The Red Pill: Take It: Part Four — by Hugh Mungus

9/11

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

― President George W. Bush *

• President George W. Bush:

"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on [O]sama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

— The FBI's chief of investigative publicity, Rex Tomb, 2006

Oops.

Might not wanna share that quote with families of tens of thousands of Afghani civilians killed by U.S. forces, ** in the hunt for a guy the FBI admits had nothing to do with 9/11.

** Afghani civilian deaths:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

While we're at it, the above death toll estimate is extremely conservative. Who knows how many citizens have perished months or years after coalition attacks, due to war-related reasons? In addition, how many innocents have been wounded — limbs amputated, bodies irreversibly burned — thanks to what the U.S. has done?

Since we're spitballin' here, if bin Laden's dead, and we're told such was a major reason for going to war with Afghanistan, why are U.S. troops still in said country?

A "war on terror"?

Just ask carpet and "precision" bombed civilians of Afghanistan who they think the terrorists are. Without fail, they'll answer, "the United States."

If you still believe the official government theory regarding 9/11, then you're willing to accept as truth that:

"Inexperienced Muslim hijackers, armed with only knives and box-cutters, took control of four airliners, then outfoxed the world's most sophisticated air defense system, then used two of those airliners to bring three skyscrapers down (indeed, straight down, in virtual free fall), and then, almost an hour later — when the U.S. air defense system would have been on highest alert — flew a third one, undetected, from the midwest back to Washington, DC, where — thanks to heroic piloting by a man who had never before flown an airliner and who was, according to the New York Times, known as a "terrible pilot," incapable of safely flying even a tiny plane — this third airliner went through an extremely difficult trajectory (even too difficult for themselves, said some experienced airline pilots) in order to strike the first floor of the Pentagon — surely the most well-protected building on the planet — without scraping the Pentagon lawn." ***

*** Griffin, David Ray. (2011). 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed. Olive Branch Press. ISBN: 9781566568685

About as likely as a hockey team pulling its goalie whilst on a penalty kill.

Because the topic of World Trade Center 7 was covered in the Unraveled blog, we'll focus on other elements of 9/11. As investigator David Ray Griffin — author of a dozen books on the subject — exclaims, in order to believe the official theory of 9/11, one must accept multitudinous miracles occurred that date.

An extensive recounting of the particulars of September 11, 2001, would be redundant. Most of us know what allegedly happened that day. Thus, a brief overview will suffice.

According to what the U.S. government tells us, four commercial airliners were hijacked on the aforementioned date. Two of these planes were flown into Buildings 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center. Consequently, the edifices collapsed, along with an additional skyscraper — World Trade Center 7.

The third plane crashed into the Pentagon, while the fourth slammed into an open field adjacent Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

None of the crew, hijackers, nor passengers on any of the planes survived, and roughly 3,000 individuals were killed as a result of the aforementioned atrocities.

Let's start with the hijackers. As the government would have us believe, there were 19 total who did the deed. Does it seem problematic at least six, perhaps more of these individuals, were alive after the events of 9/11?

We've been informed these half dozen supposed radicals — which included Saeed al-Ghamdi, Ahmed al-Nami and Waleed al-Shehri — were hijackers during this attack. According to mainstream news sources the likes of the Associated Press, The Telegraph and the BBC, these six individuals have subsequently been discovered — alive — none too happy for being indicted of crimes they obviously didn't commit.

Since the government tells us all four planes involved in the 9/11 onslaught — and almost everything inside them — were vaporized, how is it possible alleged hijacker Satam al-Suqami's passport survived, and was found in the rubble of the World Trade Center?

Nearly everything on the airliners was disintegrated, and yet a paper passport remains? This obviously begs the question: If passports are so impervious to destruction, why don't airlines build planes out of them?

