US gov. knew exactly when WTC building 7 would come down. Who controlled the explosions? Watched. Stay hypnotized?


Tom Usher wrote or added | The argument over whether or not to have a full investigation of 9/11 may be the strangest thing in my lifetime so far.

"Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor," by Robert Stinnett (the book is far more compelling than the article makes it appear to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Deceit), shows from once-secret documents release to Stinnett via FOIA requests that FDR got the US into WWII by goading the Japanese and that FDR knew in advance of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor. You will note that it took a full 10 Pearl Harbor investigations before the truth came out that "Admiral Kimmel and General Short were denied crucial U.S. military intelligence that tracked Japanese forces advancing on Hawaii." Would you have been a Truther about that or not? I side with the truth.

If you research the McCollum Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo), you will also see that the plan in that also once-secret memo was followed (correct me if I'm wrong but I ... believe exactly).

Now, since this is all true, why can't 9/11 have any inside-job aspects to it? No one has ever offered up a reasonable possible explanation. All I've ever heard is just dismissing everything that has never been explained. The molten-metal pools under the buildings and running that hot for weeks just makes no sense if the planes were the only instruments for bringing down all the buildings, including 7.

Even if one is not a "Truther," why would one not want answers to the questions or at least get to the point where the government says it can't explain (won't divulge)?

If the only thing that stood between Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods) being carried out or not was John Kennedy's yea or nay, which it was, then why can't anyone imagine George W. Bush being offered the same and saying, "Do it"? Other President said, "Do it" concerning many other false-flag operations. That's well documented. The article on Operation Northwoods says, "The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense." That means that only the executive stood in the way. It is my understanding that Kennedy saw it and rejected it. If you read the article, you will see that the plan was submitted in 1962 but that it wasn't until a different investigation into the assassination of Kennedy that the Operation Northwoods plan became public in 1997. Why should we have to wait that long this time concerning 9/11? Why are anti-Truthers so hell bent on helping the system to cover its tracks until after everyone responsible for dirty work is dead or too old and until the next generation has lost all sense of continuity with the event and history, etc.?

At the very least, Operation Northwoods shows that such elaborate plans have been conjured up and offered to Presidents. Let's not forget that the Gulf of Tonkin was a farce too. What would all the 9/11 Truth naysayers have said back then if people had started claiming that the Gulf of Tonkin was a farce? They would have said pretty much exactly what they are saying today about 9/11.

Oh, in the first attack on the World Trade Center back in 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_1993_bombings#FBI_involvement and http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html?pagewanted=all), it was the FBI that supplied the live explosives. The FBI infiltrated a group and then supplied the live explosive and allowed the whole plan to be carried off. Did you know that? Most people don't know it. A freelancer, Emad A. Salem, with the FBI working on the inside double checked with higher-ups because he thought the FBI could supply fake explosives as originally planned. He was overridden. Six people died. Innocent American civilians were murdered and more than 1,000 were injured, some severely maimed. The building almost came down. The explosive was just parked in the wrong spot, but (part of) the FBI gave (their fellow) terrorists enough explosive material to have brought down the building killing everyone above and below and who knows outside and in other buildings.

You still don't want an investigation into 9/11 though? As I said, that may be the strangest thing in my lifetime so far.

Donate


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.