A common tactic used to debunk questions surrounding the official 9/11 story is to claim that if there was inside involvement in the plot, whistleblowers would have gone public and exposed the conspiracy.
The claim assumes that conspiracies cannot be kept covered up, a fallacy disproved by the Manhattan Project. The development of the nuclear bomb was kept hidden for years before its announcement, despite the fact that thousands of individuals from all kinds of different disciplines worked on the project.
This proves that top secret, highly sensitive operations can be covered-up. In comparison to the Manhattan Project, 9/11 was miniscule in its reach, and only required the foreknowledge of dozens, not thousands of people, to be successfully carried out.
In addition, there have been numerous whistleblowers who have gone public and used the knowledge from their respective fields to dismiss the official 9/11 story.
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged woman in America, having the State Secrets Privilege imposed on her twice, went public last year to reveal that Bin Laden maintained "intimate" relations with the US right up until 9/11.
Another whistleblower is former Sergeant in the United States Army named Lauro "LJ" Chavez. Chavez was stationed at MacDill AFB where he claims he witnessed unusual preparations for a potential airplane hitting the base on the morning of 9/11 and distinctly heard officers talking about a stand down. This led him to go public in questioning the NORAD stand down and the demolition of the twin towers.
Indeed, the fact that BBC, CNN and others reported the collapse of WTC 7 before it fell was a form of blowing the whistle, as were the first responders and firefighters who have gone on record to say they saw and heard bombs tear down both Building 7 and the twin towers.
Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer was in the immediate vicinity of Building 7 before its collapse at approximately 5:20pm.
"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though," said Bartmer. "Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest."
Other EMTs and first responders were also told that Building 7 was to be deliberately demolished, including Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh - another whistleblower.
"After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage," said Singh.
Asked who told her that the building was to be "brought down," Singh responded, "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."
Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain anonymous wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
“There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he stated.
Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.
Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.
In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
“It’s blowin’ boy.” … “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.” … “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”
Just as was the case with whistleblowers who spoke out on the assassination of JFK, numerous 9/11 whistleblowers have been subjected to harassment, threats and even worse.
A dentist who met the alleged 9/11 hijackers before the attacks and warned the FBI was later poisoned to death.
A 9/11 toxic dust whistleblower, a ground zero hero and one of the individuals influential in the release of documents proving a government cover-up that deliberately put police, firemen and rescue personnel at risk, was raided by a New York SWAT team - who ransacked his home for three hours after he was arrested.
The many prominent military, government, scientific and legal officials who have all questioned the official 9/11 story are in their own right expert whistleblowers, and all to some extent have questioned or dismissed the official account.
9/11 COMMISSIONERSThe co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.
9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest“.
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
CONGRESS
According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11
Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation
Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services
Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
MILITARY LEADERSDeputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan (Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is “the dog that doesn’t hunt” (bio)
Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:
“If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot-I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to-if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!“
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:
“there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control … Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State.’ “
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said “We’ve never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I’ve seen that for a long time.”
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious
Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve Butler) said “Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism.”
Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
“I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ….
Those of us in the military took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!”
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a
21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
“This isn’t about party, it isn’t about Bush Bashing. It’s about our country, our constitution, and our future. …
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or … to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ….
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can’t handle it? …”
U.S. Navy ‘Top Gun’ pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says “When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story”.
The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S. Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul Hellyer)
Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers“. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and see this).
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war”, and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that“the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”
Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.
The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said “9/11 should have and could have been prevented”
A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).
SCIENTISTS
A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building 7 collapsed “does not match the available facts” and supports the theory that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science, America’s highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:
“I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.“
The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. … I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.”
The principal electrical engineer for the entire World Trade Center complex, who was “very familiar with the structures and [the Twin Towers'] conceptual design parameters” (Richard F. Humenn), stated that “the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel . . . . the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down.”
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:
“The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers on 9/11].”
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr. Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that “The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition.”
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream Danish newspaper, “WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building would have fallen in that direction. You don’t have to be a woodcutter to grasp this” (translated)
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers “were brought down by planted explosives.”
