept, and/or explosive ordinance units." - the last skill being highly relevant to later facts discovered about the 911 incident. Those arrested, some of whom were members of the Israeli spy agency Mossad, were released from custody and returned to their country of origin.

During the attack many witnesses at the World Trade Centre site, the target of the hijacked aircraft, experienced numerous heavy duty secondary explosions occurring within the buildings, down to the basement levels, and also in another building (WTC7) that was never struck by an airliner.

Subsequently, material evidence was observed at the WTC crime scene that consisted of multiple physical proofs showing explosive and incendiary materials were used on the buildings after the impacts of the aircraft - where other causes, like jet fuel, were definitively ruled out. Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of High Tech Explosives were discovered in the rubble pile.  Furthermore it was determined that the freefall collapse rate of the WTC7 building was impossible WITHOUT using incendiaries or explosives of the sort commonly employed by the military or demolition companies. Additional expert examination of the building steel showed that the damage was totally consistent with the evidence of explosives already uncovered.

Despite having arrested suspects, plus the witness and forensic evidence showing that explosives had been used, the official investigation, led by well spoken men in suits, omitted these facts and focused on a tale of foreign terrorists that, although monitored by a number of intelligence agencies, managed to evade capture to fly four commercial planes unmolested to their targets. The possibility that these individuals were patsies, or intelligence assets, to cover for a wider conspiracy, was never raised.

At official hearings, other men in suits (NORAD Generals), lied by stating they were not immediately informed about the hijacked aircraft, and indicated they could not easily track aircraft in the North East Air Defence Sector after they had turned off their transponders, despite the fact this area was well covered by radar. They also reported there was a large scale hijacked airliner drill occurring on the same day, but denied this hampered the Air Force response, despite the fact that, for over 80 minutes, no aircraft were shot down. However, in separate testimony we heard that Flight 77, the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, had been tracked on radar from a point where it was more than 50 Miles away from its eventual target, and that Dick Cheney was aware of the situation.

It was also discovered that those in positions of command authority, to oversea interception of hijacked aircraft, were either absent their posts (like Donald Rumsfeld or General Eberhart) or lied about their situational awareness (like Dick Cheney, who said he did not enter the White House command bunker until after the Pentagon was struck).

Rather than engage in a further more rigorous examination of this evidence, the official investigation, directed by a close friend of the Bush White House, who had written a paper on creating modern myths for political purposes (Dr Zelikow), fell back on the confession of a 'known terrorist' that had been waterboarded more than 180 times.  

The general population believed the story presented by the well spoken men in suits (since they represented civil society). An assumption was made that such people would always tell the truth about something like mass murder.

Case closed.

The lesson here is that it does not matter how upstanding and well spoke the person may be who is telling the story (the man in the suit) - the hard data must come first and conclusions second. If the data contradicts the 'man in a suit', then their story is in error. This remains true no matter how outwardly credible they appear.

Related Info:

911 and the Cover Up by Ryan Dawson


911 who is the government protecting? The 28 pages


No comments:

Post a Comment