[The Beast1]

I've started becoming more wary of what I read in the MSM and especially Zerohedge.

I was never one to believe the 9/11 truthers, but I do get the impression they're on to something. Intelligence services may not have directly influenced the events, but may have been aware and used it as a way to increase their own power and influence.

After reading about the local Boston bomb boys, it seems the Russians knew who they were and informed the US. Whether or not the US acted on the news is another story. Another attack goes by and this time is a perfect pretense for testing out the police's strong arm tactics.

Then the Malaysian Airline flights incidents. The black ops arm of the US federal government is starting to not be so black and shady anymore. Too many missing details and people quick to come to conclusions.

I wouldn't be surprised if a fake "Isis" attack on the US occurs. It's a perfect bogeyman.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

As far as 9/11 is concerned - here the best info:

http://drjudywood.com/ - the talk by her is gold.

As far as a major false flag attack on American soil? I don't think that anything major will come - they only want to keep the Eternal War of Terror going. Patroit act is in place, 2015 the bail-ins kick in legally (then banks can simply deduct money from your bank-accounts - no official bail-outs necessary - if they over-speculate, they will just grab your cash to balance their "errors") and transfer to an open totalitarian system is continuing smoothly.

All in all - everything is going more or less as scheduled. Even if it happens - there is not much we can do about it. While it is certainly tragic when thousands die in one event, the reality is that more people die on the roads, by crime, accidents etc.

Giving those mass-slaughter events such a shock-value is what makes them a truly powerful manipulation tool for the masses.

[Captain Gh]

Once you truly learn the lie that feminism is, you start telling to yourself if it's the only false thing you believed in. Then you start digging and digging and digging... and that's when the fun starts!

[Captain Gh]

(09-03-2014 07:45 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

As far as 9/11 is concerned - here the best info:

http://drjudywood.com/ - the talk by her is gold.

As far as a major false flag attack on American soil? I don't think that anything major will come - they only want to keep the Eternal War of Terror going. Patroit act is in place, 2015 the bail-ins kick in legally (then banks can simply deduct money from your bank-accounts - no official bail-outs necessary - if they over-speculate, they will just grab your cash to balance their "errors") and transfer to an open totalitarian system is continuing smoothly.

All in all - everything is going more or less as scheduled. Even if it happens - there is not much we can do about it. While it is certainly tragic when thousands die in one event, the reality is that more people die on the roads, by crime, accidents etc.

Giving those mass-slaughter events such a shock-value is what makes them a truly powerful manipulation tool for the masses.

Could you please elaborate on the bail in details? Banks will be able to take your cash straight up? You seem to have a no bullshit insight that I haven't read anywhere else that I definitely want to hear!

[Spectrumwalker]

The two most important words you need are "cui bono". Who benefits?

If you want to research a classic false flag, research the sinking of the Lusitania.

If you want absolute proof the US government is capable of devising false flag plans read operation Northwoods from 1962. I just posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here so I'll do it again.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010...hwoods.pdf

[corners]

http://911blogger.com/news/2014-05-22/do...tion-wtc-7

Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation. Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates.

The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush’s cabinet.

Several of Rumsfeld and Cheney’s colleagues had access to, or personal knowledge of, WTC 7. Secret Service agent Carl Truscott, who was in charge of the Presidential Protection Division on 9/11, knew the building well because he had worked at the Secret Service’s New York field office located there. Furthermore, Tenet’s CIA secretly operated a “false front of another federal organization” from within WTC 7. That false front might have been related to the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, Rumsfeld’s Department of Defense, or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), all of which were listed as tenants of WTC 7. The SEC lost many important documents when the building was destroyed, including much of what was needed to effectively prosecute Enron and WorldCom.

Most opinions all have in common also:

1) WTC was brought down by controlled demolition
2) The 'dancing Israelis' on the morning of 9/11 had foreknowledge of things to come

[Luvianka]

9-11 was an inside job, period.