A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California – Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.
The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story, and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said “The official explanation that I’ve heard doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t explain why I heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the concrete was pulverized”
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of
Novato California
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia
Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland
Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California
Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona
David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)
LEGAL SCHOLARS
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence “Terry” Brunner) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government’s version of 9/11., and asks whether the Neocons were behind 9/11.
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see petition.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:
“When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or venality… But one grows up. … And with the lawyer’s training comes the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade… After a lot of reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government.”
FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS
A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being “disrespectful to the victims and their families”.
However, half of the victim’s families believe that 9/11 was an inside job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle) (and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.
Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).
And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real investigation is necessary.
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTSFinally, those who attack people who question the government’s version of 9/11 as “crazy” may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the
Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 — literally thousands — to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:
The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission
Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew “like the back of my hand” and who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview)
Perhaps “the premiere collapse expert in the country”, who 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a “very, very respected expert on building collapse”, the head of the New York Fire Department’s Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in its NYFD history, who had previously “commanded rescue operations at many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters worldwide” thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been caused by anything else (pages 5-6).
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says “The FBI, rather than trying to prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred.”
Former Minnesota Governor (Jesse Ventura) questions the government’s account of 9/11 and asks whether the World Trade Center was demolished
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice’s Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required) (Sibel Edmonds), said “If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up”. She also is leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. Some of her allegations have been confirmed in the British press.
SOURCE: http://www.911summary.com/
The aim of this blog is to identify those newsworthy events that tie in with Bible Prophecies. Then to report those findings back here. In doing so, those who read the articles may be readily informed as to where the world stands relative to the end times.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Those that are Born Again into the Spirit of God and are real Christians and are Gods chosen people and not the Zionist Jews that inhabit Israel.
There are very serious perversions of the truth being perpetrated by a certain group(s) of Zionists who are misrepresenting and masquerading as Christians who are deliberately setting out to misconstrue the truth by continually perpetrating myths about themselves and Israel as being the chosen ones over and above every other race, religion and nationality on the face of the earth.
The facts of the matter are that there is nothing anywhere in the Bible that describes the state of Israel or the Zionist Jews that inhabit Israel as being the chosen ones of God.
These said same Zionists could not be genuine Christians but are operating under a false umbrella by posing as Christians when their real intent is to further propagate the myth of the real importance of Jews and the real state of Israel in todays modern world.
There is nothing that is good, or pure, or wholesome, about Israel or the Zionist Jews that inhabit it at all.
JEWS HAVE BEGUILED Zionist-Christians into believing that they, the Jews, are God’s “chosen people.”
Jews tell Zionist-Christians that when God said to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless thee,” that He would withhold His blessings upon Christians unless they support Israel! How utterly unbiblical!
Are Christians to bless the murderers and blasphemers of Jesus Christ?
St John the Baptist did not teach an unconditional blessing upon the Jews when he rebuked them, saying, “Do not say you have Abraham for your father, for God is able to raise up from these stones sons of Abraham.” (Matthew 3).
St Peter did not teach an unconditional blessing upon the Jews when he rebuked them, saying, “You crucified the Lord of glory and must repent and be baptized.” (Acts 2).
THE BIBLE TEACHES that the Christian Church is the “Israel of God” *not* Jews. St Paul wrote in his Epistle To The Romans: “They are not all Israel who are of Israel.” The true Israel are the Christians who have embraced the coming of the Messiah Jesus. The false Israel are the Jews who rejected the coming of the Messiah Jesus.
St Paul designates 3 classes of people:
1) The Jews: Rejecters of God & His Promises.
2) The Gentiles: Rejecters of God & the Bible.
3) The Israel of God: The Christian Church. (I Cor 10; Galatians 6)
And St Paul teaches that the Christians are the seed of Abraham *not* Jews, saying, “If ye are Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” (Romans 3)
ZIONIST-CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THE MURDER of Arab children. The Lord Jesus Christ warned: “Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” (St Mark 9).
