John Perkins Raises Questions about 9/11

BookTV on CSpan2 1/21/06
Tape of Perkins' appearance at a Washington DC bookstore on 1/10/06
Excerpt from the Q & A session

Q: I'd like to commend you for the work you've done, really showing the American public how deeply evil the people who run this country have been willing to stoop. It's very hard for a lot of people to really face how evil our leaders have chosen to become. I'm active on the 9/11 issue and most of the respected people in the movement, in the peace movement, won't even give proper respect to that. I'm going to ask you what your knowledge is if you've looked at the issues involved, with claiming that there is a coverup. I'll ask one very specific question which is very concise. Did you know that the Kean commission, an official goverment commission, did not even mention that Number 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building, collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11/01 without being hit by a plane? Taller than any building in Maryland or Virginia. It wasn't mentioned, and the NY Times and the Washington Post didn't mention that it wasn't mentioned.

John Perkins: Yeah, and there are some excellent books and some excellent dvds and films on that whole subject including the one that shows that there was never a plane shown crashing into the Pentagon which haven't gotten around very much. I wish they would get around more. You know, I don't really like to speculate on things I don't know much about. And I don't know, you know a lot more about that than I do, and I like to talk about things I really know about. I know there are a lot of good films around but they're not getting wide circulation.

Q: Go to, that's a good place to start.

John Perkins:, yeah, go to it. And the other thing is you know it has struck me that if someone were to rob the bank down the street here tomorrow, probably the first thing the police would do would be to look for an inside job, right? But it's, you know, like, it ought to, I was in the Amazon on 9/11 and shortly after that I went up to Ground Zero. I was amazed when I came back from the Amazon, as I was driving up--I flew into the Miami airport, and I was driving up to my home in another part of Florida--and listening and I was expecting to hear people talking about, well let's look at who really did this. But even on NPR and on every radio station, I didn't hear any of that, and as I said, I don't know anything about 9/11 really and what really happened there, but I'm amazed by the lack of true investigation that seems to have gone into that. It just appalls me because it really, coming where I come from, it's extremely difficult for me to believe that that whole thing was masterminded by a man living in a cave with a walkie talkie. But I don't know.

Cspan2 - that's damn near

Cspan2 - that's damn near mainstream McMedia!


But is/recommends, which takes the government's position at critical junctures regarding 911 truth. IOW, that crowd is a wolf in sheepdog's clothing. It pretends to uncover the truth even it/they connive to help the government conceal the true nature of 9/11.

It/they conceal/suppress most of the same/best/revealing evidence as does the lying government:

Instead of demanding that the government explain how "hijackers" could have caused that amazing phenomenal brilliant brief burst of light upon WTC1 impact, it/they just pretend it never happened, and we never saw it, same as the Kean 9-11 Commission! ("pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, Dorothy". "OK.")

The fake-opposition-to-the-government-crowd gets 'air' (CSPAN2) time but also fails, as miserably as did the Kerry 2004 campaign, to raise questions about Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements. That is not a coincidence. (Instead, they prefer to either ignore Bush's witness statements, or they say that they've caught Bush in a lie, even though there is zero evidence that Bush was lying. IOW, they'd rather call Bush names than get at the truth about 9/11. excels at this.)

And when the government screwed up and revealed evidence which totally discredited the government and its legend of 9/11, and that evidence was so incriminating that the 9-11 Commission has no choice but to pretend that it did not exist, our lying government counted on the same fake-opposition crowd (David Kubiak, Kyle Hence, John Judge and their many minions) to overlook that most glaring of omissions, too.

So if you want to see a wonderful example of the hub for a group of fake-opposition limited hangout disinformation campaign web sites, one which presents an overwhelming amount of information without ever cutting to the heart of the matter, and which pretends to but does not present all the facts, and which engages in countless examples of misdirection, distortion, distraction, diversion, omission, concealment, endorsements, and other tools for keeping certain thoughts and ideas from ever entering the minds of their audience, then you should definitely pay a visit

I can't buy all that.

