Permanent War Economy...

Media profits.

Defense profits.

Military contractors profit.

Surveillance state profits.

Death lines the pockets of many of the people in places of high power.

This is what I want to show people when they ask "so they did it for oil?". It's bigger than that my friend. Waaaaaay bigger.

Please help report and down vote all irrelevant posts to prevent forum sliding.

[deleted]

[deleted]

http://media.giphy.com/media/MnWbFsmlpcBKU/giphy.gif

[deleted]

http://media.giphy.com/media/hPrbhIhliAvwA/giphy.gif

http://imgur.com/ieJ9GCv

http://media.giphy.com/media/aM0ckKTQCPfA4/giphy.gif

http://imgur.com/uwwEoME

http://media.giphy.com/media/Qw4X3FnmFFCPANtlhtK/giphy.gif

http://imgur.com/dORnL2R

http://media.giphy.com/media/joXtIlEbFrsA/giphy.gif

http://imgur.com/ofuT0XJ

A lot of these statements are wrong. There's no doubt 9/11 opened up the flood gates but tyranny has existed for hundreds of years.

Is anyone in this thread old enough to clearly remember 9/11? It was a shocking event, but the craziest thing happened in the weeks following: People united. I can't even put in to words what it felt like. Everywhere I went, when I looked someone in the eye, we just connected. We shared a bond.

Unfortunately we turned the bond into war. Just imagine if we took it in the other direction.

RIP Phil Donahue's career

Be careful with that edge.

I would fight to the death for your right to spout your ignorance

Your so brave

no, you're

http://imgur.com/C69ZsBN

Without 9/11 there would be no war in Afghanistan.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA THAT'S HILARIOUS

Without 9/11 there would be no "war on terror" in Afghanistan Less funny and more real for you now?

Does any of this explain why the controlled demolition was nessesary? The risk/reward of being caught doesn't seem to be apparent here.

To make sure the buildings came down. If they didn't, I don't think the "trauma" on US citizens would've been the same.

"this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Ah, good ole PNAC traitors.

What are you basing that on? I would say that the entire hype around 9/11 was the fact that planes were hijacked and flew into buildings. An attack on home soil, not that the buildings collapsed.

And any risk/reward analysis completely goes out the window when you look at WTC7's "demolition".

I never said planes didn't hit, I believe they did. But, they also needed to make sure they came down. They knew the planes could damage the building but not bring it down.

And any risk/reward analysis completely goes out the window when you look at WTC7's "demolition".

The plane that was shot down in Shanksville was supposed to hit WTC 7.

And I didn't say that you don't think the planes hit. Just that the job was done as soon as the planes hit the buildings.

The plane that was shot down in Shanksville was supposed to hit WTC 7.

Who do you think highjacked the planes to allow for such an integral part of the plan to fall away?

And I didn't say that you don't think the planes hit. Just that the job was done as soon as the planes hit the buildings.

What do you mean the job was done as soon as the planes hit?

Who do you think highjacked the planes to allow for such an integral part of the plan to fall away?

It's not a matter of who hijacked it, it's a matter of if an air force pilot actually did his/her job on that day and succeeded in shooting it down (ie. not part of the plot). So a cover story needed to be created because of this variable. Operations don't go 100% according to plan, ya know.

edit: a few words.

What do you mean the job was done as soon as the planes hit?

I don't think anything in the OP's list would be different if the planes had hit the buildings and they didn't collapse.

It's not a matter of who hijacked it, it's a matter of if an air force pilot actually did his/her job on that day and succeeded in shooting it down (ie. not part of the plot). So a cover story needed to be created because of this variable.

I'm sorry but I genuinely think that is unbelievably absurd. With the amount of stages you need to go through to scramble a jet in the first place, you don't think this was one of the first things the cabal thought of disrupting?

They had thousands of kilograms of thermite in Tower 7. How unbelievably lucky they were that debris from Tower 1 hit it. Otherwise there would be literally no reason for the building to come down. And you propose that they waited for seven hours of the fires burning, hoping the thermite charges weren't compromised, to bring down the building in a progressive global collapse.

Even if a third plane hit WTC7, would you say it is worth the risk to rig it for demolition? I believe smuggling super secret documents from an office building is significantly easier than the process of prepping a building for implosion.

The planes may have been remote controlled they don't look like passenger jets and that explains the vic-sims and faked phone calls as well as no plane hitting building 7 and shanksville and the 3 implosions.