On January 31 2008, Amnesty International reported:
— “Of some 1,190 people killed in Israel’s Lebanon invasion of 2006, the vast majority were civilians not involved in the hostilities, among them hundreds of children. The majority of properties targeted in Israeli strikes were likewise civilian.”
To be a Christian is to care for Christ’s little ones. The Jews look upon Christ’s little ones as sub-humans, as taught by their hate-filled Talmud. We who confess to be Christians must rebuke the Jews and demand that they repent!
Does your blog fit into that category, if the hat fits them wear it? The links to the blogs that you favour seem to say it all.
The facts of the matter are that there is nothing anywhere in the Bible that describes the state of Israel or the Zionist Jews that inhabit Israel as being the chosen ones of God.
These said same Zionists could not be genuine Christians but are operating under a false umbrella by posing as Christians when their real intent is to further propagate the myth of the real importance of Jews and the real state of Israel in todays modern world.
There is nothing that is good, or pure, or wholesome, about Israel or the Zionist Jews that inhabit it at all.
JEWS HAVE BEGUILED Zionist-Christians into believing that they, the Jews, are God’s “chosen people.”
Jews tell Zionist-Christians that when God said to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless thee,” that He would withhold His blessings upon Christians unless they support Israel! How utterly unbiblical!
Are Christians to bless the murderers and blasphemers of Jesus Christ?
St John the Baptist did not teach an unconditional blessing upon the Jews when he rebuked them, saying, “Do not say you have Abraham for your father, for God is able to raise up from these stones sons of Abraham.” (Matthew 3).
St Peter did not teach an unconditional blessing upon the Jews when he rebuked them, saying, “You crucified the Lord of glory and must repent and be baptized.” (Acts 2).
THE BIBLE TEACHES that the Christian Church is the “Israel of God” *not* Jews. St Paul wrote in his Epistle To The Romans: “They are not all Israel who are of Israel.” The true Israel are the Christians who have embraced the coming of the Messiah Jesus. The false Israel are the Jews who rejected the coming of the Messiah Jesus.
St Paul designates 3 classes of people:
1) The Jews: Rejecters of God & His Promises.
2) The Gentiles: Rejecters of God & the Bible.
3) The Israel of God: The Christian Church. (I Cor 10; Galatians 6)
And St Paul teaches that the Christians are the seed of Abraham *not* Jews, saying, “If ye are Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” (Romans 3)
ZIONIST-CHRISTIANS SUPPORT THE MURDER of Arab children. The Lord Jesus Christ warned: “Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.” (St Mark 9).
On January 31 2008, Amnesty International reported:
— “Of some 1,190 people killed in Israel’s Lebanon invasion of 2006, the vast majority were civilians not involved in the hostilities, among them hundreds of children. The majority of properties targeted in Israeli strikes were likewise civilian.”
To be a Christian is to care for Christ’s little ones. The Jews look upon Christ’s little ones as sub-humans, as taught by their hate-filled Talmud. We who confess to be Christians must rebuke the Jews and demand that they repent!
Does your blog fit into that category, if the hat fits them wear it? The links to the blogs that you favour seem to say it all.
What do the dramatic changes that have been forecasted relative to the Lisbon Treaty mean in the perspective of the Bible Prophecies?
There is news afoot that there may be dramatic changes made to the EU Treaty within a very short period of time. Those details are reformatted below in an article by Luke Baker, but from the perspective of the Bible prophecies what are the ramifications, if any, and what are the consequences for those Christians that still are alive at the moment?
There will be a very evil man that will take control of the EU firstly, and then the whole world in a coupe de France whereby there will not be a single shot fired and he will obtain control of the EU by the use of flattery and intrigue only and then afterwards go on to control the whole globe by starting and winning a third world war. The Bible calls this man the Beast, or the Antichrist as he is commonly known as.
