What is our American sacred mythology ?

[the other mike]

Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?

It goes something like this.

We are a truly exceptional nation with exceptional forefathers. We rebelled against tyranny and established a democratic republic, a model that the world has largely accepted and imitated. Our country is the purveyor of individual rights and freedoms around the world and our interventions in other countries are benevolent actions. On September 11, 2001, we were caught off-guard when al Qaeda terrorists, in a sneak attack, similar to that at Pearl Harbor, succeeded in flying commercial airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the most significant wound to our homeland to date. However, true to the American spirit, we immediately rose to the challenge to militarily smite the terrorists, who hate us because of our freedoms. This is why we have an unending Global War on Terror.

Part 1: Preface and Introduction

Many questions remain about 9/11 as we near the 18th anniversary.

 

[the other mike]

Even if we manage to set aside this belief in our current sacred mythology, look at the evidence, and recognize that 9/11 was a false flag event, we may then have to face the fear that, if we dare speak out, we could be the target of severe repercussions from corrupt authorities. As one person told me, “I appreciate everything you all are doing with this 9/11 issue, but I hope you understand, I have children; I can’t get involved with this.”

 

[the other mike]

Fear is an integral part of the human condition; and yet, if we are committed to psycho-spiritual growth, we do not let fear dictate what we do — or do not do. We can be aware of the fear while not letting it rule our lives.

Most of us were traumatized9 by watching the horrifying destruction of the Twin Towers, knowing there were thousands of our fellow humans beings killed in that moment. Some of us were deeply shaken once again when we discovered evidence suggesting that 9/11 might be a false flag operation.

Why do some of us embrace the evidence and its implications and become active, while others feel powerless or apathetic in the face of this evidence? And why do still others become defensive and stay defensive — sometimes vehemently?

Why, indeed, upon hearing the facts that contradict the official account of 9/11, do good people become silent, or worse?

What is the difference? How, for example, can some people watch World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7)10 implode and collapse into its own footprint and not see what is right in front of them — even when they learn about its near-free-fall acceleration and the other characteristics of controlled demolition? These people may feel compelled to intensify their resistance with intellectually contorted measures to convince themselves and others that this building was not rigged to implode.

Then there are those who content themselves with shaming anyone who dares investigate the data and look into the testimony that disproves the official sacred myth.

There is a worldview that is being seriously challenged here. What is it? In essence, it was described well by a journalist whom I met at a street action: “I am aware that our government does bad things, but not this! Not those towers! They would not be that evil.”

 

[Dogmaphobe]

….and then again, there are some very effective serotonin reuptake inhibitors available with a doctor's prescription.

 

[the other mike]

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-on-psychology/393-news-media-events-shure-part-21-the-role-of-the-media-act-1

Sibel Edmonds blew the whistle when, as a translator for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), she discovered and reported malfeasance by the department. Some of these allegations include information that could blow wide open the official 9/11 story.

Dubbed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America,” Edmonds was subject to the rarely applied “State Secrets Privilege” law. Violating it would mean facing prison. Nevertheless, she argues, this privilege cannot be used to cover up illegal activities that have consequences to public health, security, safety, and welfare.

So in spite of the gag orders, Edmonds offered to go public on any mainstream media outlet — print or broadcast — that would fully cover her story.69 “This is criminal activity. That’s why I went to Congress, to the Courts, to the IG [Inspector General of the FBI]. I am obligated to do so. And that’s what I’ve been doing since 2002.”70

But is Edmonds credible? Let’s see: Her allegations have been confirmed by none other than the “FBI Inspector General, several sitting Senators, both Republican and Democratic, several senior FBI agents, the 9/11 Commission, and dozens of national security and whistleblower advocacy groups.”71 One might conclude, therefore, that any rational media owner would consider her information a safe topic for coverage.

What’s going on, then? In an interview on the subject, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg put the situation in perspective:

I’d say what she has is far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers . . . . in that it deals directly with criminal activity that may involve impeachable offenses . . . . There will be phone calls going out to the media saying “don’t even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security.”72

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-on-psychology/393-news-media-events-shure-part-21-the-role-of-the-media-act-1

Sibel Edmonds blew the whistle when, as a translator for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), she discovered and reported malfeasance by the department. Some of these allegations include information that could blow wide open the official 9/11 story.

Dubbed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America,” Edmonds was subject to the rarely applied “State Secrets Privilege” law. Violating it would mean facing prison. Nevertheless, she argues, this privilege cannot be used to cover up illegal activities that have consequences to public health, security, safety, and welfare.

So in spite of the gag orders, Edmonds offered to go public on any mainstream media outlet — print or broadcast — that would fully cover her story.69 “This is criminal activity. That’s why I went to Congress, to the Courts, to the IG [Inspector General of the FBI]. I am obligated to do so. And that’s what I’ve been doing since 2002.”70

But is Edmonds credible? Let’s see: Her allegations have been confirmed by none other than the “FBI Inspector General, several sitting Senators, both Republican and Democratic, several senior FBI agents, the 9/11 Commission, and dozens of national security and whistleblower advocacy groups.”71 One might conclude, therefore, that any rational media owner would consider her information a safe topic for coverage.

What’s going on, then? In an interview on the subject, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg put the situation in perspective:

I’d say what she has is far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers . . . . in that it deals directly with criminal activity that may involve impeachable offenses . . . . There will be phone calls going out to the media saying “don’t even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security.”72

Even easier now that your "information" is controlled by half a dozen multinational corporations. Deregulating the FCC worked out really really well. For the aristocracy.

 

[MindWars]

bump