That doesn't explain no plane hitting WTC7. Not in the fucking slightest. You're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that they let a remote controlled jet be shot down while they have a building rigged with nano-thermite?! Just clinging to the hope that some debris from Tower 1 hits WTC7. I'm sorry but that doesn't answer jack shit.

Nah I was thinking more along the lines of they fucked up somehow and crashed that plane which was supposed to be the excuse for building 7 falling, so when it didn't happen they just said fuck it we'll say rubble/fires made it fall they are sheeple and won't know anyways.

Sounds like you are clutching at straws. Do you also believe a drone missile hit the Pentagon?

So let me get this straight.. You think that there was a remote controlled plane that was headed to WTC7 (ignoring the passengers on the original flights). Someone dun goofed and crashed the thing. Potential catastrophy for them, they'll get found out if they bring down the building with no reason. So they made up the debris damage/fires it created. Faked the photos of the damage/smoke and testimoney given. Then let civilians film the collapse?! Hoping that there was no brilliant bright flashes (thermite) or incredibly loud detonations recorded.

Oh, and this is all done in a manner that is completely undetected by researchers on retainer from Aegis Insurance. Investigating the buildings for evidence of negligence (super duper behzinga-thermite induced collapse would certainly qualify).

Buuuuuut I'll let you guess what their model and sworn testimoney served to back up...

I was just theorizing based off of the other comments I have no idea what happened, all i know is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU looks very similar to the collapse of towers 1 and 2, and 7 had no airplane hit it.

What happened to the 3 buildings to make them fall the same way? I think this is the real question that we need a concrete answer for. -edit forgot to answer this. From what i've dug up over the years it seems like the FBI or whoever took all the good footage from the areas surrounding the Pentagon to cover up what really happened.

I think for the WTC buildings..... they were rigged so all the core columns would be severed at the same time (thermite?)

The Pentagon must have had a bomb? Seeing that the area that exploded allegedly contained key information regarding the missing trillions. Rumsfeld announced that this money was gone on 9/10.

Yes, and when you try to put together the "inconsistancies" to fit another alternate narraitive, I falls apart spectacuarly.

Looking only at a video of the collapse is not a good way to determine similarities between them. Even in the videos, the collapses are not alike, you can see the progressive collapse. The penthouse comes down first, then due to other failures, the facade falls afterwards.

You are mistaken in thinking that all three came down in a similar fashion. I know you won't accept NIST's explaination, but for the people who know this wasn't a demolition job, Tower 7 is explained.

Falls apart back to what? The official narrative? The official narrative has so many inconsistencies. The mainstream media's marginalization campaign silences all the people who ask questions by painting them as "conspiracy theorists" (weaponized language). That term has been made out as something only a crazy person could be by media for decades. Basically what I am trying to say is the REASON people have to ask questions and attempt to come up with an alternate narrative is because the official one is so full of holes.

Next... you have to tell me WHY Looking only at a video of the collapse is not a good way to determine similarities between them. You say this and then proceed to use your perception of the videos to prove that the collapses aren't similar even though you just said that using the video to compare the collapses is not a good way to compare them...

Who are these people who KNOW that "this" wasn't a demolition job? Where are they to answer the questions that the people have been asking questions for years and years about tower 7 and why are you able to say that Tower 7 is explained without being able to explain it to me?

What I'm saying is that when you attempt to piece together all of the "holes" in the "official story" your narrative falls immensly short when put under the same scrutiny. Piecing together various "inconsistancies" that have probably been explained numurous times to each individual, is not a good way to construct an idea. Honestly, the only reason your ideas of "holes in the story" are not extinct is because of memetic reproduction, not because they hold any weight.

Next... you have to tell me WHY Looking only at a video of the collapse is not a good way to determine similarities between them.

I'm truly and utterly amazed you asked this. Can you see what is going on inside the building from the video evidence? Nope. WTC7 was constructed completely different to 1&2. A fire induced progressive global collapse could not have occurred in 1&2 due to the load bearing.

So, the manner in which they collapse is not alike. And the cause of their collapse is not alike. Would you like to elaborate on how they are similar? Other than "they both fell down".

Who are these people who KNOW that "this" wasn't a demolition job?