Therefore with the latest news in the pipeline that there are going to be quite dramatic changes made to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU Constitution, the ramifications for this can only be too obvious. It can only mean that the whole of the powers for the running of the EU could be handed over to one man, and that man could only be the president that was appointed as a result of the Lisbon Treaty in the first place, Herman Van Rompuy.
Accordingly, if that were ever to become a reality then there could be no doubts whatsoever that in Van Rompuy we would be seeing the vile creature mentioned above - the Beast. However as that has not happened at this stage and may depend on the time that it takes for these changes to be firstly approved, and then acted upon, at this stage we are only able to surmise as to future events and how they will eventually turn out.
That is not to say that events are moving at quite an alarming rate towards the fulfilment of the remainder of the Bible Prophecies.
Q+A-What lies behind Germany's push to change EU treaty?
By Luke Baker
BRUSSELS, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Germany is pushing for changes in the European Union's fundamental framework -- the Lisbon treaty -- to set up a permanent system for handling financial crises such as a sovereign debt default.
Following a deal struck in the French town of Deauville on Monday, Paris supports the initiative, meaning the two biggest and most influential EU states back the idea.
But others in the 27-country EU are sceptical about changing a document that took nearly a decade to negotiate and bring into law, and caused deep internal debate in the process.
Here are some questions and answers on the idea:
WHY DOES GERMANY WANT TO CHANGE THE TREATY?
When the Greek debt crisis exploded early this year and threatened to spread to other euro zone member states, the EU scrambled to come up with a way to handle the situation. The result was a crisis mechanism called the European Financial Stability Fund, a 500-billion-euro safety net put together in May this year with IMF help.
Germany was reluctant to set up the EFSF and remains uncomfortable about it, in large part because it comes dangerously close to violating a clause in the Lisbon treaty against financial bailouts, is taxpayer funded, and has led to legal challenges in Germany's highest court.
The EFSF will expire in 2013. Germany wants to have a more-structured, permanent crisis resolution mechanism in place after that. To do so, and to ensure it is legally sound, the Lisbon treaty would have to be changed.
WHAT DO OTHER EU MEMBER STATES THINK?
While France has indicated it will back Germany in pushing for changes to the treaty, most of the remaining 25 EU member states are thought to be wary of such a move.
In many countries, such as Ireland, Britain, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, it took a lot of political will and years of handwringing to win approval for the Lisbon treaty, which like all EU treaties had to be unanimously backed by member states and approved by parliament or by referendum.
Reopening the treaty to make changes would again prove divisive and politically dangerous. In countries such as Ireland, which is going through its own Greek-style debt and deficit crisis, there is almost no appetite for such a move.
However, signs are emerging that there may be more support for the idea than originally thought.
For example, Britain has indicated that it could support a change as long as any alterations pertain only to the 16 countries in the EU that use the euro. If that is the case, it would not mean any transfer of power from Britain to Brussels and therefore the move could be approved by parliament without the need to go to the nation for a referendum.
However, ordinary Conservative members of the British parliament are highly sensitive to any sense that the EU is interfering with British affairs and are likely to oppose treaty change, potentially destabilising the Conservative coalition with the centre-left Liberal Democrats.
In several other member states, such as Finland, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, there is a sense that while governments would prefer not to change the Lisbon treaty, it may be the only way to guarantee a permanent crisis mechanism and stave off the threat of another Greek-style meltdown.
WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?
EU leaders will meet in Brussels on Oct. 28-29 for a summit at which they are expected to debate the treaty change issue. If they agree, they could give Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, a mandate to explore the issue further. In a statement made after their Deauville deal, France and Germany said they would like to have concrete proposals on treaty change prepared before an EU leaders' summit in March 2011.
EU sources have told Reuters that Van Rompuy has already held extensive discussions with EU leaders about the issue and appointed the leader of a treaty change team even before he secures a mandate -- a sign he is confident of getting one.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS IF COUNTRIES AGREE TO CHANGE THE TREATY?
