By Craig McKee
Is the glass somewhat empty or partly full?
With the 9/11 Truth movement, it can be hard to tell at times.
Sometimes the outlook can seem bleak as the mainstream media continues to freeze out all perspectives that don’t fit the official narrative while corrupt courts smother the truth before it can ever … not be reported.
The frustration is such that truthers can’t be faulted for wondering whether it’s all worth it. It’s understandable that doubts exist about whether the many cracks in the official lie will ever widen to the point that the whole thing falls to pieces. It’s a choice that people have to make for themselves: do I fight on, or do I move on?
But despite the frustration there are reasons not to give up – and more coming all the time. Ultimate success in creating widespread understanding of how the 9/11 lie was orchestrated might not come this year or next, but it will come if we keep fighting. Personally, I’m not great at leaving arguments until I’ve won – or at least worn the other person out. Control issues, I guess.
For starters, we have the honorary president of the Supreme Court of Italy, Ferdinando Imposimato, recently calling on the International Criminal Court to conduct a trial on 9/11. He says the court was created to deal with criminal acts of war and is therefore the ideal body to take on the case.
Now, this is a longshot, but it has to be good news whenever a public figure of Imposimato’s stature adds his or her voice to the chorus calling for justice. Imposimato, in addition to being a panelist at last year’s Toronto 9/11 Hearings, has presided over numerous terrorism cases, including the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and the assassination of former Italian President Aldo Moro. In other words, he’s someone to be taken seriously.
In a statement, Imposimato writes: “The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. To put it briefly, the 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.”
Okay, it’s a LIHOP scenario he’s touting (Let it Happen on Purpose), but it’s still a big step forward. And Imposimato is not the only prominent Italian political figure who is willing to say publicly that the U.S. government played a part in 9/11 that it is lying about. Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga (1985-92) publicly stated back in 2007 that 9/11 was a joint CIA/Mossad operation and that this is well known among global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga likened 9/11 to NATO’s Operation Gladio, which Cossiga was involved in creating. In this secret false flag program, which ran from the 1950s until 1990, NATO and the CIA carried out bombings and other “terrorist” attacks aimed at discrediting left-wing groups and subverting democracy.
In another recent bit of good news, we had Jesse Ventura openly scoffing at the 9/11 official story on the Piers Morgan show on CNN in September, with the audience squarely behind Ventura. I loved it. And what a pompous ass Morgan is. Here’s part of the exchange:
PM: What would you have done on Sept. 12, 2001 if you were the president?
JV: I would have done a legitimate investigation to find out what exactly happened on 9/11. How did they know who did this so quickly like they did Lee Harvey Oswald? How quick they knew Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy (big smile on his face).
PM: Because the people who did it were identified, and we knew who they were.
JV: Then why couldn’t we have stopped them beforehand if they were identified and we knew who they were?
PM: Because it was a failure of intelligence. Everyone’s accepted that.
JV: No it wasn’t. We knew before with Condolezza Rice’s memo of Aug. 6 when it’s stated right in the memo “Bin Laden to steal planes and run them into buildings.” And more stuff is coming out now also about how much the Bush administration ignored the intelligence. It was almost like they ignored it because they wanted it to happen (bigger smile).
PM: Oh, come on, Jesse (complete disgust).
JV: No, not oh come on. Every war starts with a false flag operation (pointing emphatically).
Ventura went on to describe the famous BBC report on the collapse of Building 7 that aired half an hour before the building fell. In fact, reporter Jane Standley explained that the collapse had occurred while the building was in plain view over her left shoulder the whole time. The report was interrupted when Standley’s satellite signal mysteriously broke up in time to avoid the spectacle of the building falling on live TV during her report.
Morgan went to commercial condescendingly telling Ventura “You need to have a break, Jesse,” to which Ventura replied, “These are facts, my friend.” Later, when Morgan accused Ventura of making “crackpot points,” Ventura polled the audience. “How many people think I make crackpot points?” One person clapped. “How many people think I make sensible points?” Enthusiastic applause.
Now Ventura is still not going all the way with a MIHOP (Made it Happen on Purpose) scenario, although he comes as close as you can get without coming right out and saying the government did it. He also plays a little looser with facts than I’d like. The title of the Aug. 6 memo didn’t indicate that bin Laden wanted to “run planes into buildings,” it said, “Bin Laden determined to attack inside United States.”
Ventura is clearly an anomaly. He is very popular on talk shows and news programs and he has his own show called Conspiracy Theory. He says things that almost no one else is permitted to say. And he gets to say these things repeatedly.
But even he can be the victim of censorship. In 2010, he wrote an article for The Huffington Post that questioned the official story of 9/11. It was the cover story for a few hours, but then it disappeared. This statement replaced the article: “Editor’s Note: The Huffington Post’s editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post.”
In another bit of positive news this month, actor Ed Asner was interviewed on CBS Sunday Morning, also questioning the official 9/11 narrative. Although most of the interview dealt with Asner’s career, he did have the chance to say this to a question about his views on 9/11:
“No one wants to hear the destruction of the American myth, that some elements of government were involved in 9/11,” he said. “Why did it take an hour for the strongest nation in the world to get planes in the air?”
Grinning interviewer Rita Braver predictably came back with: “You underestimate incompetence?”
To which Asner wryly retorted: “It was all around that day – all around.”
I’m afraid that many may have missed the sarcasm, but at least the first statement was made – and it got on the air. Small victories are better than no victories.
And we’ve had the hugely popular airing of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth documentary Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out on PBS. The film was shown on PBS’s Colorado affiliate, which had shown Blueprint for Truth in 2009. Experts soon became the most shared video on the PBS national site and one of the three most watched – that is until it was removed from the site. But to say there was an audience for the film would be an understatement.
If one wants to find bad news, it’s not hard to do. But if you’re looking for a few rays of light and hope, they’re there, too. When I argue with some people online or in person about 9/11, I don’t get indifference, I get anger and ridicule.
We must be doing something right.