05-06-2012, 12:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2012, 12:37 PM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Phil,
I agree that the gov... and corporations tell the story they choose to and it is often not the truth. The question we need to ask is why? I think we can discard the idea that their lies were simply an innocent errors.
So what was their intent?
BP was "lying" about the oil spill to lessen the appearance of the environmental impact, and of course the magnitude of their liability. Fukishima likely was the same... But what were the plant owners trying to do with their post tsunami behavior? Perhaps the same as BP and trying to down play the dangers of nuclear power and their plant design, its siting and so forth. The entire nuclear power industry and their *deceptions* over the years was being exposed as an insane gamble... with enormous costs in blood and treasure which hardly seems worth it and it can render the environment toxic for generations as did Chernobyl. Spinning and winning from disaster!
The deception of 911 may be part of a pre planned campaign... false flag... or a shock doctrine type event where the usual suspects tailor the story to fit some agenda.. such as war and war profits... control of ME oil and the governments in the region.... and the people of the USA and limit their freedoms. (YIKES wasn't that the reason W told us why they attacked us?)
So we can establish we were lied to about the evidence... but can we know why? And of course the same sort of deception about the evidence is coming from most of the so called anti establishment re 9/11 - the truth movement. What would be the motive(s) for their errors or deception?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...lRC24a44tY
John Pilger
I agree that the gov... and corporations tell the story they choose to and it is often not the truth. The question we need to ask is why? I think we can discard the idea that their lies were simply an innocent errors.
So what was their intent?
BP was "lying" about the oil spill to lessen the appearance of the environmental impact, and of course the magnitude of their liability. Fukishima likely was the same... But what were the plant owners trying to do with their post tsunami behavior? Perhaps the same as BP and trying to down play the dangers of nuclear power and their plant design, its siting and so forth. The entire nuclear power industry and their *deceptions* over the years was being exposed as an insane gamble... with enormous costs in blood and treasure which hardly seems worth it and it can render the environment toxic for generations as did Chernobyl. Spinning and winning from disaster!
The deception of 911 may be part of a pre planned campaign... false flag... or a shock doctrine type event where the usual suspects tailor the story to fit some agenda.. such as war and war profits... control of ME oil and the governments in the region.... and the people of the USA and limit their freedoms. (YIKES wasn't that the reason W told us why they attacked us?)
So we can establish we were lied to about the evidence... but can we know why? And of course the same sort of deception about the evidence is coming from most of the so called anti establishment re 9/11 - the truth movement. What would be the motive(s) for their errors or deception?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...lRC24a44tY
John Pilger
"Audience Question: "I would like to ask your views or theory that the US government was complicit in or even perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 to gain support for criminal [inaudible] Afghanistan and Iraq?"
John Pilger: "I think there is a lot of evidence that certain elements in the Bush administration, whether by intent or by or by their own arrogant incompetence, I don't know, let things happen. I think there is enough evidence to…
We know the senior FBI people who gave warnings right throughout 2001. We know about the extraordinary inactivity by the NORAD aircraft on the day of September 11th. We know that Cheney was in charge of the White House on that day.
I think the most plausible is the "let it happen", now at what stage it was let happen, I don't know, I don't know. But certainly that seems to me, the most plausible.
There is no doubt that 9/11 became the opportunity for a new "Cold War" basically, only called the "War on Terror". But beyond that I wouldn't want to…""
emphasis mine
John Pilger: "I think there is a lot of evidence that certain elements in the Bush administration, whether by intent or by or by their own arrogant incompetence, I don't know, let things happen. I think there is enough evidence to…
We know the senior FBI people who gave warnings right throughout 2001. We know about the extraordinary inactivity by the NORAD aircraft on the day of September 11th. We know that Cheney was in charge of the White House on that day.
I think the most plausible is the "let it happen", now at what stage it was let happen, I don't know, I don't know. But certainly that seems to me, the most plausible.
There is no doubt that 9/11 became the opportunity for a new "Cold War" basically, only called the "War on Terror". But beyond that I wouldn't want to…""