WHO: Follow the Money WHY: To serve the needs of the Military Industrial complex, why else? And looking at how its all played out, the only winner has been the military industrial complex. They have made Billions. Perfectly plausible conspiracy is that this was done by the CIA under direction of Rumsfeld as they needed public support to go to war for strategic energy and narcotics interests. My opinion anyhow. I'm also of the mind that America is to corrupted to expedite any real forms of justice.
WTC 7 contained lots of dirt on federal intelligence and law enforcement activities. Also lots of financial information. All of it explosive (heh) in nature, were it compromised. I bet a lot of debts were cleared when that building came down.
The towers were the distraction, the magician's flourish as he discarded the palmed object quietly without notice.
Look at the financial house of cards falling now. Perhaps the destruction of WTC 7 enabled the party to go on just a few precious years longer. Yes, reckoning may be here today, but at least the power brokers had seven more years to ring as much wealth out of the terminally ill system as possible.
You people need to learn the difference between knowing that something was probably about to happen and then letting it happen - and actually causing it to happen. If you think explosives took down the towers, you're crazy (the explosives theories are even crazier than the government's bullshit story)! Just because the government is lying to us and covering it up, doesn't mean that they are actually guilty per se...
So how did the inside 9/11 attack help establish some "dominance" of the Middle East for the "Global Elite"? If it was an inside job, why point to Saudi, then ignore Saudi. Why not point to Iraq in the first place?
Why go for the elaborate scheme with the supposed double attack (planes and thermite)? The planes were enough even if the buildings did not fall. Or do a simple massive truck bomb in Times Square or something.
There is a large US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Probably a lot of spooks too. It seems like a good place to find and train some brown-skinned patsies.
That is a common claim with the Truthers, that the buildings were blown up. Is that your position or do you think that the airplanes did it?
There is a large US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Probably a lot of spooks too. It seems like a good place to find and train some brown-skinned patsies.
So they could fake the background of the attackers, they could mine the building, they could do all that, but somehow they could not fake the idea that the attackers were from Iraq.
That is a common claim with the Truthers, that the buildings were blown up. Is that your position or do you think that the airplanes did it?
Not all truthers think alike. I'm a LIHOP theorist, but I'm open minded about it.
None of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan, but that didn't stop the Americans from invading immediately. The nationality of the hijackers is irrelevant. They are brown-skinned muslims - that's the enemy. Not just iraqis.
The nationality of the hijackers is irrelevant. They are brown-skinned muslims - that's the enemy. Not just iraqis.
According to whom? We worked with the Saudis and Kuwaitis to attack Iraq, we worked with Iran and Pakistan and Uzbekistan to attack Afghanistan. All of those are "brown-skinned Muslims".
According to Brzezinski, the key to Anglo-American Establishment controlling the world is the control of Eurasia.
Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy.
Brzezinski is quite proud of his achievements - including creating and funding the mujihadeen/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight a guerilla campaign against Russia to sap all her resources.
"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" - Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1988.
Look at the foreign policy machinations of the last two decades and you'll see a recurrent pattern. The encirclement of Russia and containment of China from the Eurasian regions, with increasing military outposts across the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
According to Brzezinski, the key to Anglo-American Establishment controlling the world is the control of Eurasia.
The Brzezinski quote is actually pretty standard geogolitical speak and pre-dates the 20th century. It is also rather irrelevant to my question.
You went from BSM being the enemy to Russia and China being the enemy.
Look at the foreign policy machinations of the last two decades and you'll see a recurrent pattern. The encirclement of Russia and containment of China from the Eurasian regions, with increasing military outposts across the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
We have been engaged in a contest with Russia for more than 20 years. Now look at the last 200 years of Russian history and you will see a massive expansion of control and influence. Tell me why any act by the U.S. is evil and any act by others is neutral or good. Why, for example, is Russian intervention in Iran acceptable, but U.S. anti-Russian action the sign of evil?
And then explain why you claim that the U.S. allowed 9/11 because it was racist against "brown-skinned Muslims", yet we work with so many brown-skinned Muslims.
None of these people are "the enemy" of you and I matts2. But as geopolitical ambitions require, new temporary enemies will be created for us to hate, through the media and other propaganda organs.
Saddam Hussein and pals were good friends while they were gassing Iranians. Iran has been a major target for decades. Of course the American public would not support an incursion into this part of the world in the name of Empire, barring of course some "catalyzing event - a new pearl harbor".