[TheWastelander]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Robert Hanlon

[vinman]

Every American war from the Civil War on was started under false pretenses.

[Sp5]

There have been false flags in the past. I think 9/11 was not so much a false flag, as an event which was deliberately misinterpreted, propagandized and misused as an opportunity to attack Iraq for reasons which had nothing to do with 9/11 - the sustainment of the petroleum based economy.

In that regard, there are 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report which are classified, and reportedly involve the extent of Saudi government support for the hijackers. There is no reason why people should not know the truth.

Vice: Campaign mounts to declassify 9/11 Commission references to Saudi involvement

Congressman Thomas Massie read the 28 pages, said they were "shocking" and caused him to "reconsider and rearrange" his understanding of history:

I believe we live in dark and darkening times, when governments and financial oligarchies conspire to take action for their own interests and hide the facts away from the knowledge of supposedly democratic constituencies. 9/11 / Iraq is one example, Syria / Iran is another example, Ukraine is another example.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(09-03-2014 07:53 AM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

Could you please elaborate on the bail in details? Banks will be able to take your cash straight up? You seem to have a no bullshit insight that I haven't read anywhere else that I definitely want to hear!

So far it is Canada. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-01...olicy.html

Is supposed to become valid in some regions there.

US might be some time off.

They want to implement those rules way before a financial collapse of course. The Cyprus-spiel was a good test for it. Mostly the upper 5-10% were highly impacted by it losing more than half of their money. As with all scams the really rich transferred their money off-shore, before they could lay their fingers on it.

I estimate that Canada will get it silently in 2015 and the US will follow suit someday in the future.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brow...78702.html

Frankly - who knows - they might even have it in place already in some international agreement that is included in some treaty by the G20. International corporations can already sue governments for some "transgressions" which are not up to the standards agreed.

Anyone having more than 20k in US bank accounts should seriously consider moving some cash around. Albeit any future crisis might be a decade off or more, but you never know.

[Dr. Howard]

(09-03-2014 07:45 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

As far as 9/11 is concerned - here the best info:

http://drjudywood.com/ - the talk by her is gold.

As far as a major false flag attack on American soil? I don't think that anything major will come - they only want to keep the Eternal War of Terror going. Patroit act is in place, 2015 the bail-ins kick in legally (then banks can simply deduct money from your bank-accounts - no official bail-outs necessary - if they over-speculate, they will just grab your cash to balance their "errors") and transfer to an open totalitarian system is continuing smoothly.

All in all - everything is going more or less as scheduled. Even if it happens - there is not much we can do about it. While it is certainly tragic when thousands die in one event, the reality is that more people die on the roads, by crime, accidents etc.

Giving those mass-slaughter events such a shock-value is what makes them a truly powerful manipulation tool for the masses.

That Dr. Judy stuff was awesome, I watched it for about 2 hours today while doing other work

[Rigsby]

(09-03-2014 07:18 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

I've started becoming more wary of what I read in the MSM and especially Zerohedge.

I was never one to believe the 9/11 truthers, but I do get the impression they're on to something. Intelligence services may not have directly influenced the events, but may have been aware and used it as a way to increase their own power and influence.

After reading about the local Boston bomb boys, it seems the Russians knew who they were and informed the US. Whether or not the US acted on the news is another story. Another attack goes by and this time is a perfect pretense for testing out the police's strong arm tactics.

Then the Malaysian Airline flights incidents. The black ops arm of the US federal government is starting to not be so black and shady anymore. Too many missing details and people quick to come to conclusions.

I wouldn't be surprised if a fake "Isis" attack on the US occurs. It's a perfect bogeyman.

There are false flags, and there are false flags.

It is always good to question everything. That is the great thing about living in a 'democracy' or whatever.

This is a very US centric forum, but then again, I come from the UK, which is traditionally very friendly, shall we say.

I am seen as a traitor by some on my Island, just by association.

