The challenge of our generation. Inside operations, pretexts for war. How is today different?

9/11 Controlled Demolition is our generation challenge, to fight and to win the struggle for the truth and justice. It is a similar situation, similar challenge to what previous generations faced.

1. There was 1941, Pearl Harbour let-it-happen attack. At least it was to rally a nation for a just war, against Nazi Germany aggressor.
2. There was a 1964 false flag operation Gulf of Tonkin attack, in order to start combat deployment of Vietnam War, 1965-1973.
3. There was an asassination of President JF Kennedy, 1963, who refused the launch invasion of Cuba. Assassination done by the military and intelligence, by CIA and others.
Without this crime, there would have been no sensless Vietnam War.
4. Later, trying to get rid of President Clinton, they did not choose physical liquidation anymore.
It was through scandals, Whitewater, Monica Lewinski and others, how they choose remove, to disable, topple, an American President.

How is our present challenge different from these preceding?

This time, our generation, 9/11 controlled demolition attacks are more serious and far-reaching in their consequences.

The victims of initial false operation are more numerous - 3000, operation was conducted on American soil, and caused vast economic disruption.

The wars that 9/11 pretext was used to launch, Iraq and Afghanistan, are not to defeat aggressor, or to take over a small country. They are massive, time unlimited world-wide costly wars of aggression, conquest and occupation. As such they are condemned to fail.

Yet today....

We have Internet.
A formidable tool of the freedom and the truth, the testament to the power of ideas, of spoken words, of peaceful, yet dilligent and faithful resistance.
As they say "If there was Internet then, it would have stopped Hitler".

We have a plethora of indisputable facts, technical evidence, pictures, footage, arguments.
Much more of them, and much clearer, than in previous cases.

And we have Nanothermite Controlled Demolition Report of 2009 today. A smoking, loaded incendiary explosive.
Yes, we have, by now, the irrefutable, conclusive scientific evidence of attacks committed, the evidence provided by heroic champions of truth Dr. Steven Jones, Prof Harrit, and the research team - Jeffrey Farrer, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen.

This evidence was facilitated by an irreplaceable and brave act of assistance by Janette MacKinlay, 9/11 survivor.

We have what it takes to prevail, this time, this generation, over senseless, expensive, devastating violent colonial wars of aggression generated by American military complex and its $1 trillion a year budget, paid for by taxes of American people.

We have what it takes to stop sensless wasting of human energy, potential, and means on illicit mindless military adventures, on expensive arms races, so profitable to war military complex establishment - instead of investing into peaceful American industries, infrastructure, education, healthcare.

We have the truth, we have the irrefutable evidence, we have the facts.
Let us cherish them, manage them and use them wisely, until the end when the truth prevails.

Let us not squander the chance this time, this generation, into a surrender - a surrender and a loss to lies, cover-ups, wars, human suffering and poverty.

Not this time, and not in America. .... Not again. ..... Not ever again anymore!

Petr Buben
September 23, 2009. - -


"2. There was a 1964 false flag operation Gulf of Tonkin attack, in order to start combat deployment of Vietnam War, 1965-1973."

This is a completely ignorant statement. It was not a "false flag" attack. The US ship was moving along the coast of N. Vietnam in support of S. Vietnamese special ops sabateurs and terrorists. Several days previous to the "Gulf of Tonkin" false incident, the ship did get in a shoot out with N. Vietnamese patrol boats who were defending their own waters.

This incident travelled to the top, and the American war planners realized that such an attack could be exploited to their advantage.

Several days later, the same ship, with nervous sailors, mistakenly thought they heard another attack. They ordered the ship to fire, and the ship lit up the sea with its weaponry. Only, there were no patrol boats, and they were shooting at nothing.

Initial reports sent back to Washington said that they had responded to a N. Vietnamese water borne attack. Soon after, they realized there was no evidence of any "enemy" boats. Sot a second report was sent to Defense Secretary Robert Manamara.

Macnamara didn't care what the facts were. It was already established as policy to escalate the war as soon as any US ship was fired upon by N. Vietnam. So, that's the speech he had Johnson read to the nation. That's the legislation (Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) he rammed through an all too willing Congress to begin bombing N. Vietnam.

Obviously not a "false flag."

My second point concerns your main thesis:

9/11 Controlled Demolition is our generation challenge, to fight and to win the struggle for the truth and justice.

NO. The truth and getting it out is our challenge. Controlled demolition may be the truth, and it may not. It doesn't matter. The focus needs to be well expanded beyond the demolition hypothesis.

US government complicity in terrorism needs to be exposed and stopped. That is our real greatest challenge. It is not tied to one aspect of one attack. It is systemic, longstanding, and official criminal policy that endangers the world. There are numerous ways of showing this, most completely unrelated to what happened in NYC that day.


More on Tonkin incident

Yes--the first incident was on August 2, 1964, when there was an actual exchange of fire between North Vietnamese and the U.S. ship 'Maddox.' Note that this, while not a 'false-flag' event, was not the 'act of aggression' that the U.S. liked to portray it as either. If foreign vessels are accompanying those of a neighboring state (South Vietnam) as they shell your own naval installations, those foreign vessels are pretty likely to draw fire at some point--and something which the U.S. military likely anticipated (I recall reading once about how the text of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution had actually been drafted before either incident had occurred). Whoever fired first in the August 2 incident, North Vietnam could likely have made a case for justifiable self-defense.

Then two days later, August 4 came the 'phantom' attack allegedly involving the U.S.S. 'Turner Joy.'

Also, I personally don't see how sleazebag Clinton belongs on this list. If he belongs on this list for anything, it should be for his administration's gross distortions regarding the situation in Kosovo as a pretext for the further bombing and occupation of IMF-holdout Yugoslavia.

I've had differences before with people in the 9/11 truth movement over the use of the 'false-flag' term. There are some truthers who want to use it to cover the entire litany of deceptions used to trick the mass of the people into supporting wars. It is, of course, critical that people be made aware of the long history of all these deceptions. I simply think that if the 'false-flag' term is applied with too broad a brush, it can invite misperceptions as to what we believe concerning certain events. I prefer to apply the term as I've always understood it: that is, provocative actions in which the actual perpetrators pin the blame on others, in order to turn public opinion against a certain country, group, political movement, etc. (e.g., the Gunpowder Plot, the 1931 'Manchurian Incident,' the Reichstag fire, the Lavon Affair, Operation Gladio, 9/ name just a few examples).