From http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/290408Johnson.htm
Arizona Senator: I Want To Find Out The Truth About 9/11
State Sen. Karen Johnson explains why she went public with questions on 9/11
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
An Arizona state Senator who went public with questions over the official government version of events on 9/11 has provided further details of her position and why she chose to make her views known.
"I guess I define myself as a truth seeker, that is what I want, I want to find the truth." says Senator Karen Johnson, representative of Mesa’s District 18 for nearly two decades.
In an short interview (see video below), the Republican Senator explained that in the many in the Arizona legislature have privately told her they agree with her position but are too afraid or are unable to start asking the same questions themselves. Johnson echoed her previous statements when she told Capitol reporters "There are many of us that believe there's been a cover-up."
"There are so many unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and there never ever would have even been a Commission called for by Mr Bush and the Federal Government if it hadn't have been for the Jersey Girls." Johnson said, referring to the activist group of widowed mothers and wives from New Jersey and New York who have continued to question the events of 9/11.
"When Bush appointed Henry Kissinger, of all people, to head up that Commission, those Jersey Girls asked for a press conference with him. They went in there and started asking him about all his ties with the Bin Laden family... and he backed down." She continued.
Senator Johnson was attacked by the media for voicing her questions over 9/11 last week in the midst of a controversial debate concerning a 9/11 memorial in Arizona which contains phrases and thoughts of residents there.
The Arizona state Senate voted on legislation concerning what sort of remembrance phrases the 9/11 Memorial should include. The legislation would have extracted some locutions that were critical of the U.S. and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee had the measure passing narrowly - until it came to Johnson, whose vote against changing the memorial's phrases created a tie, killing the legislation for now.
As Johnson explains in the video, the monument was privately funded, placed on privately owned land with no State involvement. Therefore, in her opinion, the State should not claim authority over what appears on the monument, and should not claim to preside over people's opinions of the 9/11 attacks.
As shown in the video below, some of the phrases also hint at government prior knowledge of the attacks and the backing off of the intelligence agencies in the months prior to 9/11. Thanks to Karen Johnson these will remain on the monument for now.
"Who are we as a legislature to tell these private folks what they can and can't do with that monument?" Johnson commented.
Watch the Interview with Karen Johnson:
Sen. Johnson is renowned for her outspoken politics and devotion to the US constitution.
However, she will not continue in office after this year despite serving nearly two decades, because as she explains:
"I can't handle serving any longer with the folks that I sit with... The majority of them are more worried about passing a bill about talking on your cell phone as you go down the freeway than the fact that our country is falling down around us."
1 comment:
Her having/expressing the desire to learn the truth(s!) about 9/11 is the first step -- it's virtually impossible to awaken someone who is merely pretending to be asleep.
And some things about 9/11 are not in doubt:
Anyone who knows what makes a parachute work knows that gravity could not have brought the towers down, through supposedly-undamaged lower stories (the path of maximum resistance) below the impact zone in not significantly more time than it takes to fall that far through just air. And an analysis of the distribution of the sizes of the smallest [nano!]particles at ""Ground Zero"" reveals that only exotic weaponry could have caused so much destruction at the molecular level.
IOW, not even 100 airliners, hijacked or otherwise, could have caused the observed and documented damage to the WTC!
Unfortunately, the "Phoenix Memo" and "The Jersey Girls" all maintain (ie, act as if they already know "the truth") that 9/11 would have been prevented if only warnings of Muslim hijackers [sic] had been taken more seriously. But, of course, that presumes that we can take the same lying government's word for what hit the buildings, and why.
Too bad the facts call even that presumption seriously into question. But from 911truth(y).org to Charlie Sheen to Rosie to Alex Jones to Bor Bowman to AZ Senator Johnson, they simply won't ask (and seemingly cannot even hear) THOSE questions!
Is it honest to continue to blame 9/11 on 'hijackers' even after we know that we can not blame the too-rapid, too-energetic demise of the twin towers on 'airplanes'?
And, for those of you who insist that it's OK to cling to the hate-based government-sponsored cover story that blames Islamic fundamentalists, I'm still looking for an answer as to why it's widely perceived as being alright that no Democrats (and certainly no Republicans) have ever questioned President Bush's repeated, public, voluntary, inadertently incriminating 9/11 witness statements -- indicative of prior knowledge of 9/11 (whatever it was) at the highest level of the U.S. government (Bush told us he saw the *FIRST* wtc impact on TV that morning, even though THE ONLY KNOWN video of the 1st impact was unavailable to have been seen on any TV that morning! (link goes to page with FOIA response from the DoD which indicates how wrong it is to fail to scrutinize Bush's loose-lips-sink-ships statements).
Sure looks like a couple cases of fake opposition to me.
Post a Comment