Muslims of course are somewhat of an enemy to the anglo-american establishment. They don't support western imperialism, globalization. They have their own banking systems - they do not support usury. They are stubborn and pissed off. And they sit atop key resources in Brzezisnki's Grand Chessboard.
Tell me why any act by the U.S. is evil and any act by others is neutral or good.
This is too simplistic. I never said or implied such a thing. As Sir Francis Bacon wrote:
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
And then explain why you claim that the U.S. allowed 9/11 because it was racist against "brown-skinned Muslims", yet we work with so many brown-skinned Muslims.
I never claimed a racist agenda at all. Racism, religion, tribalism... these things are used as wedge pieces as and when necessary by the powers that be to push forward geopolitical agendas. If the Elites decided tomorrow that Poland needed to be overthrown, they would try to find an angle to drum up public support for an invasion of Poland. They might use Polish racial stereotypes, religious stereotypes, political propaganda or staged violence. Rest assured, an angle would be found, and the mindless herds would bleat for a regime change in Poland.
You went from BSM being the enemy to Russia and China being the enemy.
Independent actors are the enemy. Whether that's you and me, an insurgent population of a small country the IMF has failed to overthrow and enslave, or a large nation capable of defending itself and harboring its own imperial designs. The Anglo-American establishment has numerous forces in opposition to its agenda for a global socialist totalitarian empire.
None of these people are "the enemy" of you and I matts2.
That is certainly debatable. I disagree, I just also disagree with much of the ways the U.S. has gone about fighting this war. But it is a big step from "the U.S. is improperly engaged in a fight with Russia and China" to "the Bush Administration knew about the 9/11 attack and let it happen because they wanted it".
Saddam Hussein and pals were good friends while they were gassing Iranians.
Which sort of conflicts with your "brown skinned Muslim" argument. As does our long friendship with Saudi. So how about this: international alliances are fluid, countries can be friends on year and enemies the next, they can even be friends in one action and enemies another at the same time. The U.S. and Iran are enemies, but we have worked together regarding Afghanistan more than once.
Of course the American public would not support an incursion into this part of the world in the name of Empire, barring of course some "catalyzing event - a new pearl harbor".
You are repeating your claim, not defending it. Could someone think this way? Sure, I have no problem with that. Did someone think and act this way? I doubt it, so show me some evidence.
Muslims of course are somewhat of an enemy to the anglo-american establishment. They don't support western imperialism, globalization.
Is that really the issue with Muslims? I gather that the treatment of women in Muslim countries is just fine with you. I gather that the use of terrorism is just fine with you.
I never said or implied such a thing.
Sure you did. Somehow American actions in Iran are terrible, but you don't seem to notice Russian activity in the area for far longer.
I never claimed a racist agenda at all.
You are ignoring the point. Again, if "brown skinned Muslims" (your term) were the issue, why do we ally with so many of them?
Independent actors are the enemy.
Get back to me when you have actual evidence rather than confirmation bias.
matts2, you seem to be having difficulties detecting sarcasm and nuance in my choice of words.
Is English your first language?
"brown skinned Muslims"
I was being facetious. You haven't picked up on this?
international alliances are fluid, countries can be friends on year and enemies the next, they can even be friends in one action and enemies another at the same time.
That is what I've been trying to point out all along. My claim is that there is method to this madness, that there is an Anglo-American empire and it has an agenda. So we are in agreement on the surface, perhaps in disagreement of the underlying motives.
Could the United States have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan if 9/11 had not occurred? (Rhetorical question). Now the U.S. has the permanent base in Iraq. The United States has taken over the world militarily, no one can come close to challenging the Western Establishment, no matter what happens to the economy.
As for blowing up WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, they needed a higher kill count. Almost 3,000 dead leaves quite an impression. Larry Silverstein also needed those buildings gone.
That is a common claim with the Truthers, that the buildings were blown up. Is that your position or do you think that the airplanes did it?
Not all truthers think alike. I'm a LIHOP theorist, but I'm open minded about it.
None of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan, but that didn't stop the Americans from invading immediately. The nationality of the hijackers is irrelevant. They are brown-skinned muslims - that's the enemy. Not just iraqis.
29 comments
8 [deleted] 2009-07-26
WHO: Follow the Money WHY: To serve the needs of the Military Industrial complex, why else? And looking at how its all played out, the only winner has been the military industrial complex. They have made Billions. Perfectly plausible conspiracy is that this was done by the CIA under direction of Rumsfeld as they needed public support to go to war for strategic energy and narcotics interests. My opinion anyhow. I'm also of the mind that America is to corrupted to expedite any real forms of justice.