But then again, they never played Basketball.


I don't think this is a forum to foment revolution.

But you got to admit, it's a pretty crisp dialogue we got going here.

Nothing will come of it, but hey, at least we feel as if we have the run of the playground. That is important.

[RawGod]

(09-03-2014 09:19 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Robert Hanlon

This old saw does not make a good logical tool, for the following reason:

Imagine a world in which most people believed in it.
All a bad actor would need to do to get away with anything, is engineer a black op which could plausibly be explained by stupidity. And then get off scot free as people fall over themselves to point out that stupidity could have been responsible, therefore it must have been, and in fact was.

Indeed, if people subscribe to Hanlon's dictum as dogma, they would have a bias towards passing off something as explicable by stupidity, a cognitive blind spot.

No. As I've said in another thread, every event must be considered on its own merits. This is hard.

[El Chinito loco]

(09-03-2014 09:19 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Robert Hanlon

That's true.

The idea that intel services let 9/11 "slip" on purpose is the likeliest scenario if you want to believe in conspiracies. The administration was looking for an armageddon type event to fire up project for a new american century.

[berserk]

(09-03-2014 09:45 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:19 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Robert Hanlon

That's true.

The idea that intel services let 9/11 "slip" on purpose is the likeliest scenario if you want to believe in conspiracies. The administration was looking for an armageddon type event to fire up project for a new american century.

Yes, that was the conspiracy if there was one.

Think about it though, what that led to. How many wars in the Middle East? 6? Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. Police state measures, everyone got rich. 9/11 sure shaped the last 15 years didn't it? You wonder sometimes, if Bush Junior had just continued his leisure time presidency and 9/11 never happened what would the world have looked like today?

Of course, that's not how power players operate, they had thought 50 moves ahead even before 9/11 in the grand chess game. If 9/11 hadn't happen then they would have used something else. That administration (PNAC), wanted wars in the middle east, it was never hidden. Huntington ended up writing the script, but they executed it flawlessly.

If you want to have a better idea about what is going to happen then read Foreign Affairs, it's thick enough and dense enough to last half an intercontinental flight and it's published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the premier grooming think tank. What's published in Foreign Affairs is what the elites want to focus on. It's the magazine that crooked politicians read.

For example, read this on Russia:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1...ests-fault

Quote:

Most liberals (read: Neocons), on the other hand, favored enlargement, including many key members of the Clinton administration. They believed that the end of the Cold War had fundamentally transformed international politics and that a new, postnational order had replaced the realist logic that used to govern Europe. The United States was not only the “indispensable nation,” as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it; it was also a benign hegemon and thus unlikely to be viewed as a threat in Moscow. The aim, in essence, was to make the entire continent look like western Europe.

Good stuff, several steps above what you will find in MSM anywhere. Just read between the lines.

[DChambers]

Just too many holes in the official 911 story for it to be anything other than a false flag attack.

A short list:

. The twin towers were designed and built to withstand multiple hits by airliners larger than the planes that actually did hit them. In addition jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt or even weaken steel to the extent that it did.

. Firefighters on the inside of the towers reported that they saw molten steel running down the stairwells, in addition pools of molten steel were found after the towers fell. This suggests that something else was at play aside from jet fuel and normal combustibles.

. Since 1933 the FAA's policy regarding hijacked airlines was for military jets to immediately scramble and intercept the flights, and if necessary to shoot them down before they reached a possible target. This policy was directly changed by the White House about 6 months before 911. The military now needed direct permission from the President, the Vice President, or the Secretary of Defense.

. On 911 Dick Cheney was in the bunker beneath the White House when the head of the Department of Transportation (HDOT) was taken below. The HDOT testified before Congress and said

. The day before 911 Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference and let the nation know that the Pentagon had lost track of 2 Trillion dollars in defense expenditures, they had no clue where the money went. The section of the Pentagon struck was the only part of the Pentagon built to withstand a terrorist attack, had the plane struck anywhere else the damage would have been far more extensive. Finally, the section of the Pentagon hit contained all of the Pentagon's financial information pertaining to the missing 2 Trillion.



