Is Questioning Conspiracy / Part 4
Follow the Money
This is a supplemental to the preceding Parts 1 to 3.
Again, this is back in the realm of “questioning” - as opposed to “conspiracy theorising”. In the video below, Corbett isn't saying who he thinks is responsible (although some fairly obvious conclusions can be drawn throughout), but he raises the questions.
And again, as mentioned previously, the questions remain unanswered. There is no new commitment from the legal or legislative establishments to address the glaringly obvious informational shortfalls being so consistently and graphically highlighted. The questions continue to be completely ignored by any and everyone with any chance or capability of responding to them fully and responsibly.
And again, it is only the power of the internet and our modern laptops that allow determined individuals to put together coherent multi-media documentaries without the need for compromised corporate backing. And that same internet allows us to sidestep the corporations' stranglehold on distribution as well.
Unfortunately, what the internet cannot do is sort the wheat from the chaff.
Other determined individuals can go some way towards doing this on our behalves, but ultimately, it is up to us, occasionally, to take time out from our 30 second skips through cyber space to focus on important issues and bring what's left of our longer attention spans to bear.
It is up to us to make full and constructive use of what the internet has provided via this potentially brief historical/technological window of opportunity before the window is shut forever.
....little practical significance
The “9/11 Commission Report” (download a copy here) states, “To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.” And adds, astonishingly, that “Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.”
In this video, James Corbett (not to be confused with Stephen Colbert!) applies basic television detective logic to the “crime” (9/11 was a crime wasn't it?) and the “crime scenes”. He follows the money and raises the questions that arise there from.
He points out that, unsurprisingly, “the answers to crime investigations are not going to come from the suspects”.
Stating what should be obvious to all of us, he adds, “Instead, it is up to the Investigators to unearth the true evidence.”
If you're put off by the voice and the imagery, you can read the full transcript and check all the references here:
More by this Author
Should the loss of The Group trigger a mass exodus? Should we all, on a chosen day, abandon it to the stuffed shirts, hedge funders, and banksters and proceed to generate the resources to sue them for the mis-use of...
What is a grunt? Well, it's a bit of a technical term, but in essence, a grunt is someone who: earns less interest then s/he pays, and pays more tax than s/he avoids. In terms of hierarchy, grunts...
From years ago, when I still lived by the river in my wide-windowed, centrally heated flat, I have a vivid memory. I awoke, sweating, from an intense dream. I had a clear vision of distinctive low lying hills and...
No comments yet.