The Deep State Speaks
Let's look at how O'Neill came to be at Ground Zero on 9/11, maybe see if the scenario fits with O'Neill being 'the real thing,' i.e., the myth, the martyr, that most of the Truth movement sees him as. Let's see if the John O'Neill Legend stands up to real scrutiny.
According to all accounts, O'Neill garnered his position as WTC security chief through two people, Jerome Hauer and WTC lessee
Larry Silverstein. Since this essay targets serious students and researchers of 9/11, I'll get right to a conclusion that is of general agreement: Both of these men were undoubtedly active colluders in the conspiracy. They not only had foreknowledge that 'something was going to happen,' but were in on the whole sordid catastrophe, start to finish. I'll not dwell on Larry Silverstein, but Hauer is a different animal and deserves a few words here, not only because of his role, but because he was a close friend of O'Neill's. According to Wright – and backed up as a source by the famed restauranteur Elaine Kaufman of the chic Manhattan eaterie that bears her name – Hauer and O'Neill dined together on the night of September 10th. (According to Hauer – and this is an aspect of the Legend -- it was during dinner when O'Neill predicted that 'something big [a terrorist strike] is going to happen, and soon.')
Hauer was one of the first – if not the first – of the deep state operatives whose job it was to implant the official myth into the zeitgeist, through his
morning of 9/11 interview
with Dan Rather, wherein Hauer explains how the heat of the jet fuel fires brought down the towers, blah blah, and how Osama bin Laden was the likely perpetrator, blah blah blah. Hauer's pronouncements to a breathless, frightened America could have formed a treatment/outline for the 9/11 Commission Report.
Jerome Hauer launches the official story just hours after the attacks...
Lesser known is Hauer's interview with Peter Jennings, which, for me, is all we need to peg Hauer as a member of the inner cabal.
Hauer explains how Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) bunker in Building 7 was abandoned due to 'debris blocking the entrance' (a lie) and – here's the clincher – how 7's 'structural stability' might be compromised. This was at 3PM, two and a half hours before 7 disintegrated. Since the endless string of physics-defying prevarications known as The NIST Report was not yet even a gleam in Dick Cheney's eye, where did Hauer get this bombshell? Indeed, later in the interview he warns that there could be 'additional collapses' (meaning other than the towers). He was psychologically preparing us for the collapse of 7. Does anyone doubt this?
Note: According to NYC officials Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, the Mayor's command bunker (OEM) in Building 7 was abandoned shortly before 9 AM, i.e., prior to the second plane hit. This is strong evidence that Giuliani's cabal – of which Hauer had been the head guy -- had foreknowledge of the attacks, since before the second plane hit there was no reason to suspect the extent of the devastation of that day; there was therefore no reason to evacuate – except prior knowledge. (Hauer himself had made the decision to put the OEM bunker in Building 7.)
Access of Evil
Let's imagine a conversation between two of the inner cabal, Silverstein and 'Jerry' Hauer, O'Neill's close friend and drinking buddy; let's put ourselves in their places, see how that might go. Imagine it's late August, 2001, three weeks before Zero hour. The one place where you are completely vulnerable is the WTC: the thousands of pounds of planted demolition equipment (super thermite plus whatever other explosives and electronics were needed to affect the complexities of a top down controlled demolition) – which took many weeks to set up – must be a constant source of worry. Everything else is 'deniable.' And surely some last minute prep work had to be done, and hence overseen and protected.
What is Larry Silverstein smiling about?
SILVERSTEIN: Hey Jerry, let's find the one guy on the planet who is smart enough and dogged enough and dedicated enough to thwart our plot at the last minute and give him the job of thwarting our plot. Let's tap as WTC Head of Security the super patriot truth-seeker, maverick FBI agent John O'Neill!
HAUER: Sounds good to me!
Wait a minute. Absurd, of course. It would never happen.
But O'Neill got the job.
Try this version:
HAUER: John's the perfect guy to tap as Head of Security, to make sure there's no foul up at the last minute. He's rock-solid one of us, plus he's got the image and gravitas to be beyond suspicion.
At Elaine's the other night we came up with the idea of faking his death in the chaos -- it would solve all his personal and financial problems. Christ, what a mess that shit is. He's been living above his means for his whole career, aside from his wife he's been juggling three other women he's been lying to forever, plus his quitting the Bureau could be set up using that briefcase incident. Our guys at the New York Times could do an expose. John himself came up with that idea. Who'll suspect that John set up his own discrediting?
(By the way, here's a quote from Wright's The New Yorker article:
The moment [O'Neill] left the F.B.I., his spirits had lifted. He talked about getting a new Mercedes to replace his old Buick. He told Anna that they could now afford to get married. On the last Saturday night of his life, he attended a wedding with Valerie, and they danced nearly every number. He told a friend within Valerie's hearing, “I'm gonna get her a ring.”
Even an extreme egotist like O'Neill can't expect to marry two different women -- while still being married to a third (and fooling around with a fourth), so why would he make these promises? Maybe because he knew he wouldn't 'be around' to be obliged to keep them.)