How about Hani Hanjour, who — by government account — flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon? Hani Hanjour, who had never piloted a jumbo jet before. Hani Hanjour, referred to as a dreadful pilot by his flight instructors, on small, single-engine planes. Hani Hanjour, who the government would have us believe executed a near-impossible maneuver — veteran pilots assert they couldn't perform — in order to fly mere meters above the Pentagon lawn.

Said sublime stunt — which Hani purportedly accomplished, in order to crash Flight 77 into Wedge 1 of the Pentagon — was addressed by ex-Navy "top gun" pilot Ralph Kolstad, who later flew commercial jetliners:

"I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757s and 767s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described."

This dazzling deed required Hani Hanjour to perform a descending spiral — dropping 8,000 feet in just over three minutes. From there, he would level off — going hundreds of miles per hour — racing parallel to the Pentagon lawn, precisely crashing into the edifice between its first and second floors.

Hani Hanjour was described in a New York Times article as "a trainee known for incompetence." One flight instructor, after drilling Hanjour on single-engine craft, stated, "He [Hani Hanjour] could not fly at all." The 9/11 Commission, itself, professed an additional trainer — subsequent taking to the air once with Hanjour — "declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills."

Is it a dilemma that none of the alleged hijackers names are on the flight manifests for the airliners purportedly used as weapons that day?

Is it a problem there's no videotape of any of these individuals boarding these respective flights?

Of course not.

Why?

Because the government says so.

Since none of the passenger manifests for the jetliners contained a single Arab name, let alone specific appellations of those the government informs us were responsible, it becomes plausible these planes were not hijacked by Middle Eastern terrorists.

In addition, autopsies performed on the deceased from the wreckage at the Pentagon included no Arab names either.

Mohamed Atta is claimed to have been the ringleader of the events transpiring on 9/11. Hence, those supporting the official government theory — no matter how weak it is — will note the claim Atta's luggage was discovered in Boston's Logan Airport after the attacks. According to the FBI, this proof — as is often the case with check-in baggage — never made it onto the plane. In his suitcases, an abundance of evidence was disclosed, validating Atta was a main player behind the devastation of this day.

As we're lead to believe, the luggage contained Atta's last will and testament, a copy of the Koran, a pair of videos about Boeing airplanes and a slide-rule flight calculator.

First off, if these items were in Atta's check-in suitcase, they would have remained in the baggage hold during the flight. Hence, he wouldn't have had access to them. As such, why bring 'em on board?

Secondly, if you're on a suicide mission — aware the plane on which you're flying will be devastated — why take your will with you? Akin to yourself, it's going to be destroyed in the destruction. The whole point of a will is to keep it preserved, so others can view it after you're gone, and fulfill the wishes within it. Hence, why bring it aboard a vessel you know is bound for decimation?

Let's address the Pentagon and Flight 77 — the aircraft the government would like us to believe slammed into the above building on 9/11.

As stated in the Unraveled blog, the Pentagon is the most surveilled building in present-day society. Yet, all the FBI provides us to substantiate their claim a jetliner crashed into it, is five frames of video footage? Five frames — no less — that show no evidence of any plane, and are inconclusive. ****

**** Flight 77 Pentagon surveillance video:

Not only is the Pentagon the most vigilantly observed structure currently known to man, the building also has its own defense system. We're talking radar to detect incoming threats, and missiles to deter them.

How is it, then, a gawky, slow-maneuvering Boeing 757 — flown by a pilot who couldn't handle a Cessna — was able to circumvent mankind's preeminent defense battery?

How is it fighter jets — routinely scrambled within minutes after a plane's transponder is shut off, or an aircraft veers significantly off course — weren't sent to intercept Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 until these jetliners were upon their targets?

Why is it what the government would have us believe was such a well-honed adversary hadn't conducted fundamental research regarding the Pentagon? One could have performed a cursory investigation to determine then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — and others of high rank in the government — would be located in offices on the east wing of this building. The west wing, on the other hand, was undergoing renovation, and hence very few individuals of eminent nature, or otherwise, would be found here. Why, then, would a superlative terrorist cell go out of its way to crash an airliner into the west wing — which was much less easily accessible, given their flight path?

