Planned From The Start
The importance of the real provenance of ‘the legend of 9/11’, i.e., the ‘official story,’ cannot be overestimated. It is, after all, the sort of ‘history’ that Orwell’s protagonist Winston Smith would have (re)written for his party: If the official 9/11 history indeed survives to become Our History when you and I are long gone, our legacy will be that we have taught our progeny Winston’s ultimate lesson of ‘(winning) the struggle over himself.’ Meaning, and I’ll quote that final, chilling line:
‘He loved Big Brother.’
In my research and in my groping for the right words to sum up the provenance of the 9/11 legend, I came across a piece from 2003 by Chaim Kupferberg and which appeared in The Centre for Research on Globalization:
…if one were theoretically to posit the type of operatives who would be most suited to running a highly compartmentalized "op" to develop a global legend of Osama bin Laden, one could find no more conveniently placed men than Richard Clarke and John O'Neill. Where Clarke would manage the national security rank-and-file through his network of loyalists, O'Neill would be the globetrotter, coordinating the unfolding legend through his counterparts in various countries.
I take this to mean that it may have been O’Neill himself (plus Clarke) who was the ultimate source of‘the warnings’ that came in over the transom from various Intel agencies in various countries in the months prior to 9/11. Although many would take the heat for not heeding those warnings, the substantive result was a firmly criminalized bin Laden/al Qaeda crew of patsies. In the end, the heat was worth it.
In short, Clarke and O'Neill would theoretically be conducting their activities in "plain sight." Under the cover of counter-terrorism, O'Neill would be building a terror legend fit for the New World Order - in the same manner that Oliver North in the '80s employed the cover of counter-terrorism to conduct, on behalf of Vice-President Bush, the illegal arms dealing operations popularly known as Iran-Contra… the main difference would be that where North would eventually be tagged as the moron of Iran-Contra, O'Neill would take his place as the martyr of 9/11.
Remarkable in its succinct insight and apparent divination that all is not well with the aspect of the official story (call it a sub-legend) I refer to as The John O’Neill Legend, what is surprising (or perhaps it shouldn’t be) is the author’s subsequent assumption that
…in the light of O'Neill's subsequent death (my italics) as head of security for the World Trade Center on September 11, the scandals began to take on a more suspicious tint. Was O'Neill digging too deep? A maverick who stepped on too many feet in his efforts to bulldog his way through the hierarchy? Put bluntly, had the maverick been taken down a notch by a bloated bureaucracy beholden to a "cover-your-ass" ethic? As Richard Clarke, Jerry Hauer, John Miller, Chris Isham, and O'Neill's friends/colleagues at Kroll Associates would spin it, O'Neill's was the lone voice shouting in the wilderness, warning all who would listen about the approaching bin Laden threat before falling himself, "ironically", at the hands of bin Laden.
Author Kupferberg saw so much so clearly (and in 2003) but he couldn’t seem to make that final – and I have to say obvious – leap of logic that it was all a set up, including O’Neill’s faked demise, planned from the start:
‘John is a great guy.’
‘Is,’ not ‘was.’
Say it Ain't So!
Although the meat of this essay is the debunking of the John O’Neill Legend, its heart is an attempt to illustrate failures in how we of the Truth persuasion think, and, regarding the censorship issue, sometimes behave.
Denial. Might I say one last time that denial/doublethink is what this essay is about. In case you still don’t get it: All the information I’ve presented is at most 3 or 4 keystrokes away on our beloved (for now) Internet. So why did it take almost a decade for someone to expose the O’Neill misdirection?...
The inability to properly process new information when it conflicts with ideas/concepts to which we are emotionally attached.
Censorship. With deep state cooption as censorship motive, what we can do – all we can do – is expose the perpetrators for what they are and then avoid them.
Here’s a relevant excerpt from Redacted News:
Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote, ”The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.”
‘…posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.’ Whatever the latter may be. You gotta love that!
They go on to propose that, ”the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”, where they suggest, among other tactics, ”Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”
One thing we may be sure of – and Alex Jones has often pointed this out – is that when a presidential advisor (which Sunstein is -- god help us -- heading the Orwellian-sounding White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) recommends a course of covert action, that action is already taking place.
David Ray Griffin sums this up well.
Sunstein’s goal of infiltration is of course what I refer to as ‘cooption.’ It’s being done now, and has been done since the birth of the Truth movement. I can’t outright prove that, but I’d bet my most valued possession on it.
911blogger.com is, in my view, an archetype of this cooption. Hence its censorship of CIT’s work on the ‘PentaCon’ is significant: It means that CIT’s expose is very damaging to the deep state agenda. (I’ve bought a ton of their ‘National Security Alert’ videos and will disperse them through my newsletter. I suggest you do whatever you can as well.)
With the ego-denial-hypocrisy issue, which likewise can lead to counter-productive behavior like the censorship of the information in this essay (or the unequivocal support of a Senate candidate who supports the official 9/11 story), there is likewise little that can be done other than censuring the censorers; we then hope they change their ways.
Unfortunately, people like Alex Jones are the way they are – perhaps his dedication and sometimes brilliant insights rely on his ego as engine; I hope not, but I do not know what Alex Jones sees in the morning, shaving.