SILVERSTEIN: With his life insurance (double indemnity, no doubt) and our bonus, he can start fresh...(The details of O'Neill's life insurance policy might be very revealing.)
HAUER: He's been blabbing about the South Pacific, some island...
(Note: To make the death-faking simpler, it was Jerry Hauer who I.D.ed 'O'Neill's' body (Wright, others) after it was pulled from the wreckage in the week following 9/11. With all O'Neill's friends and law enforcement colleagues, why was Hauer somehow on hand to identify the remains?)
Journalist Laurie Garrett's interview with Hauer verifies that, 1) O'Neill and Hauer were close friends and 2) Hauer identified the body, which, from the description ('just body parts'), could have been anyone's.)
SILVERSTEIN: Let's get him going right away. Someone's gotta keep an eye on all that goddamn demo gear. I have nightmares that some janitor or maintenance guy will...
HAUER: I know, plus we have to
do that unprecedented power down the weekend before, for the final prep work. Someone will have to oversee the various personnel, the security cam shut downs, the dog problem, all that. With compartmentalization, none of the prep people know what's really up. Yeah, John's the best choice all right.
SILVERSTEIN: What's today?
HAUER: August 22. Twenty days to worry about... Let's get John on it immediately. Tomorrow.
Perhaps Agent Mark Rossini pokes his head in the door at this point, having heard O'Neill's name mentioned.
ROSSINI: John is a great guy.
The above chronology is vital -- the myth of John O'Neill as 'the real thing' depends utterly on the misconception that O'Neill started his job on the day of day of 9/11 (or 9/10, as some disinformationists claim). O'Neill in fact started work on August 23rd, three weeks prior to the attacks. (Although the evidence for this start date of O'Neill's WTC job is voluminous, the single best source is probably Wright's The New Yorker (02/14/02) article, since the magazine is notorious for its impeccable fact checking. And Wright, notwithstanding his deceptive support for the official story - along with Murray Weiss's The Man Who Warned America - is probably the best source on the details of O'Neill's life.)
Here's an excerpt from the Common History 9/11 Timeline:
Former FBI counterterrorism chief John O'Neill recently started his new job as director of security at the World Trade Center
(see August 23, 2001). From the outset,
he has engrossed himself in discovering what security systems are in place there, and what will be needed in future. On this day,
he runs into Rodney Leibowitz, a friend of his, and complains to him about the very poor standard of security at the Twin Towers.
For instance, he mentions that, even though the complex receives bomb threats on a daily basis, its telephone system does not feature
caller identification. [WEISS, 2003, PP. 354 AND 358]
So we are told that O'Neill was right on it regarding a possible bomb plot -- which would have been 100% predictable. John O'Neill as 'the real thing' would no doubt have brought this up at his 'job interview' with Silverstein and Hauer: 'A bomb plot will be my number one priority.'
Do you see the utter nonsensicalness of John O'Neill as 'the real thing' being allowed anywhere near the WTC, let alone given crawl-space access as security chief?
To sum up, and I really hope you're with me on this: If O'Neill started work three weeks before the attacks (which he did) and if either Hauer or Silverstein (or both) were conspirators (which is surely the case), John O'Neill was on some level privy to the coming attacks. Precisely on what level may never be known, but I will delineate some possibilities below.
Banned by Alex
It's time to pop out of the rabbit hole and circle back to where we started, with 911blogger.com's suppression of some 9/11 truths (the CIT Pentagon investigation), maybe due to deep state cooption, maybe not. (Explained in the Foreword.)
If not cooption, then, I would submit, the only other explanation is my stated 'other aberrations,' which, according to me, involve hypocrisy generated by ego and denial. Remember that stuff?
(What does my John O'Neill revelation have to do with the question of cooption or aberration at 911blogger.com?... If you've come this far, may as well hang in....)
I've read the back-and-forth regarding 911blogger.com's suppression of CIT, folks pointing out 'it's their website,' blah blah, and how there's so much crap out there, blah blah... someone has to do the filtering, and how this is really a non-issue...
Bullshit. After almost a decade (since 9/11), how often do we come across truly fresh research and/or revelations? I've studied CIT's work, principally their 'National Security Alert' video. It may be ragged in production values and maybe they're a bit arrogant in their attitude, but this is ground breaking work.
CIT's film disproves the official version of 'Fl 77's path (in red).The implications are momentous.
CIT gets off the goddamn Internet (where 99.99% of 'research' is done), goes out in the real world, spends their own money, hangs their asses on the line, does the work and guess what? The major 9/11 site censors them (yes, censor is the correct description). Not only that, but then Barrie Zwicker submits his positive review of CIT and guess what? He's censored.
Barrie Zwicker is the godfather of the Truth movement. (The first important figure to publicly come out with 9/11 as false flag event.) Barrie submits his well-reasoned analysis of CIT's work and he's censored? Then, when he politely asks for an explanation, he's ignored. Barrie Zwicker is ignored?