Additionally, why perform such an intricate and risky maneuver rather than aiming for the Pentagon's roof — a far larger target, at 29 acres?

How is it there was decidedly little debris on the Pentagon lawn following 9/11? Why is it what was found in no way resembled wreckage of an airliner? We're talking an aircraft capable of carrying hundreds of passengers, yet it vaporizes after impact? If such was the case, why didn't the Pentagon lawn, and a prodigious portion of said building, do so, as well?

A Boeing 757 — which Flight 77 was — has a wingspan of nearly 125 feet. It's tail section is over 40 feet in height.

How did such a colossal plane leave a hole only 20 feet in diameter in the facade of the Pentagon?

When it comes to the building in question, not only does the absence of physical, photographic and video evidence substantiate whatever hit it wasn't a jetliner, but personal testimony of those on scene does, as well. Take, for instance, Eileen Murphy — a registered nurse who arrived at the Pentagon not long after the devastation on 9/11:

"I knew it was a crash site before we got there, and I didn't know what it was going to look like. I couldn't imagine because the building is like rock solid. I expected to see the airplane, so I guess my initial impression was, 'Where's the plane? How come there's not a plane?' I would have thought the building would have stopped it and somehow we would have seen something like part of it, or the lower part, or the back of the plane. So it was just a real surprise that the plane wasn't there."

As stated by April Gallop — a U.S. Army executive administrative assistant working at the Pentagon on 9/11:

"I had no jet fuel on me…I didn't see any airplane seats. I didn't see any plane parts…I didn't see anything that would give me any idea that there was a plane."

Huey helicopter pilot Ronald Alan Galey — of the Park Police — was on scene at the Pentagon within minutes of the crash, and had the following to report:

"[I]t couldn't possibly have been a 757. The building had not collapsed at that point and there [were] spot fires everywhere. In fact the most fire that I saw was the crash truck, foam truck on fire. That was creating the greatest amount of fire at the particular point and it was a relatively small hole in the side of the building. I'm going, 'This couldn't possibly have been a 757.' There's absolutely nothing that you could identify as an aircraft part anywhere around there. Nothing. Just couldn't have been."

Let's now address Flight 93 that — according to the government — crashed, vaporizing in an open field contiguous Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Upon viewing photos of the alleged impact site in the Keystone State, one is immediately struck by the fact there's no plane! Not only is such the case, but there are no remnants of a plane. We're not talking a single-engine, two-seater, either. This was assertedly a United Airlines jumbo jet capable of carrying the populace of a decent-sized village.

The second thing one notes is there seems to be an insufficient amount of damage to the ground. When we refer to soil here, it appears to be soft dirt; the type one would expect a monstrous airliner — traveling at hundreds of miles per hour — to gouge an extended ditch through in its aftermath. Yet, we've got a furrow described by on scene Fox News photographer Chris Konicki as 10 feet in width, and maybe 20 feet in length. ***** A Boeing 757 — which Flight 93 was — is over 150 feet long. How does such a massive craft, traveling at such high momentum, leave such a meager gouge in its wake?

***** Flight 93 witness:

At what point do these fuckers simply throw their hands in the air, and exclaim, "I give up! You caught me. I'm guilty!"?

Since the U.S. government organized NIST, as well as the 9/11 Commission — the two official "investigations" into what happened on September 11th, the answer is, "Never." Why admit guilt when you're the final arbitrator, you regulate what the media tells the population, and the people will believe anything you say? You can act with impunity indefinitely, labeling anyone with a myriad of facts as a "conspiracy theorist," thus dooming truths they impart to be ridiculed.

How do a pair of the tallest structures ever created in known history collapse symmetrically — perfectly into their own bases — when struck by two planes? We're talking 220 stories of high-rise here.

