9/11 in Court: Why the Truth About Planes Is Critical
An essay from Gerard Holmgren:
*the real name is being kept hidden here
Imagine that "Mr. 9/11 Truth"* is prosecuting in court. He is asked to provide evidence of the defendants guilt and he replies "The WHO and WHY behind a criminal conspiracy are much more important than the HOW -- the method used to enact the conspiracy. Whether a criminal murders someone with a knife or a gun is much less important than the fact that the crime has been committed, and much less important than the identity of the criminal and the motive for the crime."
The judge looks at him quizzically, and says ""Mr. 9/11 Truth", first we need to establish the facts of the event, in order to determine that the defendant is in fact guilty of the crime at all.
To which Mr. 9/11 Truth replies that this "is entirely peripheral to the core issues of the event, which are: 1. Who did it? 2. Why did they do it? 3. What do they intend to do next? 4. What is the endgame they have in mind? *HOW* they did it is relatively a minor detail"
To which the judge replies "Case dismissed".
There is also the matter of who "they " are.
"Mr. 9/11 Truth" presumably restricts "they" to the Govt – and of course Israel.
However, the fact that the media showed us cartoons of fictional planes flying into buildings means that the definition of "they" must extend to include the media in a generic sense.
"Mr. 9/11 Truth" suggests that this crucial piece of evidence should be ignored, thus allowing the media to get off free.
The only way to identify **all** of the perps is to present **all** of the facts about how it was done – to the extent that we able to, of course.
We have established as irrefutable fact that the media was instrumental in selling the psy op through the method of airing cartoons and passing them off as news – in a premeditated manner.
This of course still falls short of identifying the exact individuals who perpetrated the planes hoax, who in the media was genuinely fooled themselves, and who was complicit after the fact. But it does establish the media – in a generic sense – as being equal partners with the govt –- in a generic sense.
More importantly, the exposing of this hoax tells the ordinary person a lot about how the world actually works. The media is not just distortion. It is often total fiction, cartoons presented as reality. Jurassic Park, but just with a "news" label on it rather than a "movie" label on it.
"Mr. 9/11 Truth"'s attitude is equivalent to suggesting that as long as we manage to prosecute the guy who grabbed the cash from the vault, then who cares who placed the explosive to blow the door, and drove the getaway car?
Furthermore, "Mr. 9/11 Truth" suggests that we should deny the fact that there even was an explosion to blow the door or anyone driving a getaway car. We start and finish the story with the guy who grabbed the cash out of the vault, and angrily dismiss any notion of an explosion or a getaway car on the basis that it will distract from discussion about why the guy grabbed the cash, and what he will do next.
Is "Mr. 9/11 Truth" seriously suggesting that we could build an indictable case – legal proof of who organized four events (plane crashes) - when in fact these events never happened ?
We only need to look at the early emperor's clothes research to see how this strategy is doomed to failure from a legal perspective.
Working on the assumption that the plane crashes happened basically as per the official story, TENC produced a very tight **deductive** case that the air force was stood down to allow the planes to reach their targets.
At the time, many people, including me, thought that this had basically cracked the case from a public information POV, but knew that it did not present a legally admissible case.
Why? Because you can't convict in court a particular individual of standing down the airforce on the basis of deduction alone that somebody high up must have issued such an order. You actually have to produce the stand down order or overwhelming witness testimony from people in the military that they were ordered to stand down and who issued the order.
And so many of us , believing that a stand down had happened, thought that it was only a matter of time before somebody spilled the beans and started a trail which led to the order itself.
It never happened.
Why? Because you can't find an order which was never issued. And the reason that one was never issued is because there weren't any off course planes and therefore no need to issue a stand down order. TENC did a brilliant deduction job, but unfortunately, based it on a fundamentally flawed assumption to begin with.
So what use was their work ?
From a legal POV – absolutely zilch.
But from the POV of general public education, its value was immense, in that exposed the first layer of lies and inspired a lot of people to start looking deeper.
Which shows that something can be legally useless, but still valuable in terms of public education.
Then Gary North blew the hijacker story open. Which got us all thinking about remote controlled planes. Why was legal proof of a remote control program for the planes never brought to light?
Because that didn't happen either. Because there weren't any planes.
So what use was North's work from a legal POV ?
Just like TENC's – nothing. But from a public education POV, very valuable because it moved us one step closer.
And then Meyssun and WF discovered between them that there weren't any plane crashes.
This can be proven in court as we have the video and the forensic proof to show that it is irrefutable.
The problem is – you can't indict "the Govt" or "the media" in a generic sense. You have to charge specific individuals. So although we have now reached the stage of proving what happened and who was guilty in a generic sense, we are still short of evidence for specific indictments.
But we are a step closer at least now know why any attempted indictment of Myers or Cheney or Bush for standing down the air force would have been laughed out of court.
But more importantly , we have learned from a common sense POV that the corruption of the system is so massive that no one is ever going to be indicted for this in the traditional way.
Along the path of this discovery journey, there have been twin aims. One has been to indict the guilty. The other has been for public education, even if indictments are never achieved.
It is now apparent that the first aim will most likely never happen, because the depth of the conspiracy is greater than most of us could have imagined back in Nov 2001. The legal system is just as in on it as the media.
But that does not invalidate the second aim.
Would anyone here argue that the high level of awareness that JFK was an inside job has been an utterly worthless exercise ? Just because no-one was actually indicted for it? That we might as well have everyone believing the official story ? That it's indictment or nothing ?
That if no one is going to be indicted for TWA 800, then we might as well let everyone believe the official story ?
So the no planes proof raises the level of public awareness – a valuable result in its own right, plus it brings us closer to indictments, should such a thing ever be possible, something which I very much doubt.
In some ways the opening up of an obvious schism between what people know to be true and what is officially acknowledged and acted upon is extremely valuable.
JFK is a good example of this. Everyone knows or at least suspects that it was an inside job. And everyone knows that everyone else knows. But pressure from above forces everyone to pretend that they don't know and to pretend that they believe that no one else knows either.
So everyone carries on a charade, while the truth simmers under the surface. People know that they are acting out BS. This helps people to be on the look out for more BS, even if such awareness id for the most part kept private.
Even if indictments never happen, the knowledge that the plane was a cartoon will have the same effect as the JFK simmer but many times greater.
Any suggestion that it simply doesn't matter is absurd.
It is a desperate tactical retreat by "Mr. 9/11 Truth" who has been so comprehensively whipped every time he tried to argue in favour of planes that he has sunk to tacitly admitting that there were none, but that the truth is irrelevant to the truth movement.
*the real name is being kept hidden here