This doesn't even touch on NORAD standing down, the drills than went on about hijacked airplanes ON 911, how the hijackers were able to fly the planes and make extremely complicated maneuvers when they were known to not be able to fly.

Who stands to Gain?

[Faust]

Quote:

Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation. Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates.

Oh wow, a truther! You know I've been on the internet since I was a little kid with an AOL screenname, and I've never actually spoken to a truther. Maybe you can help me out with something that's bothered me for like 10 years now. I've always wondered what the answer to this would be, and try as I might I've never been able to come up with anything.

You've stated that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. In other words, They (whoever they might be) wired it up with bombs, waited for the planes to hit the main towers, and then pushed the button and watched the building blow up.

Why would they do this? I don't mean "How could they do something so cruel and inhumane?" I mean, "Why would they bother?" Wiring up a building to blow is hard work. It's expensive. And more than anything, it's risky. You have to get the explosives from somewhere, which means there's a risk that they might be traced. You have to have someone wire up the building to blow, which means there's a risk they might betray you. That building was full of people, which means there's a risk somebody could've seen the bomb. Bombs can misfire, which means you've now got a building full of inert explosives that risks being discovered. There are these risks, and probably a dozen others that I'm not even aware of.

Any one of the situations I discovered means your whole scheme is blown. However much influence They may have, it wouldn't protect them from a furious American public. Rumsfeld would be hanging from a lamppost by the evening of September 12th.

Why take all this risk to blow up a minor building that no one had ever heard of? WTC 7 was a tiny building that 99% of the public didn't even know existed. You might, conceivably, blow up the twin towers to rally America into a war on Afghanistan. Whether or not this happened, it's at least a coherent theory. But why rig a third building to blow, when it risks ruining your whole scheme and gains you nothing? Why take such a huge risk for no gain at all? Nobody went to war to avenge WTC 7. Most people weren't even aware that it collapsed. The images of the smoking towers were on every TV screen for months. I can't remember seeing any video footage of WTC 7 outside of conspiracy sites.

Did Rumsfeld maybe have a nasty grudge against one of the secretaries there? Did he just really want out on his lease?

[Yatagan]

(09-03-2014 09:45 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:19 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Robert Hanlon

That's true.

The idea that intel services let 9/11 "slip" on purpose is the likeliest scenario if you want to believe in conspiracies. The administration was looking for an armageddon type event to fire up project for a new american century.

That's indeed the only 9/11 conspiracy theory that I could buy into. Like I've said before, it's hard to believe the same fools who couldn't be bothered to plant fake WMD in Iraq to save face could pull off something like 9/11 as smoothly as that without any leaks or anything.

[DChambers]

(09-03-2014 10:40 PM)Faust Wrote:  

Quote:

Although not hit by a plane, WTC 7 experienced free fall into its own footprint on the afternoon of 9/11—through the path of what should have been the most resistance. The government agency charged with investigating the building’s destruction ultimately admitted that it had been in free fall during a portion of its descent. That fact makes explosive demolition the only logical explanation. Considering how WTC 7 might have been demolished leads to some interesting facts about Rumsfeld and his associates.

Oh wow, a truther! You know I've been on the internet since I was a little kid with an AOL screenname, and I've never actually spoken to a truther. Maybe you can help me out with something that's bothered me for like 10 years now. I've always wondered what the answer to this would be, and try as I might I've never been able to come up with anything.

You've stated that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. In other words, They (whoever they might be) wired it up with bombs, waited for the planes to hit the main towers, and then pushed the button and watched the building blow up.

