For some reason, there are many people on the so-called left who don't believe that 9/11 was a false-flag operation.1 They base this on the fact that there are many wild speculations about the details of events of that false-flag operation. In particular, they take exception to the no-plane theories. Well, we don't believe in the no-plane theories either. They also doubt controlled demolition. Well, while the destruction of the twin towers is subject to some leeway, building seven (WTC7) especially deserves a commission at least half comprised of real questioners, not fully comprised of those who will automatically dish out what the Empire tells them is the "right answer." The fox should not be investigating itself, which is exactly what the 9/11 Commission represented. Every honest person knows that and will say it openly.
There are those who purport that pipelines ruptured due to debris from the towers hitting WTC7. They say that diesel fuel for the generators spilled out and caused the fire that weaken the building ultimately bringing it down.
Where did the oxygen for such a fire come from? The windows walls appeared to be mostly intact.
Al Qaeda is an US asset
More importantly, these anti-conspiracy pushers ignore that al Qaeda was airlifted from Afghanistan by the very forces ostensibly sent there to destroy al Qaeda. How can anyone believe the official reports of a government that would lift to safety the supposed terrorist group responsible for 9/11? It's insane.
There are whistleblowers
There is all this talk about how if there were a conspiracy, all these people would have come forward but none has. That's completely false. The list of whistleblowers is long and deep, but they are not covered by the mainstream media in any reasonable way.
The media have changed
Look, the media have changed radically over the last thirty to forty-five years. There used to be CBS News and several others that would dig. That's all gone now. Look at Germany. Where were the leakers about the concentration camps? They could have yelled it at the top of their lungs, but they would have been silenced one way or the other.
Well, people are under court orders not to speak. Others who have spoken about governmental wrong-doing have been fired and kept out of the media by the oligarchy that owns it-that owns the country (the Federalists).
Also, the flying saucer sightings of the late 1940's and earlier 1950's are cited as proof of national hallucinations. That's just totally wrong. People were seeing real manifestations. Even NASA filmed flying objects in space that fit the descriptions. The objects travel at superhuman speeds. They make sudden, sharp turns. They are white and bright. What's more they didn't show up on the infrared cameras that were simultaneously filming the same areas.2
The conspiracy deniers are under the spell
The truth is that those who don't believe that the US neocon government was behind 9/11 are the ones under the spell. Satan has done a great job on them. They just don't know how evil, evil can be.
Immediately upon finishing this article, we came across a response to George Monbiot who had attacked the film, Loose Change, that put forth some of the more wild theories. The response may be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2011648,00.html.3
1 George Monbiot. "Short Changed." Monbiot.com. February 12, 2007. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02/12/short-changed/. (last accessed: Wednesday, February 14, 2007); and
Manuel Garcia, Jr. "We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist." CounterPunch. November 28, 2006. http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html. (last accessed: Wednesday, February 14, 2007). Return to text body.
We don't subscribe to every bit of the speculation offered in this film, but it does show the actual footage from the NASA satellites and gives facts about NASA's position on the UFO's sighted by NASA: David Sereda. Evidence: The Case For NASA UFO's - Part 1, a video. . (last accessed: Wednesday, February 14, 2007). Return to text body.
3 Tim Sparke. "Response: Don't believe the official 'conspiracy' theory." The Guardian. February 13, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2011648,00.html. (last accessed: Wednesday, February 14, 2007). Return to text body.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)