1. “DEMOLISHED vs. COLLAPSED – The Language of Deception
The language of deception is used against us every day and most of us don’t even realize it has been done to us or realize the devastating effect it has on us. My task here is to expose some of the subtle deceptions hidden within the terminology we in the 9/11 truth movement use every day. My goal is to shine a light on the subtle deceptions that pass under our radar every day and to counter those deceptions with the language of truth.
First we have to consider how we in the 9/11 truth movement describe what happened to the World Trade Center (WTC)? The question is, should we say that WTC 1, 2, and 7 “collapsed” or should we say they were “demolished” and does it really matter all that much? At first glance it may not seem to be a particularly important question as to which word we use. I will expose however that it is, in fact, very important which word we use. Furthermore I want to reveal how and why the debate has been framed from the beginning by our opponents with the endlessly repeated use of just one simple word, “collapsed”.
To illustrate the problem let’s take a brief look at the definition for each of the two words that are commonly used to describe what happened to the WTC on 9/11. Using the dictionary found at http://www.refdesk.com/ we can compare the definition for collapse to the definition of demolish. Take a close look at the two definitions and note the subtle but important differences between them.
Col-lapse
1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.
De-mol-ish
1. To tear down completely; raze.
Consider for a moment the difference between something that has “fallen down” (collapsed) and something that has been “torn down” (demolished). It is obvious, once we look closely, that the two words really mean two completely different things. We should take note that the word “collapsed” was not chosen by the US Propaganda Ministry by accident. When applied to what happened to the WTC buildings, collapsed means the WTC buildings fell down, while demolished means they were torn down. One term implies the buildings “fell” or “caved in” as a result of weakening from fire and damage while the other term implies the towers were “torn down” or “razed” with pre-positioned explosives. Obviously the word you use to describe the demise of the WTC buildings will depend on your perspective of what happened right? Not necessarily if the debate has been framed in advance and we have been carefully conditioned through endless repetition in the corporate media. If we have been “framed” we will see both ourselves and our adversaries using the term “collapsed” on a regular basis.
…
NEW AMERICAN 9/11 DICTIONARY
Collapsed
1. Demolished
2. Exploded
3. Blown up
4. Brought down with explosives.
Conspiracy theorist
1. 9/11 Researcher
2. 9/11 Investigator
3. 9/11 Truther
Debunker
1. Denier
2. Deceiver
Mainstream media
1. Corporate media
2. Propaganda Ministry
3. Disinformation Ministry
Spin
1. Distort
2. Falsify
3. Lie
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20566
2. And I would totally unnecessary:
“Attack on Iran would be ‘very destabilizing’ — US military chief”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090705/pl_afp/usiranmilitarynuclear
3. “The Powers-That-Be Don’t Have Enough Money to Keep the Matrix Running
As I previously noted:
Stalin said that dictatorships only last so long as the dictators keep their people well-fed. Americans have been strongly motivated not to question the government because they have been led to believe that if they just follow the party line, they’ll get nice jobs, make a bundle of dough, buy into “the American dream”. A crash has the possibility to awaken Americans from their dangerously cozy nap. It has the potential to get Americans to open their eyes and start questioning the lies they have been told ….
The revelations that Goldman Sachs is manipulating the market and that the Federal Reserve banks are private – not government - institutions are coming out now because the U.S. is going broke, and doesn’t have enough money to keep distracting people with “bread and circuses”.
Indeed, Goldman is probably the key player on the plunge protection team and similar government schemes to manipulate the markets. So the fact that Goldman’s shenanigans are starting to leak out – despite the government’s best efforts to keep the whole enchilada secret – is dramatic.
The American Treasury has been looted (the big banks and financial institutions got the loot), the dollar is losing its status as the world’s reserve currency, and the mountain of debt overhanging our economy threatens to bury any hope of recovery.
Dictatorships only last so long as the dictators keep their people well-fed and distracted, but the current financial “dictators” don’t have enough spare cash to keep the matrix running.
So the truth is starting to leak out in a big way.”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/powers-that-be-dont-have-enough-money.html
You’ve probably heard that the CIA is looking to hire laid-off bankers.
This is nothing new.
The long-time former executive director of the CIA – Buzzy Krongard – is a former investment banker.
As Krongard told the Washington Post in March 2001:
If you go back to the CIA’s origins during World War II in the Office of Strategic Services, he explained, “the whole OSS was really nothing but Wall Street bankers and lawyers.”
The CIA sometimes funds certain groups or political parties. For example, former CIA director William Colby (a lawyer, not a banker) helped to arrange the secret subsidization of political parties in Rome in the 1950’s to prevent communist electoral victoriess.
And the CIA has certainly funded various projects (like this one).
And people have made allegations about the CIA funding of the Contras with cocaine sales , involvement in BCCI, and other unsavory deals.
Personally, I don’t know much about much about it. But I do know that the CIA has had a continuous connection with bankers from day one.”
http://washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/if-you-go-back-to-cias-origins-in.html
5. “Bill banning forced identity-chip implants clears House”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14246
6. “What if the Uighurs were Christian rather than Muslim?
According to The New York Times this morning, violent clashes between Chinese government forces and Muslim Uighurs — that country’s long-oppressed minority — have left at least 140 people dead and close to 1,000 injured. This incident in Western China highlights an important fact about America’s “War on Terror.”
Just imagine if the Uighurs were a Christian — rather than Muslim — minority, battling against the tyrannical Communist regime in Beijing, resisting various types of persecution, and demanding religious freedom. They would be lionized by America’s Right, as similar Christian minorities, oppressed by tyrannical regimes, automatically are. Episodes like these — where a declared Tyranny like China violently acts against citizens with whom we empathize — are ones about which, in general, the American political class loves to sermonize.
But the Uighurs are Muslim, not Christian, and hostility towards them thus easily outweighs the opportunity they present to undermine the Chinese Government. Rather than support and venerate them, we instead spent this decade declaring them to be “enemy combatants” and locking them up in Guantanamo — despite the fact that they have never evinced any interest in doing anything other than resisting Chinese persecution, and have certainly never taken actions against the U.S. (as even the Bush administration ultimately admitted). Yet even now, both Congress and the administration actively block release into the U.S. even of those Uighurs we wrongfully imprisoned for years, while the Right screams with outrage — and fear — over the administration’s commendable efforts to find a home for them elsewhere.
For all the Serious analysis about the War on Terror, so much of it has been driven by nothing more complex or noble than sheer hostility towards Muslims. Muslims generally — not just Al Qaeda — replaced Communists as our New Enemy and became the new enabling force for our endless state of War and never-ending expansions of executive power. Rather obviously, the Uighurs were swept into the Enemy category solely by virtue of their status as Muslims. What more compelling evidence of that could be imagined than the fact that we imprisoned — and continue to imprison — people at Guantanamo whose only political interest is in resisting oppression by the Chinese government?
…
So predictable: ordinarily, on the Right, there would be nothing more Satanic than a tyrannical Communist regime suppressing the religious freedom of its citizens — except when the minority in question is Muslim, in which case they side with and adopt the propaganda of the Communist regime and disgustingly depict the regime as the victim. The Muslims resisting persecution are — needless to say — “terrorists.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
7. “A Few Facts About the Honduran Military Coup
- President Manuel Zelaya is no radical. He approved a big minimum wage increase, which was desperately needed in a country where so many workers are poor, but he otherwise has been a very cautious, ineffectual reformer. The intensity of the reaction against him by the Honduran elite — as seen in the coup — reflects the feuadal mentality of the traditional economic and political leadership, not Zelaya’s politics.”