1 Shaman666 2009-07-26
Again, part of the truth. Well done.
7 746f6d 2009-07-26
WTC 7 contained lots of dirt on federal intelligence and law enforcement activities. Also lots of financial information. All of it explosive (heh) in nature, were it compromised. I bet a lot of debts were cleared when that building came down.
The towers were the distraction, the magician's flourish as he discarded the palmed object quietly without notice.
Look at the financial house of cards falling now. Perhaps the destruction of WTC 7 enabled the party to go on just a few precious years longer. Yes, reckoning may be here today, but at least the power brokers had seven more years to ring as much wealth out of the terminally ill system as possible.
3 Shaman666 2009-07-26
Part of the truth, for sure. But not all of it.
-1 stringerbell 2009-07-26
You people need to learn the difference between knowing that something was probably about to happen and then letting it happen - and actually causing it to happen. If you think explosives took down the towers, you're crazy (the explosives theories are even crazier than the government's bullshit story)! Just because the government is lying to us and covering it up, doesn't mean that they are actually guilty per se...
4 xandercruise 2009-07-26
Who?
The Globalist Elite.
Why?
Domination of the Middle East is required to establish an unchallengeable global totalitarian empire.
0 Shaman666 2009-07-26
Well done. Now we have 90% of the reasons. Add in occult interests and you have a whole.
1 Shaman666 2009-07-26
So what is your reasoning for downvoting? Debate, please.
-1 matts2 2009-07-26
So how did the inside 9/11 attack help establish some "dominance" of the Middle East for the "Global Elite"? If it was an inside job, why point to Saudi, then ignore Saudi. Why not point to Iraq in the first place?
Why go for the elaborate scheme with the supposed double attack (planes and thermite)? The planes were enough even if the buildings did not fall. Or do a simple massive truck bomb in Times Square or something.
6 [deleted] 2009-07-26
[deleted]
1 matts2 2009-07-26
Which does not come close to answering my question. So why have the thermite? Why have Saudis do the act? How did this help the "dominance"?
2 xandercruise 2009-07-26
I didn't say anything about thermite.
There is a large US military presence in Saudi Arabia. Probably a lot of spooks too. It seems like a good place to find and train some brown-skinned patsies.
0 matts2 2009-07-26
That is a common claim with the Truthers, that the buildings were blown up. Is that your position or do you think that the airplanes did it?
So they could fake the background of the attackers, they could mine the building, they could do all that, but somehow they could not fake the idea that the attackers were from Iraq.
1 xandercruise 2009-07-26
Not all truthers think alike. I'm a LIHOP theorist, but I'm open minded about it.
None of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan, but that didn't stop the Americans from invading immediately. The nationality of the hijackers is irrelevant. They are brown-skinned muslims - that's the enemy. Not just iraqis.
2 matts2 2009-07-26
According to whom? We worked with the Saudis and Kuwaitis to attack Iraq, we worked with Iran and Pakistan and Uzbekistan to attack Afghanistan. All of those are "brown-skinned Muslims".
2 xandercruise 2009-07-26
According to Brzezinski, the key to Anglo-American Establishment controlling the world is the control of Eurasia.
Brzezinski is quite proud of his achievements - including creating and funding the mujihadeen/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight a guerilla campaign against Russia to sap all her resources.
"What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" - Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1988.
Look at the foreign policy machinations of the last two decades and you'll see a recurrent pattern. The encirclement of Russia and containment of China from the Eurasian regions, with increasing military outposts across the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
2 matts2 2009-07-26
The Brzezinski quote is actually pretty standard geogolitical speak and pre-dates the 20th century. It is also rather irrelevant to my question. You went from BSM being the enemy to Russia and China being the enemy.
We have been engaged in a contest with Russia for more than 20 years. Now look at the last 200 years of Russian history and you will see a massive expansion of control and influence. Tell me why any act by the U.S. is evil and any act by others is neutral or good. Why, for example, is Russian intervention in Iran acceptable, but U.S. anti-Russian action the sign of evil?
And then explain why you claim that the U.S. allowed 9/11 because it was racist against "brown-skinned Muslims", yet we work with so many brown-skinned Muslims.
