The linked article is huge but worth reading to see the diverse range of opinions concerning the 9/11 Truth Movement. Please note that if you aren't familiar with the different positions, the article doesn't even scratch the surface.
The presentation of Architects, Engineers & Scientists for 9/11 Truth is not to be dismissed without investigations proving their theories wrong. To see their video, see my earlier post on the subject: ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH.
Also, physicist Steven Jones' knowledge and research on thermite and the residues found at the site is too important not to be properly investigated. Some of his material is covered in the video just mentioned.
As for James Fetzer, one of the reasons that opinions range widely is because a serious investigation has never been done addressing all the various theories. It leaves people speculating.
The biggest mistakes anyone can make is accepting the "official" conspiracy pumped out by Bush/Cheney and lumping together all people who don't trust Bush/Cheney any farther then they can throw them. The only thing that all those people have in common is that they don't trust the proven liars who brought the world the Iraq War and occupation and all their other evil deeds.
The only intelligent thing to do is hold thorough investigations of all of Bush/Cheney's crimes and let the leads lead and to follow those leads no matter where they go, including if they bring down the Democratic Party with the Republican Party. We can just start over with a higher standard. The LORD knows we need a higher standard and the highest standard really.
I've quoted below only the worst part of the article on purpose. The way in which that part was phrased, without any analysis of the individual parts and the degree to which those might be considered, is indicative of a mindset so ready to accept the "official" version of things and is proselytizing for the same. In other words, it's designed to make you feel uncomfortable if you entertain any of it. It's designed to make you question your own sanity if you don't just dismiss it all out-of-hand, since perhaps too many things are being lumped together. That's stupid, however.
The sane thing to do is to take each aspect one at a time and then see the degree to which each fits. Evil is all one thing after all. It just comes in different shapes.
The most telling part is the reference to Zionism. The author doesn't say it, but he's more than hinting that the people who hold to any of these theories or who even entertain them must be looked at as likely anti-Semites. What the author has done is ignore taking the issue of Zionism and whether or not being opposed to the Zionist Project on the principles of pacifism, non-coercion, and anti-covetousness (land grabbing, etc.) constitutes anti-Semitism. Of course, it does not. Stereotyping of Hebrews is not inherent in being opposed to Zionist policies and practices.
Also considering conspiracy theories, was John F. Kennedy, Sr., assassinated by a magic bullet [update]? For the bullet of the official version to have done what the theorists claim it did, it had to have been magical.
Really, it is more incorrect to buy all the official versions of the government than it is to buy all the theories of the government's opposition. Actually, the truth concerning the weightiest matters is always something other than what is being pumped out by the government. The challenge is discovering that truth.
Sometimes the truth doesn't show up in any of the public theories, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to seek the truth. It also doesn't mean that some non-official theories aren't pretty close.
The truth is that 9/11 was an inside job. How much of an inside job is the question. Don't forget, there are tens of trillions of dollars on the line, and people have done some extremely evil things to build empires. That's why The Bible calls the various empires a multi-headed beast.
If you're interested (and you should be), do a site search on 9/11.
The truth is out there
By Peter Barber
Published: June 7 2008 01:22 | Last updated: June 7 2008 01:22
Alfred Lambremont Webre, a judge on former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad's alternative international War Crimes Tribunal in Kuala Lumpur and co-author of the Space Preservation Treaty. He delivers what might be the most momentous opening line in the history of town hall seminars. "Fellow Citizens... 9/11 was a false flag operation by an international war crimes racketeering organisation to provide a pretext to engage in a genocidal and ecocidal depleted uranium bombing of central Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq in order to secure vast oil and uranium reserves; to roll out a terror-based national security state system worldwide and ... to implement the final stages of a world depopulation policy." There are two more "false flag" operations in the pipeline, he says. The first is the war against asteroids, the second the "war against the evil aliens".
Hearing this, you either experience the thrill of revelation or the sinking feeling that the person you are listening to is having some kind of breakdown. Within 30 minutes, Webre has folded into the 9/11 plot the Skull & Bones society at Yale University – or the "Brotherhood of Death", as he calls it – neocon think-thank the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rothschilds, the Queen and the City of London. I wondered how all these conspiracies could be maintained without the whole conceit unravelling.
The answer, of course, is that there is only one conspiracy. Pearl Harbour, the moon landing, JFK, 9/11, the Illuminati, the Black Helicopters, Skull & Bones, chemtrails: all faces of the same demon. The plot goes all the way to the top, and all the way back in time. You could come to believe that it involves everyone except yourself – at which point it's all over for you. And as I listened, I just waited for him to say the Word. And, inevitably, Webre brought it all back to the "international neo-Zionist organisation".
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)