I can't buy all that.

I agree with Anonymous, 911

I agree with Anonymous, 911 Blimp's attack on is wholly unustified. Blimp focuses on secondary issues like what Shrub said or didn't say, the rinky dink nonsense like the alleged flash on WTC 1 impact or the 5 fuzz frames etc., as if these were the "heart of the matter," not the NORAD stand down, not the obvious controlled demolition of the buildings and so forth.

i also worry about the big

i also worry about the big 911 groups.... just like i worry about big anti war groups....

james, if it went to court

james, if it went to court would you want to leave those thing out???

Since there aren't any that

Since there aren't any that qualify as big, other than in the imagination of blimp and others who see "the flash" or whatever, what's the worry?

Inside - That's a judgment

Inside -
That's a judgment call, but my hunch is I would leave them out, because they don't prove anything. Anyway, right now we're only in the court of public opinion, and you clearly have to adopt a best evidence approach, not one that depends on what others might or might not say or do in response. Looks to me like the "flash" in the WTC1 impact is a doctored image anyway. We need to focus on and hammer away at the irrefutable issues, the smoking guns. For me, that would be: NORAD stand down, General Ahmed, the controlled demolition and the testimony of so many people on hearing explosions (+ WTC7), the overwhelming evidence of CIA/NSA/FBI observation/guidance/protection of the patsy "hijackers", the cover-up. That's just off the top of my head. I would say there are other issues, but anyone who places great emphasis on fuzzy pictures or other stuff like that, is seriously mistaken (at least). Focusing on Silverstein's "pull it" remark is a mistake, because he could easily say that he meant to pull the firefighters, and who could credibly refute it? Same goes for Bush's garbled speech. This one is really stupid, because one could plausibly point out that Bush failed to say that he saw that a plane HAD crashed into the WTC, meaning that he saw the immediate aftermath of the first impact like everyone else.
Focusing on these things is just to set yourself up for rebuttals you have not control over, because they can always say "I meant..." and your derriere is up in the air.

trust me im not big on the

trust me im not big on the pod/ flash myself but it might be the thing that wakes people up... just like the pentagon, anything that makes people look into 911 at all is good in my book... i do think that the flash/pod has made a lot of people look into 911... so should we all say dont look at it???? i think not..

i dont focus on it but i dont think people should tell anyone what to check out and what not to....

I agree, whatever wakes

I agree, whatever wakes people up. "In Plane Site" did it for me. I don't give a rats ass if there was a pod or not. Something hit those buildings but EXPLOSIVES BROUGHT THEM DOWN!!! That's all I needed too know.

Hey, we should be looking

Hey, we should be looking into everything, no doubt, and no one should read what I said as trying to declare absolutely any info as off limits. And certainly many people are woken up by different things. For me, it was in 2002 when I saw an interview with Ruppert on Canadian TV, and he laid out the stand down issue. But looking at this from an activist perspective, if you say to someone "9/11 was an inside job," and they ask you "What makes you say that?", I'm sure as hell not going to start with the pods/flash stuff. Having run a 9/11 teach-in, people seemed to be impressed by the stand-down thing as irrefutable, prima facie evidence of state complicity.

To me its amazing how anyone

To me its amazing how anyone can DENY state involvement.

I would like to know more about the "war-games turning into reality".

e.g. from what distance can a 767 be remote-control flown.

The transponder is VHF, so that makes it 100miles maybe...

can the remote-control VHF transmitter had over to another one?

ask a aircraft radio-technician please.

isnt 911blimp the guy who

isnt 911blimp the guy who thinks holograms were used on 9/11?

John Perkins @ COM, Kentfield, CA event...

Just gave John 2 DVDs and passed out loads of RCFPs. More info in the following thread:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Spread the word! Many hands make light work! EMA: educate, motivate, activate.
Improve your activist toolkit and get your free RCFPs here