Why would they do this? I don't mean "How could they do something so cruel and inhumane?" I mean, "Why would they bother?" Wiring up a building to blow is hard work. It's expensive. And more than anything, it's risky. You have to get the explosives from somewhere, which means there's a risk that they might be traced. You have to have someone wire up the building to blow, which means there's a risk they might betray you. That building was full of people, which means there's a risk somebody could've seen the bomb. Bombs can misfire, which means you've now got a building full of inert explosives that risks being discovered. There are these risks, and probably a dozen others that I'm not even aware of.

Any one of the situations I discovered means your whole scheme is blown. However much influence They may have, it wouldn't protect them from a furious American public. Rumsfeld would be hanging from a lamppost by the evening of September 12th.

Why take all this risk to blow up a minor building that no one had ever heard of? WTC 7 was a tiny building that 99% of the public didn't even know existed. You might, conceivably, blow up the twin towers to rally America into a war on Afghanistan. Whether or not this happened, it's at least a coherent theory. But why rig a third building to blow, when it risks ruining your whole scheme and gains you nothing? Why take such a huge risk for no gain at all? Nobody went to war to avenge WTC 7. Most people weren't even aware that it collapsed. The images of the smoking towers were on every TV screen for months. I can't remember seeing any video footage of WTC 7 outside of conspiracy sites.

Did Rumsfeld maybe have a nasty grudge against one of the secretaries there? Did he just really want out on his lease?

This is what was located in WTC7-http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

In addition there is footage of a reported from the BBC broadcasting that WTC7 had collapsed [/i]20 minutes before it actually did.[i]

[Faust]

Neat. That didn't answer my question at all. Why take all that risk? What did they stand to gain by blowing up WTC 7 that couldn't be accomplished by blowing up the twin towers?

[corners]

All the reliable sources say that WTC7 was the deposit for millions of very "delicate" documents and official archives
on the previous false flags done by the leaders of US,
that had to dissapear somehow.

WTC 7 was not touched by any plane, by anything, and if you watch the video or of its freefall,
it is easy to see that its freefall looks exactly like controlled demolition.

It is not what I am saying, but it is what more than 2,200 engineers, architects and professors
are saying, and they signed numerous petitions about these as well:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[The Beast1]

(09-03-2014 06:59 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 07:18 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

I've started becoming more wary of what I read in the MSM and especially Zerohedge.

I was never one to believe the 9/11 truthers, but I do get the impression they're on to something. Intelligence services may not have directly influenced the events, but may have been aware and used it as a way to increase their own power and influence.

After reading about the local Boston bomb boys, it seems the Russians knew who they were and informed the US. Whether or not the US acted on the news is another story. Another attack goes by and this time is a perfect pretense for testing out the police's strong arm tactics.

Then the Malaysian Airline flights incidents. The black ops arm of the US federal government is starting to not be so black and shady anymore. Too many missing details and people quick to come to conclusions.

I wouldn't be surprised if a fake "Isis" attack on the US occurs. It's a perfect bogeyman.

There are false flags, and there are false flags.

It is always good to question everything. That is the great thing about living in a 'democracy' or whatever.

This is a very US centric forum, but then again, I come from the UK, which is traditionally very friendly, shall we say.

I am seen as a traitor by some on my Island, just by association.

But then again, they never played Basketball.


I don't think this is a forum to foment revolution.

But you got to admit, it's a pretty crisp dialogue we got going here.

Nothing will come of it, but hey, at least we feel as if we have the run of the playground. That is important.

As long as I'm not the only one who is thinking this way then I'm not insane.

[lskdfjldsf]

The problem is that people assume everything is a false flag attack, simply because they've happened in the past.
It's paralyzed people into inaction, and it's why we're reluctant to stand up to legitimate threats like ISIS.

If the government held a press conference and said "the sky is blue" you'd see several hundred conspiracy theory websites pop up within an hour.

[Truth Teller]

(09-03-2014 09:25 AM)vinman Wrote:  

Every American war from the Civil War on was started under false pretenses.

You seriously believe World War 2 was started under false pretenses?