Again, even if sparse and randomly burning office fires could reach levels hot enough to melt steel — which they can't — shouldn't these skyscrapers have fallen asymmetrically? After all, blazes at different points about these buildings couldn't have resulted in a smooth descent.

These edifices would have toppled partially, stopped, collapsed in a different direction, ceased for a bit and continued forth in this manner. Arbitrary fires on various floors — even if they were able to fell a steel-framed skyscraper — would have resulted in a far more chaotic, widespread dispersion of debris.

Initially, the U.S. government declared what was known as the pancake theory — or progressive collapse — occurred. During such a scenario, floors fall atop one another, resulting in total destruction of all the stories. When this hegemony realized such a conclusion would have left 94 massive steel columns — 47 apiece for Buildings 1 and 2 — still standing amidst the rubble, they abandoned this idea. After all, take a look at the outcome of the World Trade Center devastation. Destruction is complete and total; no conspicuous core columns still raised to the sky. Thus, the government — like it did with the Roswell Incident — continued to change its story about 9/11, until it fit their agenda. Well, there's an unscientific way of conducting business.

Now, let's address supplementary subjects regarding 9/11.

As the government would have us believe, cell phone calls were made from the planes involved in this cataclysmic day, via flight attendants and passengers, to loved ones on the ground. Sounds like proof validating terrorists had hijacked the airliners in question. The only problem here is that, in 2001, mobile phones didn't work at altitudes at which these jumbo jets were flying.

As scientist A.K. Dewdney — former long-time journalist for Scientific American — determined, cell phones available to the public in 2001 would have been useless, when it came to making calls from Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175. In his 2008 book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, eminent researcher David Ray Griffin had the following to say regarding cell phone communication from jetliners in 2001:

"[Dewdney] conducted some experiments with single and double-engine airplanes to test the likelihood of successful cell phone calls from high altitudes. He found that in a single-engine plane, successful calls could be counted on only under 2,000 feet. Above that altitude, they become increasingly unlikely. At 20,000 feet, Dewdney concluded, 'the chance of a typical cellphone call making it to the ground and engaging a cell site there is less than one in a hundred.'…In later experiments using a twin-engine plane, which has greater mass and hence provides greater insulation from electronic signals than a single-engine plane, Dewdney found that the success rate decayed to 0 percent at 7,000 feet. A large airliner, having much greater mass, would provide far greater insulation. […]

A cell phone had to complete a 'hand-shake' with a cell site, and this took several seconds, so cell phones in high-speed planes would have had trouble staying connected to the cell site long enough to complete a call."

As a result, in 2001, cell phone calls from jetliners flying at the altitudes of the aircraft involved in 9/11 would have been impossible for the public to make.

In regard to the flights themselves, commercial jetliners come equipped with a specific hijack code (7500) pilots can transmit to air traffic control, in case of emergency.

Although this process takes a few seconds, none of the four flights sent this crisis alert.

Does it surprise anybody that while the shit was spiraling outta control at WTC 1 and 2, President Bush was reading a book about a pet goat? That's correct. Your commander-in-chief was in Sarasota, Florida, at a "photo opportunity," with a second grade class.

When the first plane slammed into the Twin Towers, the President was quietly informed by his assistants. Apparently, he referred to the incident as a "horrible accident."

At approximately 9:05 AM, Bush was inconspicuously apprised of a second jetliner hitting the World Trade Center. Even so, he continued to sit and read about fictitious — albeit courageous — livestock with a group of elementary school brainwashing victims for the next 30 minutes!

This brings up the obvious question: If the President and the Secret Service knew the United States was under terrorist attack, why wasn't Boy Bush rushed away to a safe venue? Given the fact his whereabouts on this day were public knowledge, and had been for some time, doesn't it seem he would've been a sitting duck for enemy forces wishing to eradicate him? After all, a President is the exemplary symbol of this non-existent horse shit people refer to as the U.S. What better blow to strike at western society?