The scientists who built a model at Edinbourgh University know it wasn't an intentional implosion. Pretty sure the NIST report covered it also. So would you care to elaborate on why these two groups are lying?

people have been asking questions for years and years about tower 7

There are still people who believe the world is flat, 6000 years old and evolution cannot happen. They "ask questions" pretty often, that doesn't mean when they get a rational response they will take it on board. Its the exact same thing with the Truther community.

and why are you able to say that Tower 7 is explained without being able to explain it to me?

You didn't ask me to explain it to you. What would you like to know? Also, do us both a favour and do a quick search before you ask me. I don't want to be regurgitating stuff that you won't listen to for no reason.

In your first paragraph you aren't telling me how! You are just decreeing it so, and memetic production!?!? Things weren't classified as "memes" on the internet back when most of the good un tainted information regarding 9/11 was dug up by free thinking independent researchers. So i vehemently disagree with this paragraph.

Ok in your 2nd paragraph you attempt to mock me just because I want you held accountable for the things you type. Next you bring up a good point we can't see the inside, but that is consistent in all 3 collapses.

"WTC7 was constructed completely different to 1&2" I know that buildings 1 and 2 were constructed to withstand the impact of major jetliners. Do you have any good sources for the differences between 1/2 and 7's construction I am genuinely curious now as you raise a good point here.

"A fire induced progressive global collapse could not have occurred in 1&2 due to the load bearing" so you are saying that you think that the building 7 event was "A fire induced progressive global collapse" ?? or what was your point here

paragraph 3 http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-are-nists-911-wtc-reports-false-and-unscientific/5399091 is a good article on NIST and ive seen youtube videos (I know I know) but i'm not gonna dig right now until you tackle what that article says. Im not familiar with the Edinbourgh University model perhaps you'll actually provide a link to what you reference next time.

Paragraph 4 logical fallacy, and you make me sick by using that word Truther, another example of weaponized language. Stop trying to label me and answer my questions, keep in mind that the burden of proof falls on you when you throw out information....

There was only a small office fire in WTC 7. The demolition with liquid metal pouring out of the sides and fumes of smoke shooting out from the side was filmed. Explosions were heard by eyewitnesses, including firefighters. Nobody cares. Look, anyone that has cared even half a shit, and looked at the evidence would not believe the official government conspiracy theory.

Look, anyone that has cared even half a shit, and looked at the evidence would not believe the official government conspiracy theory.

I used to be in the same boat as you, I mean I was a kid, but still look upon the "masses" as complete and utter idiots. Until I started self-examining my own beliefs which I encourage you to do also. Don't dismiss our conversation out of hand, that's all I ask.

There was only a small office fire in WTC 7.

That is just simply not true in the slightest. The fire had up to ten points of origin caused by the debris hitting from the North Tower. It was unfought by fire fighters and sprinkler systems. Fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth. It was not a "small fire", not in the slightest.

The demolition with liquid metal pouring out of the sides

Molten material flowing out of WTC1, not WTC7. This is not evidence of thermite. To believe as such, you would need to think that these thermite charges were set off minutes before hand, melted through the steel. The structure then remained intact for long enough whilest this molten material ran out of the window. Can you see the problem with this idea?

Explosions were heard by eyewitnesses, including firefighters.

Another falsehood. No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Honestly, I know you will move onto another "inconsistancy". But do try to address the points made.

It was an occult ritual. Towers had to come down to unleash a century of Evil upon the world.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/14utv0/911_was_an_occult_megaritual_the_numbers_of_the_4/

http://www.reddit.com/r/axolotl_peyotl/comments/21roh5/911_aleister_crowley_and_nefarious_numerology_was/

Are... Are you being serious?

Deadly serious.

Did you read those links? Do you know anything about the occult? Numerology? The Order of Skull & Bones? Whether you believe in this or not, it doesn't matter; I assure you that there are very powerful people who do.

Posted two years ago, predicted an attack on Pheonix at Christmas. Could you point me towards when that happened?

I'm not going to waste however much time it would take to trawl through that. If you believe the occult has some basis in reality and can affect the world, you need to re-examine your beliefs. No matter how powerful they are, it doesn't change how demonstrably wrong they also are.

You do realize that if the Phoenix prediction had come true, it would have then let the cat out of the bag, right? Once you reveal the opposition's cards, they can no longer play them.

There are veils of perception, some have the ability to lift them and some do not. Some grow into the ability.