The biggest risk is that once the treaty is in play, every EU member state steps forward with its own proposal for changes -- the Pandora's Box scenario. This would risk unravelling the document that is supposed to hold the EU and its institutions together. The key is for any treaty change to be tightly and carefully defined, so that one tweak -- which in the Germany case could potentially be the addition of just one or two clauses -- does not lead to a destructive free-for-all.
WHAT HAPPENS IF CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE TREATY?
If -- and it's a big if that has to negotiate a great number of hurdles first -- there is backing for treaty change and changes are made, they would have to be approved unanimously by all 27 member states and then ratified by each country, in some cases in a referendum. That process could take many months. In the case of the Lisbon treaty, it took two years between the signing of the treaty in the Portuguese capital on Dec. 13, 2007, and its entering into force on Dec. 1, 2009, after all member states had ratified it.
There will be a very evil man that will take control of the EU firstly, and then the whole world in a coupe de France whereby there will not be a single shot fired and he will obtain control of the EU by the use of flattery and intrigue only and then afterwards go on to control the whole globe by starting and winning a third world war. The Bible calls this man the Beast, or the Antichrist as he is commonly known as.
Therefore with the latest news in the pipeline that there are going to be quite dramatic changes made to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU Constitution, the ramifications for this can only be too obvious. It can only mean that the whole of the powers for the running of the EU could be handed over to one man, and that man could only be the president that was appointed as a result of the Lisbon Treaty in the first place, Herman Van Rompuy.
Accordingly, if that were ever to become a reality then there could be no doubts whatsoever that in Van Rompuy we would be seeing the vile creature mentioned above - the Beast. However as that has not happened at this stage and may depend on the time that it takes for these changes to be firstly approved, and then acted upon, at this stage we are only able to surmise as to future events and how they will eventually turn out.
That is not to say that events are moving at quite an alarming rate towards the fulfilment of the remainder of the Bible Prophecies.
Q+A-What lies behind Germany's push to change EU treaty?
By Luke Baker
BRUSSELS, Oct 22 (Reuters) - Germany is pushing for changes in the European Union's fundamental framework -- the Lisbon treaty -- to set up a permanent system for handling financial crises such as a sovereign debt default.
Following a deal struck in the French town of Deauville on Monday, Paris supports the initiative, meaning the two biggest and most influential EU states back the idea.
But others in the 27-country EU are sceptical about changing a document that took nearly a decade to negotiate and bring into law, and caused deep internal debate in the process.
Here are some questions and answers on the idea:
WHY DOES GERMANY WANT TO CHANGE THE TREATY?
When the Greek debt crisis exploded early this year and threatened to spread to other euro zone member states, the EU scrambled to come up with a way to handle the situation. The result was a crisis mechanism called the European Financial Stability Fund, a 500-billion-euro safety net put together in May this year with IMF help.
Germany was reluctant to set up the EFSF and remains uncomfortable about it, in large part because it comes dangerously close to violating a clause in the Lisbon treaty against financial bailouts, is taxpayer funded, and has led to legal challenges in Germany's highest court.
The EFSF will expire in 2013. Germany wants to have a more-structured, permanent crisis resolution mechanism in place after that. To do so, and to ensure it is legally sound, the Lisbon treaty would have to be changed.
WHAT DO OTHER EU MEMBER STATES THINK?
While France has indicated it will back Germany in pushing for changes to the treaty, most of the remaining 25 EU member states are thought to be wary of such a move.
In many countries, such as Ireland, Britain, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, it took a lot of political will and years of handwringing to win approval for the Lisbon treaty, which like all EU treaties had to be unanimously backed by member states and approved by parliament or by referendum.
Reopening the treaty to make changes would again prove divisive and politically dangerous. In countries such as Ireland, which is going through its own Greek-style debt and deficit crisis, there is almost no appetite for such a move.
However, signs are emerging that there may be more support for the idea than originally thought.
For example, Britain has indicated that it could support a change as long as any alterations pertain only to the 16 countries in the EU that use the euro. If that is the case, it would not mean any transfer of power from Britain to Brussels and therefore the move could be approved by parliament without the need to go to the nation for a referendum.