Additionally, by keeping his lying ass in the classroom, wasn't Bush exposing not solely the kids he was with to an air strike, but the entire school at which he was holed up?

If the above wasn't enough aspartame to digest, the sickeningly sweet frosting came when Bush Baby was chauffeured to the airport. No air cover — via fighter jets — was provided. The nipple ring on top of it all came when Air Force One took off around 9:54 AM — the President aboard — still unprotected by a single military plane.

Do ya' think that's because Bush Master and his Secret Service knew they weren't intended targets, and therefore had nothing to fear?

When reduced to basics, the only evidence the U.S. bureaucracy has implicating Osama bin Laden to the attacks of 9/11 is what's deemed a confession videotape. According to the government, this meager proof was found in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and is dated November 9, 2001. We're bestowed no particulars as to how the United States happened upon this evidence, nor who provided it.

We refer to this video as extremely suspect, since prior its recovery, bin Laden had adamantly declared his lack of involvement in 9/11. Suddenly, he changes his tune? One moment he's playing Muzak, the next he's beltin' out a black metal anthem?

What's more, previous videos of big O provide a different personage than the offering of November 9th. Even though we're aware bin Laden was of ailing health, it seems his cheeks become much more full in his "confession" video, and his skin tone far darker. In addition, his nose has changed shape, and his hands are "shorter" and "heavier."

On top of this, Osama makes statements — like that below — in the November 9th video that contradict the validity of this "proof":

"[D]ue to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for."

A contractor, Osama bin Laden would have never made the above declaration, as he'd have been aware WTC 1 and 2 were constructed with steel, instead of iron. In addition, he would have known jet fuel couldn't burn anywhere near hot enough to melt this metal. Jet fuel reaches a maximum temperature of 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel, on the other hand, won't melt until heated to almost 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.

As a final nail in the coffin of the bin Laden video, Professor Bruce Lawrence — the preeminent academic authority regarding OBL — claims the footage provided by the government is "bogus." In addition, Lawrence affirms his contacts within the Department of Homeland Security "also know it's bogus."

To date, tens of thousands of professionals — encompassing architects, engineers, pilots, doctors and even actors — are crying out for an objective investigation regarding 9/11. As we know all too well, this is something the U.S. bureaucracy — akin to freedom for its populace — will never willfully allow. That said, as the ranks of those who refuse to believe the government conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 grows every day, the ultimate decision may not rest with any ruling regime, but with people, themselves.

As declared by David A. Johnson — architect of international renown:

"As a professional city planner in New York, I knew these buildings and their design…So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns…When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base…Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, not so rapidly…[T]he official explanation doesn't hold water."

In a 2009 lecture, David Ray Griffin made the following exemplary points:

"Among scientists and professionals in the relevant fields who have studied the evidence, the weight of scientific and professional opinion is now overwhelmingly on the side of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Whereas well over 1,000 such people have publicly supported the stance of this movement, there are virtually no scientists or professionals in the relevant fields who have gone on record in defense of the official story — except for people whose livelihood would be threatened if they refused to support it. This caveat is important, because, as Upton Sinclair famously observed: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.' Except for such people, virtually everyone who has expertise in a relevant field, and who has seriously studied the evidence, rejects the official conspiracy theory. It is time, therefore, for journalists and everyone else to take a second look."

We could ramble on about so much more damning proof regarding 9/11, but we're all about being concise and compelling. The overwhelming evidence — from stock market deals known as put options, to quotes from individuals within the FBI — that 9/11 was an inside job, is accessible via the bibliography of this entry. How many hundreds of air traffic controllers need to fail drastically at their work — causing 3,000 people to die — before admitting we were duped? How many times does the government have to express — prior to 9/11, and in writing — the necessity for "a new Pearl Harbor" to galvanize public sentiment into invading Afghanistan and Iraq? How many jet fighters, their pilots, crews and commanding officers need to be totally incompetent on this one day — and solely this day — before we yell in unison: "We're being lied to"?