If you were to take the time to read through the entire post (or "The Most Dangerous Book in the World," which is where the information is sourced from), I genuinely believe if you have any kind of intellectual curiosity at all you will find it fascinating and food for thought.

Perhaps occult power has no literal meaningful bearing that influences world events beyond the numerological and astrological impetus driving practitioners of the dark arts to their deliberately scheduled actions and chosen behaviors. I do not know. But I do know that they are deliberately scheduled.

This is not theory or hypothesis. I've run up against these people throughout my life, I have been propositioned to join one of their orders on more than one occasion. They are real. They are plotting. You do yourself and your loved ones a disservice by dismissing it all out of hand.

I appreciate your generally civil response, and I don't blame you at all for your dubious nature. We all, but for the families inside the Order(s), are conditioned from birth to dismiss any consideration of dimensions ouside the ones we can physically experience.

Best of luck to you, it sounds like your heart is in the right place. When all hell breaks loose, as it seems as it will in the next year or so, I hope you recall this correspondence and allow it to have at least a bit of bearing on your behaviors as we all struggle to adapt.

And I didn't say that you don't think the planes hit. Just that the job was done as soon as the planes hit the buildings.

The plane that was shot down in Shanksville was supposed to hit WTC 7.

Who do you think highjacked the planes to allow for such an integral part of the plan to fall away?

And I didn't say that you don't think the planes hit. Just that the job was done as soon as the planes hit the buildings.

What do you mean the job was done as soon as the planes hit?

Who do you think highjacked the planes to allow for such an integral part of the plan to fall away?

It's not a matter of who hijacked it, it's a matter of if an air force pilot actually did his/her job on that day and succeeded in shooting it down (ie. not part of the plot). So a cover story needed to be created because of this variable. Operations don't go 100% according to plan, ya know.

edit: a few words.

Deadly serious.

Did you read those links? Do you know anything about the occult? Numerology? The Order of Skull & Bones? Whether you believe in this or not, it doesn't matter; I assure you that there are very powerful people who do.

The planes may have been remote controlled they don't look like passenger jets and that explains the vic-sims and faked phone calls as well as no plane hitting building 7 and shanksville and the 3 implosions.

Sounds like you are clutching at straws. Do you also believe a drone missile hit the Pentagon?

So let me get this straight.. You think that there was a remote controlled plane that was headed to WTC7 (ignoring the passengers on the original flights). Someone dun goofed and crashed the thing. Potential catastrophy for them, they'll get found out if they bring down the building with no reason. So they made up the debris damage/fires it created. Faked the photos of the damage/smoke and testimoney given. Then let civilians film the collapse?! Hoping that there was no brilliant bright flashes (thermite) or incredibly loud detonations recorded.

Oh, and this is all done in a manner that is completely undetected by researchers on retainer from Aegis Insurance. Investigating the buildings for evidence of negligence (super duper behzinga-thermite induced collapse would certainly qualify).

Buuuuuut I'll let you guess what their model and sworn testimoney served to back up...

In your first paragraph you aren't telling me how! You are just decreeing it so, and memetic production!?!? Things weren't classified as "memes" on the internet back when most of the good un tainted information regarding 9/11 was dug up by free thinking independent researchers. So i vehemently disagree with this paragraph.

Ok in your 2nd paragraph you attempt to mock me just because I want you held accountable for the things you type. Next you bring up a good point we can't see the inside, but that is consistent in all 3 collapses.

"WTC7 was constructed completely different to 1&2" I know that buildings 1 and 2 were constructed to withstand the impact of major jetliners. Do you have any good sources for the differences between 1/2 and 7's construction I am genuinely curious now as you raise a good point here.

"A fire induced progressive global collapse could not have occurred in 1&2 due to the load bearing" so you are saying that you think that the building 7 event was "A fire induced progressive global collapse" ?? or what was your point here

paragraph 3 http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-are-nists-911-wtc-reports-false-and-unscientific/5399091 is a good article on NIST and ive seen youtube videos (I know I know) but i'm not gonna dig right now until you tackle what that article says. Im not familiar with the Edinbourgh University model perhaps you'll actually provide a link to what you reference next time.

Paragraph 4 logical fallacy, and you make me sick by using that word Truther, another example of weaponized language. Stop trying to label me and answer my questions, keep in mind that the burden of proof falls on you when you throw out information....