by James Hufferd, Ph.D. Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
x x x
What should be our tone when addressing the unsuspecting or spineless world with the truth we know from evidence? Language doesn’t matter, and facts are facts by any other name, right? Wrong. Language used expresses not only facts (and even better, non-facts), but is itself factual. In a world of intense human dispute, words are actions. Let us, then, take every precaution not to misspeak.
“What, then, is 911 Truth about?” you will be asked. “Does it have to do with the 9/11 attacks?”
Not if you give a damn, it doesn’t. The construction “9/11 attacks” could, philologically, designate a hit from any quarter. But, in practice, that phrase has been appropriated long since as shorthand for “attacks by foreign terrorists”. The phrase is emotive. It’s sort of a rallying cry, requiring no further explanation, against designated foreign S.O.B.s. And since we are privileged to know, from the evidence, that no foreign S.O.B.s were actually responsible for the cataclysm that befell this nation on 9/11, deliberately compounded by nonstop serial cataclysms following permitted by it and perpetrated both here and abroad ever since, our continued use of the term “9/11 attacks”, to refer to the original, main, catalyst set of cataclysms on that date, is wrong. Our continuing to so refer can only work counterproductively against our stated intended purpose of exposing the enormous lie and defusing its mega-force long train of aftershock-like horrors.
So, if “attacks” is out, as far as truthspeak goes, what designator is in? Some suggest “events” – the “events of 9/11”, because that is neutral ground. Which might be fine if you want to remain neutral. (See “neut” in your standard dictionary.) If you want to be more accurate and effective, though, I suggest you adopt the phrase “crimes of 9/11” to designate those particular events. Why is “crimes” a better word for us to employ, consistently, than the not-unacceptable, but rather neutered word, “events”?
Because “events” happen – more like “acts of god”. “Crimes”, on the other hand, are intentionally committed. They’re inescapably prosecutable. They are unacceptable and they demand expiation. The unconscionable, heinous, murderous and, indeed, treasonous acts of 9/11 are like that. Furthermore, referring to the “crimes of 9/11” knocks people back on their heels a bit – which it should. There’s no escaping what we mean if we use the term “crimes”. That the designation “9/11” itself carries a wallop is indisputable, the choice of that date – an echoing of earlier atrocities to boot – for committing the gross crimes associated and making them look to sheep and lackeys like “attacks” was part of the élite perps’ limited span of genius, manifestly intended to invoke a powerful response. And we want to reverse that reaction and employ it against the genuine perpetrators. Thus, we hurl the defiant word (in this case) “crimes” up against the criminals – the élite bandits of our lives and world – invoking the truth residing more than adequately in the abundant courtroom-ready evidence against the dazzling webs of myth and the befuddlers, as should have been done, as with any common crime committed, from the very start.
Justice is served in our land by the powerful legal apparatus defined and mandated by our Constitution. And yet, in this mother of all test cases (9/11) justice has not been in any wise served. To say that the deception depicted as proper (sic) “payback”, in gangland fashion, when Usama bin Laden was purportedly murdered in 2011 was “justice for 9/11”, especially when there is no prosecutable or credible evidence of his guilt or involvement, was injustice six ways from Sunday. No more so than torturing Khalid Sheik Muhammad into agreeing that he shot Lincoln would have been. Let the world know the cut of what the world-beating élite calls evidence and justice! Meanwhile, the crimes are still open to the operation of justice by the justice system we all trusted growing up. Justice is sometimes a long time coming. But don’t stop believing in it when crimes have been committed – no matter how smugly.
Other words matter, too. Don’t call the real perpetrators “terrorists” or the “real terrorists”. Technically, they are terrorists. But, that word has been appropriated long, long since to refer to the 19 patsies designated, set up, and made to look to the inattentive multitudes like they did it. No, use the word “perpetrators” or “the planners” or “those who carried out the crimes”, so as not to confuse or invoke the long-since indelible false images purposely conveyed by the phrase “9/11 terrorists”.
Be careful and don’t play their game. Make it about them (the perpetrators), and not about squalid, play-acting shills incapable of much else. Lackey shills and patsies who survived the day of the devastating crimes, because they were pulled out or kept out of the devious black op action, for which the world has paid far too much.
Time now to clearly bring forth the facts. As with one clear voice.