Ask yourself at what point do you just admit these fuckers are guilty, and get rid of 'em?

We know that means overhaul of everything you've been indoctrinated to believe in, but what's the alternative? Re-signing your lease in Make-Believetown, and perpetuating this shameless lie that causes droves of people to die unnecessarily every day?

Just a brief note regarding WTC 7:

When it comes to Building 7 of the World Trade Center, if we're to believe what the U.S. government claims happened, then every steel-frame skyscraper on the planet must be destroyed, and rebuilt to meet new codes. Either that, or all insurance policies for these buildings need be rewritten. Everyone worldwide must be informed high-rise buildings can now be demolished by office fires, and steel has a new melting temperature.

Not only that, but every physics textbook in existence must be thrown away, and new elementary, middle, high school and university curricula created.

That said, all physics professors must be retrained. In addition, anybody using physics — even remotely in their jobs — must be retaught. Sir Isaac Newton — upon whose theories a good portion of classical physics is based — must be relegated to a footnote in history, and declared incorrect.

As the Jersey Girls — an association of widows, due to the events of 9/11 — declared:

"Dr. Shyam Sunder of NIST…stated that WTC 7 met all New York City codes. Yet, WTC 7 is the first steel high-rise building of traditional construction in the United States — and the world, to completely collapse as a result of fire. According to...Dr. Sunder, 'there were no flaws with the construction of the building.'

We don't know how the rest of the country is feeling about this news, but we are very scared! These findings suggest that ANY EXISTING building is prone to a progressive collapse if a fire should start and the sprinkler system fails for whatever reason….

The ultimate purpose of advocating for the $16 million to have NIST study this event was to determine how to make buildings safer in the future. If we are now to believe that any skyscraper is subject to total collapse from fire, why isn't NIST emphasizing the impact on EXISTING buildings?…NIST needs to…provide guidance for EXISTING buildings.

NIST should put the most important conclusion in plain English and announce it to the entire country: UNCONTROLLED FIRES IN HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS CAN LEAD TO THEIR TOTAL COLLAPSE….NIST must address this dangerous issue immediately. The future safety of the public and the fire services hangs in the balance."

The destruction and loss of life taking place on September 11, 2001, are what's referred to as a false flag attack. ****** Any government claiming the known rules of physics were mangled on a particular day, yet returned to normal, and have remained constant since, is either culpable or complicit. Since seeking to ferret out the guilty parties is useless, just demolish the whole hegemony.

****** False flag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

"No desire to work with us, although you attest to being our representatives? Well, then you're done."

Let's describe a false flag attack. A government secretly stages an offensive against its own populace, and then blames it on some other party; e.g. terrorists, another country, etc.

What would a bureaucracy engaging in such evil have to gain?

Considering several wars have been waged on the pretext 9/11 was a terrorist offensive, and trillions of dollars generated as a result, we'd say you have part of your answer. How about the increased amount of control the United States government now has over its populace, in the name of "protection from terrorism"? The likes of the Patriot Act, TSA and NSA spying stripping you of privacy, so this bureaucracy can maintain your "safety," comes to mind.

"I'll take 'Ability to Control Middle Eastern Oil Reserves' for 5,000, Alex."

"That's correct, Tim. Unfortunately we're out of time. As a consolation gift, though, I can slap your frightened face with my shriveled nuts on national TV."

It's known as the Hegelian dialectic, also referred to as Problem, Reaction, Solution. *******

******* Hegelian dialectic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

Here's how it works:

1. You create a problem.

2. People react to that problem.

3. You — the producer of that problem — offer a solution.

More sick and twisted than the 100 year old bowels of a patient with colon cancer, but it works.

1. Collapse the World Trade Center.

2. Blame it on terrorists.

3. Offer to invade Afghanistan — which was your primary goal, anyway — in order to kill the individual you claim was responsible for the destruction.

It's more simple than the thoughts passing through the mind of an avid Oprah viewer.

