This is the true smoking gun.
If you wanted to know how the people you blame on an incident carried it out, you would investigate every possible means. However, if you had some part in making sure those people succeeded because you had an agenda, you would ignore the means that you used to make sure the terror attacks shocked and awed the american people. You never investigate anything that you already know you were involved in, and if you aren't very sophisticated, or believe the people aren't that sophisticated, you immediately push some other explanation in order to deflect attention from the method used, since you know you're the guilty party.
I mean, nobody thinks the government actually planned the attacks. But it is obvious that they planned to make sure it gave them the golden ticket to enact their plans.
They even said "The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
So if you want to shock and awe everyone, what better way than to show the two tallest buildings in NYC collapsing. Everyone knew, pre-9/11 that kerosene wouldn't cause a building to collapse, and that both towers were built to withstand TWO impacts of 737s, each (because the architect remembered that a B25 hit the empire state building in 1945 during a heavy fog).
So they had to lend a few hands.
You know how some people cite "occams razor" and say the official explanation is the simplest explanation? Well, obviously this change in the story proves it wasn't the simplest explanation. And what about NORAD's first failure in its history to respond to any anomoly in flight status? The simplest explanation, according to people who want to maintain their faith in our political system is that they fucked up and just simply failed. But the true simplest answer is that a plan was in place to ensure the terrorists were not allowed to fail.
No, the government didn't plan the terror attacks. BUT, there was an ideological plan to make sure that the terror attacks became the reason to embark on the "On Rebuilding America's Defenses" plan (you know... “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”)
If you wanted to know how the people you blame on an incident carried it out, you would investigate every possible means. However, if you had some part in making sure those people succeeded because you had an agenda, you would ignore the means that you used to make sure the terror attacks shocked and awed the american people. You never investigate anything that you already know you were involved in, and if you aren't very sophisticated, or believe the people aren't that sophisticated, you immediately push some other explanation in order to deflect attention from the method used, since you know you're the guilty party.
I mean, nobody thinks the government actually planned the attacks. But it is obvious that they planned to make sure it gave them the golden ticket to enact their plans.
They even said "The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
So if you want to shock and awe everyone, what better way than to show the two tallest buildings in NYC collapsing. Everyone knew, pre-9/11 that kerosene wouldn't cause a building to collapse, and that both towers were built to withstand TWO impacts of 737s, each (because the architect remembered that a B25 hit the empire state building in 1945 during a heavy fog).
So they had to lend a few hands.
You know how some people cite "occams razor" and say the official explanation is the simplest explanation? Well, obviously this change in the story proves it wasn't the simplest explanation. And what about NORAD's first failure in its history to respond to any anomoly in flight status? The simplest explanation, according to people who want to maintain their faith in our political system is that they fucked up and just simply failed. But the true simplest answer is that a plan was in place to ensure the terrorists were not allowed to fail.
No, the government didn't plan the terror attacks. BUT, there was an ideological plan to make sure that the terror attacks became the reason to embark on the "On Rebuilding America's Defenses" plan (you know... “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”)
Posts
2 comments:
The conspiracy was between the various Islamists involved in planning, financing and providing material support for the attacks on 911.
The government is way too incompetent to orchestrate anything that would help it achieve its goals in on "the grand chessboard."
re: WTC building 7
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wtc22-2008aug22,0,5469472.story
In large part I agree with you on this, but it just makes me wonder. I mean its not exactly as if we can trust our leaders either. I think it is unfair the way that people automatically dismiss all truthers as crackpots. That was really the point of the post, I found the comment on a Digg article and thought it would help explain why people take these conspiracies seriously.
Its not as if false flag operations have never happened in any country before is it. I did dvr a show on history channel about 911 conspiracies last night and will watch it asap.
Post a Comment