911 and 77 (21)
Apparently in a recent poll (May 2007) roughly a third of voters believe that the president of the USA knew about the 9/11 attacks before they took place, in other words they believe he was in on it in some great or lesser way.
That does not say if they believe he made it happen or just let it happen though.
There are two significant indicators for my own personal viewpoint which lead me to conclude that although he was told something would happen he did not know what it was exactly. Here's how I see it.
First of all he would not have allowed himself to have been filmed at all during the hours of it's taking place (9/11 events) but would have chosen instead to be somewhere more secure and private and with complete communications with those in charge of dealing with it. So he did not know enough beforehand to be able to put himself in a more controlled and private environment. The last place and position he would be seen and filmed is a junior school - no way would that have happened. The only way such a scenario would possibly make any sense, and I do not subscribe to this idea whatsoever, is as a double-think one whereby the whole setup was enacted to create just the kind of summation that I have described, in order to create a false picture that the president was totally unaware beforehand but all the while was in full and total knowledge of it all. I just do not think that is credible as an explanation and I do not think there is any other explanation other than the simple one which is that he did not know beforehand. But he did know something about it.
When he was told, in front of recording cameras, about the second tower being struck, then he stayed put and it seemed to me, and all you experts in body language, gesture and so on are invited to give me input on this as it is just my own layman interpretation, that he seemed helpless and was registering things he was remembering in other words he was referring to memories that now were beginning to make sense and so we were actually watching as the president had "The Penny Dropped" moment.
That fits in with my own idea that he had been issued with an ultimatum, probably some days previously, that most likely boiled down to what all ultimata (ultimatums?) do (don't they always?) which is "Cooperate or else". You can rephrase that to "Do as we say or face the consequences" and so on but basically there are two choices
That it took place was the "or else"
I must hurriedly explain something, my reason for thinking he was given an ultimatum, which isn't apparent yet, which is that it was a missile that struck the Pentagon, not a plane. I believe that from the evidence, nothing else, not to fit in with my theory and my theory came afterwards in trying to figure out what the missile strike meant.
Thierry Maysan who also says that it was a missile (he was quick off the mark; it took me many more years) also says that the president received a phone call from the perpetrators afterwards - that fits in with the "ultimatum" theory of mine (and I think Thierry's too).
That then is how I reason to myself that the president did not know beforehand but had been issued with some ultimatum that more than likely didn't include dates, times or details, just, more or less an "or else" or "face the consequences"
I do not believe, therefore, that he wanted to be a part of this and that he stood up to the ultimatum but that also, they, the treacherous group that must be a faction of the military to some extent, were not bluffing and 9/11 was the outcome, the "consequences" and "else" that they must have threatened.
There is also another filmed few moments, more recently, when the president is asked if he knew about 9/11 before it happened and instead of just saying "No" he deliberated and actually said it was "politics". He was clearly troubled by the idea and found it difficult to find an answer. I do not believe that is the way liars work at all. He was trying he best to be truthful and at the same time trying to deal with another priority of keeping the whole matter secret. It seemed to me, and does still, that his preference is openness and truthfulness but as he said, it is "politics". In the light of my explanation, what can he do, what can he say?
Of course this is all conjecture based on evidence that may be incomplete and inaccurate and misinterpreted, of course, and so I could be wrong. But the withholding of evidence is evidence of a cover-up. Why on earth cover-up what hit the Pentagon? Well, there is only one reason I can think of and that is that it was a missile and not a plane. And that is covered up because it reveals so very much. But the fact it was a missile is the most sensible and reasonable of conclusions in the light of what certainly seems to be extremely reliable evidence. In other words there is no reasonable doubt about it, it was a missile. And the meaning deriving from that snippet of information is, I believe, as a bare minimum, all that I have explained in this short article - it means a lot more too of course but I have already covered most of that if not all of that in other articles here.
By Paul E. Coughlin
SaneThinking.com
6 May 2007
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