That said, hundreds of millions of those referring to themselves as Americans bought into it, when it came to 9/11.

In the words of Hermann Goring — founder of the Gestapo; the second most powerful individual in Nazi Germany; and head of the Luftwaffe:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

We spoke to one individual about this fateful day, showing him the events that ensued were physically impossible when interpreted by the government theory.

Therefore, we affirmed, the U.S. hegemony is lying about 9/11, and thus guilty. Whether they acted in collusion with other entities, or not, they themselves were culpable.

The gentleman asked why the United States bureaucracy would perpetrate such hideous acts upon its own populace.

We explained, when you look at what's occurred afterward — erosion of what people perceive their rights; invasions, decimations and occupations of several empires; and an excuse to attack anyone on the pretext of a "terror threat" — it's clear the government coordinated, or helped to coordinate, 9/11 in order to obtain more power. In addition, would it solely be coincidence United States military bases throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan precisely follow the major oil pipeline being built in that region?

To this, the man's reply was, "Who am I to question motives of the government? If they had their reasons for carrying out 9/11, I'm sure it was to our benefit in the long run."

We were stunned. This person was justifying the government executing 3,000 Americans. What's more, he was acquitting this evil bureaucracy because its nefarious acts were allegedly part of some strategy for the betterment of everyone!

How do you murder a few thousand American citizens for the benefit of American citizens?!

Allowing the government immunity for mass extermination on 9/11 — because you obtusely want to believe they were adhering to a greater blueprint that would help us all — is similar to coming home to discover this bureaucracy has slaughtered your wife, children, grandchildren and dog. At first, you're infuriated, demanding retribution. However, when the government explains they committed these atrocities for your benefit, you're suddenly at peace with the situation, satisfied your immediate family was brutally annihilated in your best interest.

There wasn't a semblance of logic — nor intelligence — in the guy's conclusion. It's incredible people denying themselves the capacity to think don't congregate outside, in droves, during thunderstorms, gazing up at the sky, mouths wide, drowning as a result.

Would this individual still have felt the government was justified in killing 3,000 Americans on 9/11, if he realized that's what was happening as he was jumping to his death from WTC 1 or 2? Would he still be so indifferent if a relative he dearly loved was slain in the events of that day?

Allowing the U.S. government to get away with mass murder — doing nothing to stop this genocide, while people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are being senselessly slaughtered — is to become an accomplice in this crime. If you don't know the facts regarding September 11, 2001, you're ignorantly complicit. If you do know the truths concerning this day — and we all should, given the Internet — but are doing nothing to bring the perpetrators to task, you're willingly assisting the United States government regarding murder of any innocent civilians by coalition troops in the above countries. What's more, you're an accessory to those who exterminated 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

Nescience is a lack of comprehension, due to inadequate information.

Ignorance comes when you've got the tools to understand, but you're just fuckin' dumb.

With ease of access to the Internet, and the overwhelming cornucopia of facts invalidating the official theory of 9/11, which do you think people still believing the government on this issue might be?

Sources:

Books:

Berkowitz, Matt; Joseph, Peter; McLeish, Ben. (2014). The Zeitgeist Movement Defined: Realizing a New Train of Thought. CreateSpace. ISBN: 1495303195

Griffin, David Ray. (2011). 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed. Olive Branch Press. ISBN: 9781566568685

Griffin, David Ray. (2005). The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Olive Branch Press. ISBN: 1566565847

Griffin, David Ray. (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. Olive Branch Press. ISBN: 1566565529

Mungus, Hugh. (2013). Unraveled: When the Fabric of "Reality" Comes Apart. CreateSpace. ISBN: 1492158917

Movies:

9/11: Blueprint for Truth — The Architecture of Destruction. Dir. Ken Jenkins. Perfs. Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin. DVD. 2008.

9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out. Dir. Richard Gage. Perfs. David Ray Griffin, Niels Harrit, Robert E. McCoy, Tom Sullivan. DVD. 2012.

