 |
8/16/04
With the third anniversary of the attacks approaching, I assume many 911 Truth Activists are planning 9-11 Events, Teach-Ins,
etc. When you're planning what videos to show, PLEASE take the "Aftermath" video off your list. It's disinformation
and supports the government's cover story. Although information about this spurious video has been out for quite some time,
it continues to be shown again and again. Here's why you shouldn't:
01/06/04
Leave your copy of Aftermath at home. That video does an excellent job of instilling fear on its own. Think back. Remember
how it opened. With Mary Sciavo and the pounding beat of the soundtrack, telling us about the very real dangers of terrorists
and planes, how we had to know they were coming, so many have before. . . It's a real, solid, scary threat that we faced then
and face now kind of thing. That video accomplishes the very outcome that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated for - fear of
this terrorist threat, that we must, therefore as it's only logical, continually take whatever measures are necessary to protect
us, like endless war, annihilation of any civil liberties, etc.
(Maybe some of us confused the soundtrack of Aftermath, the song by rap artist Paris, "What Would You Do, If You
Knew The Things That We Know", with the video part of Aftermath. The music of the song was the background of the video
only, its incredible lyrics were nowhere to be found. Instead, the video accepts as a premise what we have never been shown
a scintilla of evidence about, that traditional "terrorists" committed the attacks, further confirmed by all the
many real warnings we had in fact received.
And if you haven't read the article at the following link about it yet (copied below), please do, as the authors say it
a million times better than I ever could:
>>"We need faith in our neighbors -- faith that they will listen to us"
but when we speak, we've gotta be more careful that we are not speaking the enemy's words and teaching people the enemy's
lessons.
>>"My experience is that they are now ready to hear."
That's been my experience as well. Let's make sure that what we say does not concede their cover-up story, otherwise
we are simply doing their job for them. It's hard enough doing our own job and very strenuous to have to also continually
watch that we're not also doing theirs. But we must take that time and make that effort to scrutinize what it is that we
are handing out. I am only suggesting that we stop feeding people things that only serve to reinforce the cover story and
help meet the enemy's objectives.
Angie
P.S.
Below I've copied excerpts from this article, by Jeff Strahl & Larry Chin, a MUST READ for anyone even thinking about
showing the Aftermath video.
http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/Jeff%27sAftermathLimitedHangoutcritique.htm
AFTERMATH IS A LIMITED HANGOUT
By Jeff Strahl & Larry Chin
In the context of a coverup, a "limited hangout" means the release of previously hidden information ("hangout"),
while the majority of the crime remains hidden ("limited"), often with the idea of directing suspicion at suspects
and targets other than the leading perpetrators and planners. This acts like a pressure release valve, satisfying some skeptics,
maintaining the appearance of ongoing investigation, and allaying building suspicions---while legitimating the system that
initiated the cover-up in the first place, and letting those most responsible off the hook. Limited hangouts are built upon
"red herrings"---fallacies in which irrelevant issues are used to divert attention. Limited hangouts ultimately
strengthen the coverup, and are often the coverup itself. Most major scandals in modern U.S. history, including the 1960s
Kennedy/King assassinations (the Warren Commission), Iran-Contra, BCCI, and recently, Enron, have been classic limited hangouts
(as well as still-unresolved government crimes).
This is precisely what "Aftermath" does, beginning with the opening statement by plutocrat, billionaire, international
financial manipulator and war profiteer George Soros, who fully proclaims the validity of the "war on terrorism",
while allegedly attacking the lack of full disclosure.
Although the film makers claim in starting the film with Soros was to "use the voice of power against those who wield
it", the manner in which he is used, without background or context, makes him appear to be one of the 9/11 heroes, shoulder
to shoulder with the other 9/11 investigators. This illusion is deceptive and dangerous. Soros is in fact one of the world's
greatest proponents of the globalization of war (a continuing beneficiary of post-9/11 agendas), and has ties to the Carlyle
Group, which itself is tied to the Bush oligarchy as well as the Bin Laden group. The film deceptively characterizes him only
as a "philanthropist".
Soros' statements suggest that 9/11 was a strictly foreign terrorist attack against the U.S.---supporting the White House
cover story. But in nearly two years, there has been little credible evidence to support this version, while the bulk of evidence
points to Bush administration complicity.
Soros is followed in the film by Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General for the Department of Transportation, who has
been on record since 9/11 advocating a limited investigation focusing on FAA "incompetence" and poor airline security
procedures. "---even further away from the issue of U.S. government complicity. In one of her first statements on 9/11,
Schiavo even said "it could all be nothing".
Within this limited framework set by Soros and Schiavo, the film suggests that the Bush administration had foreknowledge
of the 9/11 events, and either acted with negligence, or else did nothing on purpose.
It is ironic that Professor Michel Chossudovsky is featured in "Aftermath", but his penetrating views about
9/11 as a part of a long-planned imperial conquest, and his analysis of the "war on terrorism" as a total fabrication,
are poorly represented. As Chossudovsky has written in his book "War and Globalisation: The Truth Behind September 11"
and at his web site www.globalresearch.ca :
"The media's spotlight on "foreknowledge" and "FBI lapses" served to distract public attention
from the broader issue of political deception. Not a word was mentioned concerning the role of the CIA, which throughout the
entire post-Cold War era, has aided and abetted Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda as part of its covert operations. The foreknowledge
issue.is an obvious smokescreen."
Yet, foreknowledge is as far as "Aftermath" goes. Left out are a multitude of serious questions about what actually
happened on 9/11, and questions the official explanation completely fails to raise, let alone answer:
1. Why is there no evidence of any of the supposed hijackers actually being on any of the flights, or indeed any firm
facts about who they were? (almost half have turned up alive or were dead before 9/11)
2. What is the significance of the seismic activity at the *beginning* of each collapse of the WTC towers (i.e., before
the debris hit the ground)?
3. Why do the details of the WTC collapses provided by the official story openly conflict with laws of physics and thermodynamics?
Why did Building 7 fall?
4. Where are the remnants of Flight 77, which supposedly hit the Pentagon?
And how did a soft-nose airliner go through six containment walls? The hole in the Pentagon is too small for an airliner,
so what actually hit the building?
5. What is the story behind the alleged hijackers, and their activities at Florida flight schools connected to the U.S.
military/intelligence? (www.madcowprod.com)
These are just a few of hundreds of questions not addressed in "Aftermath" that expose the bankruptcy of the
very notion of "war on terrorism", as they move the inquiry more in the direction of the 9/11 attacks being what
many investigators believe they were----an inside job carried out as part of official U.S. policy; a provocation intended
to further the strategic aims of the entire American ruling elite class.
People like Soros and other elites who influence political activities via funneling money to elite Left media groups from
their various foundations, would rather have the entire 9/11 question re-packaged in a limited form---in which the Bush administration
is "hung out" for the manner in which they have gone about conducting the "war on terrorism", but not
war itself. It could then be marketed as an "issue" to be exploited by the Democrats and other elite liberal factions
to replace Bush with a "kinder, gentler" face of the New World Order, while continuing (and even expanding) the
"war on terrorism", leaving 9/11 an unsolved crime.
You can contact me at AngieSept11@yahoo.com
911 Truth Movement Musings (Watching the Watchers)
http://Angieon911.com or http://www.Angieon911.com
|