However, ordinary Conservative members of the British parliament are highly sensitive to any sense that the EU is interfering with British affairs and are likely to oppose treaty change, potentially destabilising the Conservative coalition with the centre-left Liberal Democrats.
In several other member states, such as Finland, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, there is a sense that while governments would prefer not to change the Lisbon treaty, it may be the only way to guarantee a permanent crisis mechanism and stave off the threat of another Greek-style meltdown.
WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?
EU leaders will meet in Brussels on Oct. 28-29 for a summit at which they are expected to debate the treaty change issue. If they agree, they could give Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, a mandate to explore the issue further. In a statement made after their Deauville deal, France and Germany said they would like to have concrete proposals on treaty change prepared before an EU leaders' summit in March 2011.
EU sources have told Reuters that Van Rompuy has already held extensive discussions with EU leaders about the issue and appointed the leader of a treaty change team even before he secures a mandate -- a sign he is confident of getting one.
WHAT ARE THE RISKS IF COUNTRIES AGREE TO CHANGE THE TREATY?
The biggest risk is that once the treaty is in play, every EU member state steps forward with its own proposal for changes -- the Pandora's Box scenario. This would risk unravelling the document that is supposed to hold the EU and its institutions together. The key is for any treaty change to be tightly and carefully defined, so that one tweak -- which in the Germany case could potentially be the addition of just one or two clauses -- does not lead to a destructive free-for-all.
WHAT HAPPENS IF CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE TREATY?
If -- and it's a big if that has to negotiate a great number of hurdles first -- there is backing for treaty change and changes are made, they would have to be approved unanimously by all 27 member states and then ratified by each country, in some cases in a referendum. That process could take many months. In the case of the Lisbon treaty, it took two years between the signing of the treaty in the Portuguese capital on Dec. 13, 2007, and its entering into force on Dec. 1, 2009, after all member states had ratified it.
Gollum
Gollum is the most mysterious and contradictory character in the fantasy adventure “The Lord of the Rings”. He got his nickname from a clicking sound he made from time to time with his throat which sounded like “gollum”. Such noises could express practically anything: excitement and delight, sadness and fury, and other feelings.'
Gollum’s life can be divided into several periods, although gathered information is not that reliable. Before the Ring came into his possession, Gollum was a hobbit of the tribe of the Stoors, who lived near the Gladden Fields. His actual name was Smeagol, a translation of his Westron name, which means “burrow-deep”. Once Smeagol with his friend Deagol went fishing and they fished the One Ring out of the Anduin. No one suspected its destructive force at that time. But the ring perniciously worked on the hobbit’s consciousness and Smeagol even strangled his friend in order to get the Ring. However he called the Ring his birthday present and said it came from his grandmother, who had lots of beautiful things of that kind.'
Smeagol came from a big and well-off family, where grandmother, strict and faithful to old customs, was a matriarch. Smeagol was rather strong and crafty. But he never aimed to be first at anything, “his head and his eyes were downward”. Possessing the Ring, it corrupted him in such a way that Smeagol even became an outsider and, hating the sun and its warmth ever more, took refuge in a cave under the Misty Mountains. His constant telling of lies became one of his main qualities, which he wouldn’t part with throughout the story. Only fear and Sauron’s tortures made Smeagol say something close to the truth. Here what Gandalf says about Gollum: “Gollum is a liar, and you have to sift his words”.
Being a hobbit, Gollum got a kind of absolute power which entirely seized his thoughts. He found that no one in his family could see him, when he was wearing the Ring. He was very pleased with his discovery and he concealed it; and he used it to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. Because of this, his relatives were not too fond of him. “His grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole”. After that Gollum lived in a cave, dreading the sun light. The Ring made him its slave.
Gollum is a self-centred and egoistic creature. This is proved not only by the above-mentioned facts but also by his betrayal of Frodo and Sam. Gollum swore on “his precious” and broke his oath.