There is indeed something very wrong at 911blogger.com. But again: cooption or ego-denial-hypocrisy 'aberration'? It's surely one or the other. Which?
Hang on as we dive back down the bunny hole...
A couple weeks after my 'John-is-a-great-guy' conversation with FBI agent Mark Rossini, I had done considerable research and pounded out a (shorter) version of this analysis of the John O'Neill Legend. Sent it to Zwicker and David Ray Griffin (both of whom I'd corresponded with). I wanted to be careful before submitting it to a public venue – I had after all 'besmirched' a man who, if legend be believed, died an
heroic death while trying to save others.
Drawing by John Tenniel
Zwicker and Griffin both agreed that I was almost certainly correct in my analysis. (David Ray Griffin even asked for permission to forward the essay to others.) Later, Bob McIlvaine, during my interview with him (for a film I'm making), endorsed my conclusions as well. Bob knows as much about the WTC aspects of 9/11 as anyone.
Confident that I was justified in my conclusions, I submitted the essay to the venue I considered the most important in the Truth movement. I emailed it to 'info-warrior' Alex Jones.
I heard nothing back. I resubmitted the essay in a half dozen ways (to various email addresses and people at Jones's several sites) to make sure it hadn't slipped between the email cracks.
Knowing that Jones gets a ton of emails, I included right up front a cv, which I crafted to imply that I might be taken seriously; that I'm not some weirdo coming in over the transom. (Or at least not just some weirdo.) Although, in my many emails I tried to vary my wording -- so as not to get a 'I've read this before somewhere' instinctive response – here's how one opening read:
I'm a writer with three books in print: A cult-hit autobiographical novel called Cosmic Banditos (Random House, reissued by Penguin Putnam) and two memoirs, In Search of Captain Zero; A Surfer's Road Trip Beyond the End of the Road (Penguin Putnam)and my latest, Can't You Get Along With Anyone? A Writer's Memoir and a Tale of a Lost Surfer's Paradise. The first two have been bought for the movies, by John Cusack (with New Crime Productions) and Sean Penn (with Radar Pictures) respectively. (I'm hoping that having both of these stars want to 'play me' will pique your curiosity enough that you'll finally read my essay, which I have submitted multiple times, with no response at all, not even a 'pass.')
In another try I mentioned that I'd worked closely with half a dozen Oscar winners or nominees and had been one of the founding writers on 'Miami Vice.' I even included a link to my notorious Filmdrunk.com interview, which had gotten around the Internet.
No response from Alex Jones.
Okay, I know when I'm being snubbed, although I had not yet figured out why. I joined Jones's PrisonPlanet Forum, which involved some sort of vetting by the forum moderator, a guy who goes by 'Anti-Iluminati.'
I passed muster, was accepted as a Forum participant, and submitted my O'Neill essay as my first post.
I was immediately banned from the Forum. It wasn't just that Anti-Iluminati/Jones decided not to post the essay. I, me personally, was banned. Permanently. After reading my John O'Neill essay, Alex Jones's public forum did not want to hear another word from me.
The moniker 'Honeycam' is based on my dog's name and her role as 'camera dog' in my film
I emailed Anti-Iluminati and Jones asking why I was banned from a public forum. (As you can see from the date on the 'Banned' message, I am still to this day a persona non grata.)
In my final email direct to Alex Jones I mentioned that I live in a small town in which most of my long-time friends now consider me a conspiracy kook, and how it ain't easy having no one to talk to, and for a free-thinker and 'info-warrior' that I had come to respect and to depend on for 'the news' to not only snub me but to censor me was... dispiriting. It's true, too. I was dispirited. The aggravation, the slow burn, came later.
Before I press on, I'm going to ask you to accept the given that what happened to CIT on 911blogger.com is of the same kind as my experience with Alex Jones/Anti-Iluminati, in that fresh and illuminating new research has been suppressed, and not for 'innocent' reasons. (CIT's stuff is admittedly a notch above mine in importance.)
Question is: What's up with Alex Jones and his Forum Moderator cohort, 'Anti-iluminati'? Cooption? 'Aberration'?
First, let's listen to Alex Jones's view on censorship...
Really, Alex? You sound angry. I mean what Google/Youtube did to you sounds like what you did to me...
Sounds like Alex doesn't think Youtube should have the right to censor Alex Jones, even though Youtube is a private company (like his)... I mean if he's going to say that he can censor me because PrisonPlanet is his website (which he might say), doesn't that mean that Youtube can do the same to him?
How do we define hypocrite?
How about Anti-Iluminati? What are his views on the value of Truth?
Mmmmm. Sounds like he's in to Truth. So let's take on Anti-Iluminati first, see what might be behind his censoring of my O'Neill revelation. I mean, for him to censor me, he must figure that my essay is a pack of lies. Right?
Listen to this bit from his interview on the Corbettreport.com podcast, with James Corbett.