|
Top Republican Claims Bushcons Organised 9/11 Attack Comment by Larry Ross, July 17, 2005
Morgan Reynolds joins a growing group of well-known Americans who have exposed the truth that the 9/11 attack was an inside job. The attack's purpose was to persuade Americans that this was a new "Pearl Harbour" attack on the U.S.A. Then the Bush Administration with media cooperation used that attack to fool Americans into supporting a "war on terrorism" and specific wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future, other targets. The object, as indicated in the neocon PNAC papers, was to start up a "long war" in the Middle East - to conquer the territory - and control the world's oil resources. Their are huge risks that a general war in the middle east would quickly escalate to become nuclear (as Bush and Blair threatened with their illegal Iraq war) and involve some of the other nuclear nations. These include: Russia, China, Pakistan, France, India, UK, North Korea, and Israel. With the U.S. that's up to 9 nuclear weapon states that could become involved. With rising global tensions, and actual use of nuclear weapons, which many would regard as barbaric and illegal, there would be a number of risks and reasons why some other country would use nuclear weapons, which would lead to others. Reason and logic would be abandoned. Within hours hundreds, even thousands of nuclear weapons could lay waste to the world. There is a rough rule among nuclear weapon practitioners that is: "If you don't use them you could lose them" in a sudden 'out-of'-blue' pre-emptive nuclear strike that wipes out your means of nuclear retaliation. Bush has introduced a new nuclear war doctrine, since legalised by the U.S. Senate, allowing him to wage pre-emptive nuclear war against any opponent he judges representing a threat to the U.S. or its allies. So the temptation for others to use nuclear weapons is apt to suddenly rise if the U.S. or Israel introduces them into a Middle East conflict. As Bush has said several times about his next target - Iran - "All options are on the table." Will other states allow the U.S., assisted by allies such as the UK and Israel, to conquer the Middle East and dominate the world oil industry? Will the millions of Muslims accept their fate and potential millions of casualties without striking back? Like Israel, the U.S. is willing to accept millions of casualties in order to accomplish their military goals. Leaders, who deliberately launch or connive to start aggressive wars, have always been willing to sacrifice their own citizens to achieve their war objectives. It's a very strange phenomenon that a population always accepts and hardly ever questions a leader's right to engage in such deliberate war-making activities. The reason? Because people believe what their leaders tell them, and cannot believe that their leaders would deceive them in order to commit such heinous crimes. As it's usually a police state situation, or nation on a marshal law type of war footing with a very cooperative media, there is not much opportunity for critics and activists to get the truth out to the people, that they have been grossly deceived. Nor is there much popular interest as the tendency is for the average person to simply dismiss any criticism, particularly Morgan Reynolds revelations, as "farfetched, improbable or impossible, nutty, conspiracy theory, etc." Because the media has implemented a total blackout on any information that suggests doubts about Bush's manufactured justifications, the people and probably most M.P.s live in ignorance. Thus it's much easier for Bush propagandists to fool them and get their support for the next round of major U.S. aggression in the Middle East. Such people seldom look further than the end of their nose and would never examine how governments use all kinds of psychological devices and strategies to get their people in the mood for war. The media maintains a 'stone age' mentality among the public by denying information, while the criminal puppeteers orchestrate and justify their wars Added to this is the climate of social conditioning to believe that any criticism 'helps the enemy and is unpatriotic'. Bush, the leading war criminal, keeps repeating this warning to Americans using the mass media who do not question or show any doubts or reservations. That's enough to silence most people, who are then prepared to send their sons and daughters off to war to be killed or wounded. Also, there is the possibly of much greater death if such wars grow to nuclear level. However that is not a consideration that most people are willing to take into account, much less act on. It may seem stranger than the strangest fiction, but people en masse, will accept the rule and dictates of criminal leaders and be willing to go to war and die for them. So long as these leaders are presented to them in a favourable normal way, and that their actions are presented as reasonable as given by the media beaming into their homes by radio, TV and newspapers. The people will believe and obey as they have been conditioned. Bush's neo-conservatives know this only too well. After years of effort, 'The Crazies' have finally achieved ultimate power. They have a huge multi-billion dollar psychological warfare and propaganda machine at their fingertips. The media has become a part of Bush's propaganda machine - repeating his every lie and suppressing criticism, articles and people that speak the truth. That's why top Republican leaders like Morgan Reynolds and Paul Craig Roberts are not reported when they try and inform the people about the atrocious lies and terrible plans and disastrous consequences of these plans. One of the only sources we have of accurate information left is the Internet - for the moment. Bush has already proven that he is an arch-criminal by using a litany of lies about Saddam Hussein, Iraq and 9/11 to fool the Americans into supporting a war on Iraq. That alone provides enough evidence to impeach Bush as a war criminal, without invoking the evidence that he actually conspired to initiate the 9/111 attack. Once embarked on this path it's easier to initiate more new wars by using various covert events and always blaming the chosen enemy for a new war. The window of opportunity for public action to oppose Bush war plans might still be slightly ajar - for the moment. However it may be closed once Bush, with Israel's help, provokes a larger war with many other nations in the Middle East. Marshall law, conscription, 'we are at war now' new information controls, new 'patriot', fascist laws etc. are implemented, even the limited criticism on Internet will be stopped. There have already been attempts to control the Internet. Morgan Reynolds shows why action to impeach Bush and related actions, is so urgent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Media hide the truth: 9/11 was inside job By Kevin Barrett, May 14, 2006