1 xandercruise 2009-07-26
None of these people are "the enemy" of you and I matts2. But as geopolitical ambitions require, new temporary enemies will be created for us to hate, through the media and other propaganda organs.
Saddam Hussein and pals were good friends while they were gassing Iranians. Iran has been a major target for decades. Of course the American public would not support an incursion into this part of the world in the name of Empire, barring of course some "catalyzing event - a new pearl harbor".
Muslims of course are somewhat of an enemy to the anglo-american establishment. They don't support western imperialism, globalization. They have their own banking systems - they do not support usury. They are stubborn and pissed off. And they sit atop key resources in Brzezisnki's Grand Chessboard.
This is too simplistic. I never said or implied such a thing. As Sir Francis Bacon wrote:
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
I never claimed a racist agenda at all. Racism, religion, tribalism... these things are used as wedge pieces as and when necessary by the powers that be to push forward geopolitical agendas. If the Elites decided tomorrow that Poland needed to be overthrown, they would try to find an angle to drum up public support for an invasion of Poland. They might use Polish racial stereotypes, religious stereotypes, political propaganda or staged violence. Rest assured, an angle would be found, and the mindless herds would bleat for a regime change in Poland.
Independent actors are the enemy. Whether that's you and me, an insurgent population of a small country the IMF has failed to overthrow and enslave, or a large nation capable of defending itself and harboring its own imperial designs. The Anglo-American establishment has numerous forces in opposition to its agenda for a global socialist totalitarian empire.
1 matts2 2009-07-26
That is certainly debatable. I disagree, I just also disagree with much of the ways the U.S. has gone about fighting this war. But it is a big step from "the U.S. is improperly engaged in a fight with Russia and China" to "the Bush Administration knew about the 9/11 attack and let it happen because they wanted it".
Which sort of conflicts with your "brown skinned Muslim" argument. As does our long friendship with Saudi. So how about this: international alliances are fluid, countries can be friends on year and enemies the next, they can even be friends in one action and enemies another at the same time. The U.S. and Iran are enemies, but we have worked together regarding Afghanistan more than once.
You are repeating your claim, not defending it. Could someone think this way? Sure, I have no problem with that. Did someone think and act this way? I doubt it, so show me some evidence.
Is that really the issue with Muslims? I gather that the treatment of women in Muslim countries is just fine with you. I gather that the use of terrorism is just fine with you.
Sure you did. Somehow American actions in Iran are terrible, but you don't seem to notice Russian activity in the area for far longer.
You are ignoring the point. Again, if "brown skinned Muslims" (your term) were the issue, why do we ally with so many of them?
Get back to me when you have actual evidence rather than confirmation bias.
1 xandercruise 2009-07-26
matts2, you seem to be having difficulties detecting sarcasm and nuance in my choice of words.
Is English your first language?
I was being facetious. You haven't picked up on this?
That is what I've been trying to point out all along. My claim is that there is method to this madness, that there is an Anglo-American empire and it has an agenda. So we are in agreement on the surface, perhaps in disagreement of the underlying motives.
4 Uncerntropy 2009-07-26
Could the United States have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan if 9/11 had not occurred? (Rhetorical question). Now the U.S. has the permanent base in Iraq. The United States has taken over the world militarily, no one can come close to challenging the Western Establishment, no matter what happens to the economy.
As for blowing up WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, they needed a higher kill count. Almost 3,000 dead leaves quite an impression. Larry Silverstein also needed those buildings gone.
3 Vailhem 2009-07-26
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3776750618788792499&hl=en
... thats why...
2 B3Nji 2009-07-26
Its much the same as Pearl Harbor really. They needed an excuse to invade the middle east. 9/11 gave them that :)
Invading the middle east gave them more control over the must sought after and profitable Oil.
1 b-greenDOTorg 2009-07-26
simple tail the $$$$$$$$$$...... who made/making it?
-1 LoPhatt 2009-07-26
You gotta git mad 1st
-1 cyince 2009-07-26
The ones responsible. Why, being crazy and Religious extremeisim.
-2 jcm267 2009-07-26
I've never seen this proof that you speak of posted to any of the conspiracy-related subreddits on reddit. Where are you seeing this proof?
1 xandercruise 2009-07-26
Not all truthers think alike. I'm a LIHOP theorist, but I'm open minded about it.
None of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan, but that didn't stop the Americans from invading immediately. The nationality of the hijackers is irrelevant. They are brown-skinned muslims - that's the enemy. Not just iraqis.