Gollum’s favourite food was fish and goblins, which could be found in the Misty Mountains. He dwelt on an island, as slithery as he was, near a mountainous cold lake. Although the Ring was sucking his energy out, it extended his life but changed his appearance completely. Gollum became wild, he himself looked black, with big shimmering eyes and big paddling feet.
More than anything he liked Riddle-games. Once, a very long time ago, before the Ring came into his hands, he liked to give them to his friends. When Bilbo accidentally met Gollum in his cave he gave Bilbo some riddles but eventually lost the contest. At that time Bilbo could easily do away with this creature, but didn’t do that. As though Providence itself prompted Bilbo not to kill Gollum.
Gollum played his own special role in “The Lord of the Rings”. He showed Frodo and Sam a secret way to Mordor. If he hadn’t been on Orodruin at the right time, Frodo would have become a new Master of the Ring. However, Gollum bit off Frodo’s finger along with the Ring, but, having slipped, fell into the fire.
It is difficult to judge Gollum and his acts unequivocally. “Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed – as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things. But that, of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end – unless it could be conquered. Unless it could be cured.” – says Gandalf; it is difficult not to agree with him.
His longing for the Ring made Gollum wander through the lands of Middle-earth. In T.A. 3017 he was caught by Sauron. Having being tortured, Gollum told him about the Ring’s fate. What Sauron learned from Gollum was the name of Baggins and the Shire.
Shortly after that Aragorn caught Gollum and brought him to Gandalf. Gollum was terribly afraid of everything and his tale was incoherent, “together with much snivelling and snarling”. He had strange hopes towards Evil and thought he “had good friends now, good friends and very strong. They would help him. Baggins would pay for it”.
Gollum’s primary objective was to take revenge on Bilbo Baggins and regain the Ring. During the journey of the Fellowship of the Ring, he followed them and traced “his precious”. Gollum even escaped from the realm of the elves, into whose guard he was given. Being a slave of the Ring, hating the sun, he stealthily followed the Company.
Gollum wormed himself into Frodo and Sam’s confidence. He did all that he was asked to do, although reluctantly, uttering creaking sounds. Gollum brought the hobbits to Shelob’s web, to a huge and wicked spider whom Gollum had promised to bring victims. He hoped that the monster would get rid of the things, including “his precious”. However, Sam saw a trap in that and everything turned out to be fine.
We cannot but admire Gollum’s restlessness. He reached Orodruin and there took “his precious” into his possession … that time forever.
Of course, Gollum is a negative character. Although, he hates both Good and Evil, he takes neither side. In the War of the Ring he plays for himself, strives to reach only his aims. He can be tamed, but, for the sake of what?
We can only sympathize with Gollum. During all his life he was under the Ring’s influence. Together with it, celebrating the regaining of his precious, he falls into the fire. This outcome is rather predictable. He successfully accomplishes the Company of Nine’s mission, although not desperately wanting to save the world.
Gollum’s life can be divided into several periods, although gathered information is not that reliable. Before the Ring came into his possession, Gollum was a hobbit of the tribe of the Stoors, who lived near the Gladden Fields. His actual name was Smeagol, a translation of his Westron name, which means “burrow-deep”. Once Smeagol with his friend Deagol went fishing and they fished the One Ring out of the Anduin. No one suspected its destructive force at that time. But the ring perniciously worked on the hobbit’s consciousness and Smeagol even strangled his friend in order to get the Ring. However he called the Ring his birthday present and said it came from his grandmother, who had lots of beautiful things of that kind.'
Smeagol came from a big and well-off family, where grandmother, strict and faithful to old customs, was a matriarch. Smeagol was rather strong and crafty. But he never aimed to be first at anything, “his head and his eyes were downward”. Possessing the Ring, it corrupted him in such a way that Smeagol even became an outsider and, hating the sun and its warmth ever more, took refuge in a cave under the Misty Mountains. His constant telling of lies became one of his main qualities, which he wouldn’t part with throughout the story. Only fear and Sauron’s tortures made Smeagol say something close to the truth. Here what Gandalf says about Gollum: “Gollum is a liar, and you have to sift his words”.
