There are people who really believe that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon based upon their huge mistrust of the U.S. government.

If you are convinced, as you should be, that 9/11 was an inside job to some degree, but believe real, common, un-bought people have testified truthfully that they saw the 575 flying at the Pentagon, then don't fret about the no-plane promoters. Just keep saying that there are numerous named and recorded witnesses of diverse backgrounds and political ideologies who say otherwise — who say they saw the 575. (See: "9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Eyewitnesses Described," Arabesque: 9/11 Truth. April 2, 2007.)

9/11 and the Pentagon Attack: What Witnesses Described)

There are so many really solid questions and evidence surrounding 9/11 that a thorough investigation would turn up proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that officials within the highest ranks of the U.S. government were directly involved in the false-flag operation, just as the U.S. ran Operation Gladio in Europe.

They can't take Operation Gladio back. Operation Gladio was a huge false-flag operation that is an admitted false-flag operation of the CIA. Their cover was blown. Their pattern of behavior is known. 9/11 fits that pattern, as do Pearl Harbor and many other events, like the Gulf of Tonkin for one among many. It's the same with the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, Jr.

No amount of trying to focus upon a plane or no-plane hitting the Pentagon will alter all the evidence on that day.

So what if the FBI ends up releasing video from all the CCTV (closed-circuit TV) cameras that captured images of what hit the Pentagon? If an American Airlines 757 ends up being clearly shown to the world, it won't answer any of the other questions. It won't refute the known facts about 9/11.

Until the whole day and every lead leading up to it and every lead thereafter is properly followed the way a really well trained and experienced criminal detective would, there are going to be plenty of untrained, inexperienced people speculating.

So what if the CIA and others manage to get some people to wonder one way or the other about things? They cannot stop the 9/11 demand for a thorough investigation. 9/11 isn't 12/7/1941. The people who bought the official version of Pearl Harbor were not networked as people are today. There was no Internet where publishing is as easy as posting a blog post.

9/11 will not be put to rest until a real investigation. The government of the U.S. will never enjoy "legitimacy" again until it turns from being the instrument of global capitalist plutocracy. That's just the way it is. The sooner everyone comes to realize it the better.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.