Last Saturday, former Bush administration official Morgan Reynolds drew an enthusiastic capacity crowd to the Wisconsin Historical Society auditorium. It is probably the first time in Historical Society history that a political talk has drawn a full house on a Saturday afternoon at the beginning of final exams. Reynolds, the former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the ex-top economist for George W. Bush's Labor Department, charged the Bush administration with gross malfeasance, and proposed the prosecution of top administration officials. Normally, if a prestigious UW alumnus and ex-Bush administration official were to come to the Wisconsin Historical Society to spill the beans about a Bush administration scandal, it would make the news. The local TV stations would cover it, and it would merit front page headlines in The Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal. Reynolds' indictment of the administration he worked for was a stunning, life-changing event for many of those who witnessed it. As the event's organizer, I have received dozens of e-mails about it from people who were deeply affected. Despite the prestigious speaker and venue, and the gravity of the charges aired, for most Americans indeed most Madisonians the event never happened. Why? Because it was censored, subjected to a total media blackout. Not a word in the State Journal. Not a word in The Capital Times . Not a word on the local TV news. Not a word on local radio news. And, of course, not a word in the national media. Why the blackout? Because Reynolds violated the ultimate U.S. media taboo. He charges the Bush administration with orchestrating the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for launching a preplanned "long war" in the Middle East, rolling back our civil liberties, and massively increasing military spending. When a former Bush administration insider makes such charges, how can the media ignore them? Is Reynolds a lone crank? Hardly. A long list of prominent Americans have spoken out for 9/11 truth: Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Sen. Barbara Boxer, former head of the Star Wars program Col. Robert Bowman, ex-Reagan administration economics guru Paul Craig Roberts, progressive Jewish author-activist Rabbi Michael Lerner, former CIA official Ray McGovern, author-essayist Gore Vidal, and many other respected names from across the political spectrum have gone on the record for 9/11 truth. Are the media ignoring all these people, and dozens more like them, because there is no evidence to support their charges? Hardly. Overwhelming evidence, from the obvious air defense stand-down, to the nonprotection of the president in Florida, to the blatant controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7, proves that 9/11 was an inside job. As noted philosopher-theologian and 9/11 revisionist historian David Griffin writes: "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government." A growing list of scientists has lined up behind BYU physicist Steven Jones and MIT engineer Jeff King in support of Griffin's position, as evidenced by the growth of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org) and Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11 (physics911.net). As a Watergate-era graduate of the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism, I was taught that exposing government lies and corruption is the supreme duty of the Fourth Estate. I simply cannot fathom the current situation. I do not understand the 9/11 truth blackout. I wish someone would explain it to me. It is time to break the 9/11 truth blackout. Please put pressure on your local media through letters to the editor, call-ins to talk radio, and phone calls to local and national journalists. And come see Peter Phillips, director of the media watchdog group Project Censored, who will lead a strategy session on breaking the blackout at the upcoming international 9/11 truth conference in Chicago: 9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future, to be held June 2-4 at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Chicago-O'Hare Rosemont. Go to http://911revealingthetruth.org for more information. The event will feature presentations from dozens of 9/11 truth luminaries, from scientists like Steven Jones to intelligence agency whistle-blowers like David Shayler, and promises to be a historic, watershed event. Be there, or resign yourself to a future of endless war, lost liberty, and a craven media that cannot bring itself to breathe a single word of truth. Kevin Barrett of Madison is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org) and SPINE: Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11 (911physics.net) and serves as coordinator of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth (mujca.com).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conspiracy and Closed Minds on 9/11 by Morgan Reynolds, March 15, 2006 While more Americans doubt the 9/11 story every week, evidence abounds that many have a mental block against rational examination of the evidence about 9/11. The possibility that it was an inside job is a non-starter for them. Programmed “cut outs” insure that 9/11 doubts are consigned to the “conspiracy” closet. Last June I was explaining the fuss over my 9/11 article to a family member who shall remain anonymous and he interrupted and said, “I don't want to talk about it.” Millions join him in that sentiment. By implication they might as well say: “I'd rather cling to the official 9/11 myth” = “If mass murderers run free, I'm fine with that” = “If 9/11 was an inside job, then I'm ruled by monsters and I might have to do something about it, I'd rather watch Paris Hilton.” Where does this passive attitude come from? Causes are many but American indoctrination has two sides that figure prominently in the explanation:
|