Being a hobbit, Gollum got a kind of absolute power which entirely seized his thoughts. He found that no one in his family could see him, when he was wearing the Ring. He was very pleased with his discovery and he concealed it; and he used it to find out secrets, and he put his knowledge to crooked and malicious uses. Because of this, his relatives were not too fond of him. “His grandmother, desiring peace, expelled him from the family and turned him out of her hole”. After that Gollum lived in a cave, dreading the sun light. The Ring made him its slave.
Gollum is a self-centred and egoistic creature. This is proved not only by the above-mentioned facts but also by his betrayal of Frodo and Sam. Gollum swore on “his precious” and broke his oath.
Gollum’s favourite food was fish and goblins, which could be found in the Misty Mountains. He dwelt on an island, as slithery as he was, near a mountainous cold lake. Although the Ring was sucking his energy out, it extended his life but changed his appearance completely. Gollum became wild, he himself looked black, with big shimmering eyes and big paddling feet.
More than anything he liked Riddle-games. Once, a very long time ago, before the Ring came into his hands, he liked to give them to his friends. When Bilbo accidentally met Gollum in his cave he gave Bilbo some riddles but eventually lost the contest. At that time Bilbo could easily do away with this creature, but didn’t do that. As though Providence itself prompted Bilbo not to kill Gollum.
Gollum played his own special role in “The Lord of the Rings”. He showed Frodo and Sam a secret way to Mordor. If he hadn’t been on Orodruin at the right time, Frodo would have become a new Master of the Ring. However, Gollum bit off Frodo’s finger along with the Ring, but, having slipped, fell into the fire.
It is difficult to judge Gollum and his acts unequivocally. “Even Gollum was not wholly ruined. He had proved tougher than even one of the Wise would have guessed – as a hobbit might. There was a little corner of his mind that was still his own, and light came through it, as through a chink in the dark: light out of the past. It was actually pleasant, I think, to hear a kindly voice again, bringing up memories of wind, and trees, and sun on the grass, and such forgotten things. But that, of course, would only make the evil part of him angrier in the end – unless it could be conquered. Unless it could be cured.” – says Gandalf; it is difficult not to agree with him.
His longing for the Ring made Gollum wander through the lands of Middle-earth. In T.A. 3017 he was caught by Sauron. Having being tortured, Gollum told him about the Ring’s fate. What Sauron learned from Gollum was the name of Baggins and the Shire.
Shortly after that Aragorn caught Gollum and brought him to Gandalf. Gollum was terribly afraid of everything and his tale was incoherent, “together with much snivelling and snarling”. He had strange hopes towards Evil and thought he “had good friends now, good friends and very strong. They would help him. Baggins would pay for it”.
Gollum’s primary objective was to take revenge on Bilbo Baggins and regain the Ring. During the journey of the Fellowship of the Ring, he followed them and traced “his precious”. Gollum even escaped from the realm of the elves, into whose guard he was given. Being a slave of the Ring, hating the sun, he stealthily followed the Company.
Gollum wormed himself into Frodo and Sam’s confidence. He did all that he was asked to do, although reluctantly, uttering creaking sounds. Gollum brought the hobbits to Shelob’s web, to a huge and wicked spider whom Gollum had promised to bring victims. He hoped that the monster would get rid of the things, including “his precious”. However, Sam saw a trap in that and everything turned out to be fine.
We cannot but admire Gollum’s restlessness. He reached Orodruin and there took “his precious” into his possession … that time forever.
Of course, Gollum is a negative character. Although, he hates both Good and Evil, he takes neither side. In the War of the Ring he plays for himself, strives to reach only his aims. He can be tamed, but, for the sake of what?
We can only sympathize with Gollum. During all his life he was under the Ring’s influence. Together with it, celebrating the regaining of his precious, he falls into the fire. This outcome is rather predictable. He successfully accomplishes the Company of Nine’s mission, although not desperately wanting to save the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)