Possibly of a different sort is James Corbett, but who nevertheless was unable to shuffle off his denial regarding the John O’Neill Legend. Perhaps (as I postulate) Corbett is so taken by the ‘infowar’ legend Alex Jones that (in his reply) he refused to deal with Jones’s hypocrisy in censoring me – Jones’s demurring on publishing my essay as an article is ‘his business’; banning me from a public forum is not his business, but rather pure hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy of the censorship sort is not to be tolerated by the rest of us. This is a given and the essential point of this very long essay.
But I’d like to see how I did with Corbett in this more detailed version of what I sent in the past; maybe James will give these subjects some deeper thought than he did before. So before submitting this for publication I’m sending it to Corbett for his remarks. (By the way, you can
read one version of my many submissions to Jones and to Corbett. There are longer, more detailed versions of the dozen I submitted to the two.)
Note as of December 10th: I sent this current essay to Corbett on November 24; it is now three weeks later and I have not heard from him. This in spite Corbett’s having invited me to be an interview subject on his podcast – as a result of his having seen Part One of the film I’m working on, which, he wrote, ‘impressed’ him.
I wrote four follow up emails, all unanswered, one even asking that he let me know if he’s not going to participate in my essay. Corbett may be ‘busy,’ but an ‘I’d rather not’ return email doesn’t seem too much to ask.
Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast
I had also sent the essay to Jonathon Elinoff, who built a theoretically useful resource called Coreofcorruption.com, which is a compilation of MSM clips exposing various ‘truths’ going back to the JFK assassination. (The work is roughly comparable to Paul Thompson’s essential ‘Terror Timeline’.)
As we’ll see, the problem with Coreofcorruption.com surfaces when it goes from archiving material to analyzing it.
The John O’Neill section is of course right in line with the Legend (again, it’s built around MSM clips) - O’Neill as hero/martyr. In my cover letter I congratulated Elinoff on his good work then explained that my essay was meant to give him some perspective on O’Neill; I wrote that like everyone else I had been taken in by the O’Neill Legend, its misdirection.
For my efforts in sharing my work with Coreofcorruption.com I was rewarded by pure defensiveness and outright hostility; Elinoff somehow interpreted my essay as an attack on his work and on him personally; his terse, nasty return email did not even refer to my essay or any of the information in it, such as the start date of O’Neill’s WTC job: Elinoff, like so many others has O’Neill’s first day of work as 9/11.
Let’s look at another example of how the John O’Neill Legend is perpetuated by the Truth Movement.
Elinoff’s editing of the phone interview of Hauer, which leaves the trusting viewer with the notion that O’Neill started his job on 9/11, is indicative of the lengths to which people will go to justify what they want to believe.
With Elinoff’s choosing to cut upon disinformation (9/11 as O’Neill’s job’s start date), we now have flat out dishonesty (in film editing) as opposed to ‘innocent’ denial/doublethink, on the part of a ‘Truther’ in his dedication to the John O’Neill Legend.
Note: I was later able to dig up an MP3 of the whole phone interview (well done by Sander Hicks) As I suspected, Hauer's reply to the start date assertion - which Elinoff deleted from the film -- is 'You were misinformed.'
As with the 9/11 Commission and its intelligence-insulting Report, we have an ‘investigator’ who begins his inquest with his conclusion, and if any facts get in the way, bend them, distort them, or, in this case, leave them on the cutting room floor (a version of Anti-Iluminati’s censorship of my work).
Elinoff’s hostility to my essay is now explained: I was in effect exposing his deceit.
Over all, Elinoff’s film is also riddled with inherent contradictions, a good example of which is based on his clear premise that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, i.e., planned and executed by elements of the deep state. (If you’re still reading this, odds are you agree.)
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, given our inside job presumption and uncontestable facts and simple logic (which I’ve already pointed out), we can pretty much be certain that bin Laden and the ‘9/11 hijackers’ were patsies. In other words – and I do have to repeat myself on this – bin Laden and especially the 19 did not carry out the attacks.
Once again: Elinoff, via Coreofcorruption.com’s filmmaking, presumes this. So
how do you figure this?
What we have is a double-whammy of disinformation; O'Neil's job's start date and who 'carried out' 9/11. A question for Elinoff: Your film says 9/11 was an inside job so how could bin Laden carry it out? Answer: Classic doublethink.
I sent Elinoff my essay, inviting a response. Here's the last couple emails of our exchange after Elinoff clamed that PBS's The Man Who Knew provided him with O'Neill's 9/11 job start date (which it most definitely does not):
I was tempted to write back that there's no need to 'deal with the authorities' since (as you'll see) they are already on my case.
The guy sure is upset.
Note as of December 14th: No response from James Corbett. If Corbett disagrees with my views – on O’Neill, censorship, or whatever – he ought to say so. By ignoring me, I would submit, he is proving my point about denial.
You know what? I’m getting a sinking, dispiriting feeling… Could it be that Corbett – like Jones/AI, Elinoff before him – is denying the truth of my facts and deductions for ego reasons? Is this the problem?
Corbett has repeated The John O’Neill Legend several times on his podcasts.
Or is it, James, that you're afraid you'll aggravate Alex Jones merely by communicating with me? What happened to your offer to be interviewed on your podcast? Should I assume that's been rescinded? If so, why? Don't I deserve an explanation?
James, James, say it ain’t so!