(Double)think About it

The Legend that Jerome Hauer murdered his buddy lives on via the independent film Who Killed John O'Neill?

Putting aside the vital matter of the incorrect start date of O'Neill's job, let's do what AI seems unwilling to do. Let's imagine how that might've gone. To do this we'll also have to put aside the fact that John O'Neill and Jerry Hauer were close friends (Wright, others) and that Hauer had no problem in setting up his buddy for a horrible end: crushed or burned to death. Yes, Jerome Hauer is undoubtedly an evil human being, perhaps in the biblical sense, but spooks, no matter their coda or Machiavellian M.O., depend on loyalty, personal and otherwise. Many of them, I suspect, are devoted to their children, love their dogs, and wept at The Bridges of Madison County. When it comes to close friendship, they are probably no different from you and I. So this is a toughie to get by – that Hauer murdered his buddy – but let's do it.

We also have to get by another biggie, the biggie: the previously defined problem that 'the real thing' version of John O'Neill might uncover the 9/11 plot before it could be launched, and ruin everything. But, hell, let's ignore that too: We're back to Larry and Jerry, now assuming that John O'Neill is in fact 'the real thing' – the AI (and the Truth movement in general) Legend.

LARRY: You know, Jer, your buddy O'Neill has been digging around in some sensitive areas.

JERRY: It's unlikely he'll uncover anything other than the al Qaeda/bin Laden 'legend,' which we want to get out there anyway.

LARRY: But he might figure out some stuff after the fact, like bin Laden as CIA asset.

JERRY: What do you propose?

LARRY: Give him a job at WTC, maybe Head of Security. That way, he goes down with the rest of them. It's perfect. I mean, who would suspect he'd been a target? Plus, while people are outraged about how stupid the FBI is for ignoring O'Neill's warnings, they'll forget that buildings don't disintegrate from gravity, that sort of thing.

JERRY: You're not thinking this through, Larry. Let's say there's 60 thousand people in the towers when the first plane hits. You think they're all going to be fatalities?

Jerome Hauer picked Building 7 for Giuliani's bunker locale. The two are old pals.

LARRY: Yeah, but O'Neill will be right in the thick of it saving people when his building...

JERRY: Can't be sure of that. What if he's between buildings or in the tunnel or putting someone in an ambulance or off somewhere with the NYFD or conferring with that idiot Giuliani. Christ, I wish we didn't have to include him in this. He'll probably say something stupid on TV while trying to look like a hero.

LARRY: I see what you mean about O'Neill.

JERRY: By the way, make sure you don't say something stupid on TV.

LARRY: What could I possibly say?

'Living a James Bond life on a Bureau salary...'
JERRY: I did a PROMIS actuarial on O'Neill-survival of the day. It came up 55%, meaning only 45% that he goes down. Not good enough, Lar. To say the least. I want you to imagine what happens next if the PROMIS-probable occurs and John comes out alive.

Do you think he's going to buy the horseshit of a gravity-collapse? He's going to be there himself as first hand witness, hear and feel the explosions before and during demolition, you name it. He'll smell a rat as soon as he hears that announcement that everyone should stay in the second tower. As head of security do you think he'd even allow that announcement?

(Note: Given that O'Neill was predicting in various ways that an attack on the WTC was imminent, he would have assumed immediately upon the first plane hit that this was terrorism. His first action, therefore, would have been the evacuation of the whole complex. An announcement like the one given that morning telling people to remain in (or return to) the second tower would have been incomprehensible had O'Neill been 'the real thing'

First thing he'd probably do is commandeer a helicopter and break down those roof doors we've locked and start pulling people out. So he might be flying around in a chopper when the building blows up.

I mean, Christ, do I have to go on?

LARRY: No no, I get the picture.

JERRY: We set O'Neill up by making him head of security and then we fucking murder however many thousands of people that are under his protection, plus attempt to murder him...

How many could have been saved?

LARRY: He might take that personally.

JERRY: Might? Are you kidding? First thing he'd do is kill us both.

I trust you get the drift. To sum up this matter of Anti-Iluminati and, indeed, Alex Jones and his 'infowar' forum, does anyone doubt that my conclusions regarding the O'Neill Legend deserve airing, and therefore the motive for censoring me was not 'innocent'?

