Some of you may remember that at the 2004 9/11 Omission Hearings, John Judge talked about a "Legend." Basically, a story set up for the patsies of any pivotal event. When he first talked about this, I understood him to mean that the 9/11 Report was the "Legend." Now I see people using what he said to say that everything in www.cooperativeresearch.org is the "Legend."
Thoughts?
I said to my friend, "If I posted information that said the 19 hijackers were partying at the Bush Crawford Ranch the weekend before 9/11, would that be considered as propping up the official story?"
Of course that didn't happen, but I was trying to make a point that information that was omitted and distorted regarding the hijackers is important.
You need to learn the legend before you can deconstruct it - a lot of what's on ccr is the legend (as reported in the media sources), and that's as it should be. CCR is a reference source.
Now I see people using what he said to say that everything in www.cooperativeresearch.org is the "Legend."
Yes, it seems like the people you're talking about want to skip the Legend because it's too complicated. Yet that's exactly where we can prove that they're lying. And we're supposedly LIHOP or gatekeepers because we want to understand the full story. Many of these people do not have a solid research or knowledge foundation to back up their declarations ("9/11 was an inside job"), instead they have some murky conception of a NWO.
I am reminded of an old NY 911 Truth regular "Scott Summers," who always argued that any evidence or research that treated the hijackers as real was only reinforcing the official story. I discovered this same guy distributing some pretty vile and racist flyers at St. Marks not long ago:
"You need to learn the legend before you can deconstruct it"
Right... the 9/11 Report?
You must log in to post.