9/11: Press for Truth. Dir. Ray Nowosielski. Perfs. Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg, Lorie Van Auken. DVD. 2006.

Online Movies:

9/11: Blueprint for Truth — The Architecture of Destruction:

9/11: Explosive Evidence — Experts Speak Out:

9/11: Press for Truth:

April Gallop:

April Gallop:

David Ray Griffin: 9/11 Commission Report:

David Ray Griffin: 9/11 Miracles:

A WORLD OF FANTASY

"I was lost in your world of fantasy

I was caught, caught in your game of make-believe […]

Look what you've done, done to me

All the times you lied and all the times I cried

I'm never gonna be the same again"

― Triumph *

• Triumph:

Today, most individuals laugh at those who once believed the Earth was flat. We praise ourselves for being smart enough to realize the planet upon which we live is spherical.

Ironically, many of us still engage in our own brand of idiocy, when we assert we're alone in this cosmos. With hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way, and hundreds of billions of galaxies in this Universe, to conclude we're the only sentient life is a psychosis. Future generations will view those who maintained they were the sole cognizant species, as narrow-minded as anybody who once argued the Earth was flat.

The following are observations which may help you progress in your forward thinking.

— One —

"Right as rain."

What the fuck—?!

When was the last time you looked outside during a thunderstorm and exclaimed, "You know what? This rain? It's right."?

— Two —

Is there a reason it's called a flu shot, as opposed to an anti-flu shot?

— Three —

"My son has a great job!"

No he doesn't. Jobs are identical to slavery. Hence, what you're asserting is your son has great slavery. There's no such thing...unless you're a slave owner.

— Four —

At some point, if you have an overwhelming amount of conclusive evidence to substantiate your affirmations, wouldn't you go from conspiracy theorist to conspiracy factualist? For far too long, those with urgently important erudition have been dismissed as a lunatic fringe.

— Five —

Is it possible there was a typo in the original John 11:35 verse of the Bible? Maybe what the author meant to say was "Jesus swept," since floors were probably pretty dirty back then, and needed a good cleaning.

— Six —

"Anybody who has half a brain would know that!"

No, anybody who had half a brain wouldn't have a single thought, be completely paralyzed and continually drool on oneself.

— Seven —

Don't forget, only one letter separates the word "Mormon" from "moron."

— Eight —

"Even if you wanna talk shit about the U.S., you should be thankful you live here. Would you rather live in Iraq?"

So, what you're saying is, if conditions were better in Iraq, you'd live there?

Ah, counterfeit patriotism. People love to go with the winning team, don't they?

— Nine —

Why do we call it rush hour traffic, if it's not moving?

— Ten —

Most of us work diligently the majority of our existences, in hopes of retiring, and enjoying "the good life." Customarily, that buona vita comes for most people near the age of 70. Since the average human lifespan in the U.S was 78.74 years — as of 2012 — that doesn't give a person a lot of time to revel in the leisure and recreation they've been informed they earned.

When you consider a number of those 8.74 years will be spent battling a breakdown of the body — aging, disease, etc. — retirement is just a joke we're led to believe will be a wonderful reward.

As long as folks are insisting they be subjugated by this fucked-up system, how 'bout they retire first, at the age of 18 — for 8.74 years — and then engage in debt slave imprisonment for the rest of their lives? Retirement first; work second. Makes sense, doesn't it? Why not retire when you're young and healthy, so you can truly enjoy it?

Of course the powers we allow to be would never accept this, because once people realize how great it is to not be a slave, they'll never comply to serfdom.

Sources:

Books:

Mungus, Hugh. (2013). Unraveled 2: When the Fabric of "Reality" Rips to Shreds. CreateSpace. ISBN: 1493522469

The preceding blog was written by Hugh Mungus. Feel free to contact the author directly here on Steemit, or via his personal E-mail address: longlivenuno@aol.com