I believe we can rule out cooption, certainly on Jones's part. Buffoon that he can be, Jones's films, radio show, and website have undoubtedly awakened more people than any other single person's efforts. However, as any regular listener to his radio show knows – should know – Jones's ego is what rules him. (His tiring litany, 'It's not about Alex Jones!' reminds me of the 'It's not about the money!' aphorism.)

His crazed rants when someone disagrees with him are painful to listen to (or watch, if you're a subscriber to his webcasts); and the more valid the disagreer's point, the more manically bullying the response.

In fact, just two nights ago (as I write on November 6th) Jones demonstrated his usual intolerance for valid criticism. A caller first thanked Jones for waking people up, especially via exposing false flag attacks (9/11 of course being the archetypal example), but then opined that Jones's unequivocal support of certain Tea Party candidates, most notably Rand Paul, amounted to support for the neo-con 'war mongering' agenda.

Rand Paul in fact supports the war in Afghanistan (he states this on his website) and believes that al Qaeda and bin Laden perpetrated 9/11. (He is also against prosecuting Bush Administration officials guilty of formally sanctioning torture, using the usual 'Wouldn't be good for the country' rationalization for suspending rule of law.)

If Jones's 'infowar' credos are to be taken seriously (Number One being '9/11 is still the issue'), the above Rand Paul positions should eliminate him from a Jones endorsement. At the very least, an endorsement should be heavily qualified, which is not the case; Jones all but worships both Pauls, Rand and his dad, Ron – who also states publicly that bin Laden was behind 9/11. Neither candidate has publicly called for a new 9/11
investigation. Outright 'infowars' heresy.

Perhaps in recognition of these gargantuan inconsistencies, Jones's five-minute rant belittling the caller was almost strictly of the ad hominem variety ('I know you're a communist, you like health care, blah blah,' then he goes off on how so many people lie about him (but remember that 'It's not about Alex Jones!') -- for five minutes, an eternity of air time.

Jones's completely evades the caller's point, but, worse, his rant is also flat out dishonest – by talking around the subject the way he does, he implies that Rand Paul does not support any wars.

Fact is, Alex Jones cannot stand being wrong. About anything. And he is as wrong about John O'Neill as is his underling, Anti-Iluminati. Jones has often lionized O'Neill on his radio show and has done so in at least one of his films. At the risk of redundancy, scroll down this Infowar.com essay to the subhead question, 'Who Killed John O'Neill?':

[O'Neill] also knew whether or not Osama bin Laden was capable of inflicting the amount of damage the US suffered on 9/11.

In other words, if the conspirators were hoping to spread a Big Lie about Osama bin Laden, they would have had a short list of things they absolutely had to do.

Surely, one of the items on that list would be to silence John O'Neill.

A previous paragraph reiterated the misinformation that O'Neill started his job on 9/10 – some versions say 9/10, some 9/11, but the point is the same: to avoid the inevitable line of reasoning I have delineated, i.e., that O'Neill as 'the real thing' would never have be given the WTC Security job three weeks before 9/11. Even the oft-misleading Wikipedia gives the correct date of August 23rd – they give The New Yorker as source on this, meaning that at the very least, serious researchers have no excuse for swallowing the start-date misinformation, without further research. No excuse except doublethink/denial: they believed what they wanted to.

I've dealt with most of the Infowars essay in my parsing of AI's podcast ramblings, but the first sentence quoted above is worth a quick, instructive look:

According to simple logic, plus the hard facts, bin Laden of course did not have the capabilities of pulling off 9/11 – this is a central tenet of the Truth movement (as reflected by this Alex Jones rant). But according to the John O'Neill Legend, bin Laden was a real existential threat to us. So no matter what the above sentence 'means' (whether bin Laden had the capability or not), it's nonsensical.

That Jones's website could publish this doublethink-heavy essay and for years no one notices the problem, is evidence that we are all subject to 'Orwellian' aberrations.

Essay by Allan Weisbecker | Visit www.banditobooks.com to learn more

© Bandito Books, Ltd.