9/11 Discussion Thread

Anyone ever wonder why the terrorists always kill random innocent civilians rather than those in power, the ones with whom they actually have a beef?

If we assume, for this argument, (but not correctly), that "terrorists" are smaller groups with a political agenda, then we can observe this behaviour through history. The Sicarii, Zealots and Assassins operated like that; creating fear amongst the general public. Once they took out any leader they were severely punished, and had to either stop or go underground.
Pretty much the same goes for the Mafia an Italy, US and Russia.
 
On the topic of False Flags:

'Craft Intl mercenaries carried out San Bernardino shooting'

http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/08/440834/Craft-International-mercenaries-San-Bernardino-shooting

"Mercenaries from the Craft International, a tactical training company for the US military, carried out last week’s false flag operation in San Bernardino, California, according to Steven D Kelley, a former NSA/CIA contractor."

"
Kelley told Press TV on Tuesday that the shooting “is just one in a long string of false flag events that I am afraid to say are not over.”

“We’ll probably be seeing several more before the end of the year, because of the events that are going on in the world, specifically with the NATO being implicated in the buying of oil from Daesh and other events,” he stated.

“So when these things happen they need to have a rapid response which requires a false flag attack. This was very obvious that this was going to happen,” the analyst added."
 
If we assume, for this argument, (but not correctly), that "terrorists" are smaller groups with a political agenda, then we can observe this behaviour through history. The Sicarii, Zealots and Assassins operated like that; creating fear amongst the general public. Once they took out any leader they were severely punished, and had to either stop or go underground.
Pretty much the same goes for the Mafia an Italy, US and Russia.

Here is "Resisting the Politics of Fear" by John Mack. He is the man who can tell the difference between the existential horror of facing the Unknown and the Sacred - a horror, which, if apprehended, can be turned into a transformative bliss - and a petty, hystrerical scare throwned at people by propagandist agencies...
 
On the topic of False Flags:

'Craft Intl mercenaries carried out San Bernardino shooting'

http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/08/440834/Craft-International-mercenaries-San-Bernardino-shooting

"Mercenaries from the Craft International, a tactical training company for the US military, carried out last week’s false flag operation in San Bernardino, California, according to Steven D Kelley, a former NSA/CIA contractor."

"
Kelley told Press TV on Tuesday that the shooting “is just one in a long string of false flag events that I am afraid to say are not over.”

“We’ll probably be seeing several more before the end of the year, because of the events that are going on in the world, specifically with the NATO being implicated in the buying of oil from Daesh and other events,” he stated.

“So when these things happen they need to have a rapid response which requires a false flag attack. This was very obvious that this was going to happen,” the analyst added."
We need an insider like Kelley to step up and release info in advance to thwart these things, or else at least make attempts at predicting them. This is what Capt. May was trying to do and seemingly was successful at least once:

http://www.amfirstbooks.com/IntroPa...ay,_captain_eric/Capt._Eric_H._May_index.html
 
I believe with San Bernardino, they started "investigating" the mother for for-knowledge and complicity as a response to having lawyers who were asking the wrong questions and bringing up things they shouldn't like SH. The same day this was announced the father started singing and said Syed was "obsessed with Israel" (#1: check) and had a ISIS-like ideology (#2: check) . . . The complete opposite of what we told before, basically.

We can observe her response now: will she drop "questioning the event" and be found innocent or otherwise?
 
Last edited:
On the topic of False Flags:

'Craft Intl mercenaries carried out San Bernardino shooting'

http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/08/440834/Craft-International-mercenaries-San-Bernardino-shooting

"Mercenaries from the Craft International, a tactical training company for the US military, carried out last week’s false flag operation in San Bernardino, California, according to Steven D Kelley, a former NSA/CIA contractor."

"
Kelley told Press TV on Tuesday that the shooting “is just one in a long string of false flag events that I am afraid to say are not over.”

“We’ll probably be seeing several more before the end of the year, because of the events that are going on in the world, specifically with the NATO being implicated in the buying of oil from Daesh and other events,” he stated.

“So when these things happen they need to have a rapid response which requires a false flag attack. This was very obvious that this was going to happen,” the analyst added."

According to this eyewitness the shooters were wearing black pants:

"I couldn’t see a face. He had a black hat on and, from my view all I could see was just a black hat and black long sleeve shirt. Possibly gloves on. He had black cargo pants on, the kind with the zippers on the side and the big puffy pockets. He had a huge assault rifle and he had extra ammo. He was coming ready for–he was coming ready for something. [indecipherable] I don’t know. I couldn’t see what else. I saw it was–I just saw three, dressed exactly the same."

If the only piece of evidence supporting the claim of the involvement of Craft Int. is that the perps were wearing khaki pants, that seems highly speculative.
 
On the topic of False Flags:

'Craft Intl mercenaries carried out San Bernardino shooting'

http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/12/08/440834/Craft-International-mercenaries-San-Bernardino-shooting

"Mercenaries from the Craft International, a tactical training company for the US military, carried out last week’s false flag operation in San Bernardino, California, according to Steven D Kelley, a former NSA/CIA contractor."

"
Kelley told Press TV on Tuesday that the shooting “is just one in a long string of false flag events that I am afraid to say are not over.”

“We’ll probably be seeing several more before the end of the year, because of the events that are going on in the world, specifically with the NATO being implicated in the buying of oil from Daesh and other events,” he stated.

“So when these things happen they need to have a rapid response which requires a false flag attack. This was very obvious that this was going to happen,” the analyst added."
I have to wonder, though. If this is so, why would they blunder so badly? I mean, three shooters and two patsies? That wouldn't have much of a chance of going undetected.
 
According to this eyewitness the shooters were wearing black pants:

"I couldn’t see a face. He had a black hat on and, from my view all I could see was just a black hat and black long sleeve shirt. Possibly gloves on. He had black cargo pants on, the kind with the zippers on the side and the big puffy pockets. He had a huge assault rifle and he had extra ammo. He was coming ready for–he was coming ready for something. [indecipherable] I don’t know. I couldn’t see what else. I saw it was–I just saw three, dressed exactly the same."

If the only piece of evidence supporting the claim of the involvement of Craft Int. is that the perps were wearing khaki pants, that seems highly speculative.
This is the only time I've heard this, but I would say that it perhaps means something that it (and the other things) were said by someone with a bit or more inside knowledge.
 
I have to wonder, though. If this is so, why would they blunder so badly? I mean, three shooters and two patsies? That wouldn't have much of a chance of going undetected.
I've come to think that they expect bobbles with all of them. There's like a last gate - the media's story, the story changes without explanation, and what's talked about and what's blacked out - that always helps them tie up loose ends. Of course in more serious situations, there's suiciding and threats. One way I'm convinced of who's really onto something is dependent on who receives threats or physical violence. One example is Christopher Bollyn who started finding links between 9/11 and Israel and then had his arm broken on his front lawn in front of his family. If you believe Halbig, he received multiple threats and recently quit what he was doing because he said due to a more recent threat his family was in danger. Then there's this:

http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/01/...bdo-lead-investigator-turns-up-dead-suicided/

I just think they expect a certain amount of clean up to have to take place. Already, what you're mentioning as even a possibility probably isn't know by many people. Most end with a broad scope take-away which will never involve contradictions or questionable aspects.

I don't know where you stand on 9/11, but for me, in one sense, the final "cleaned up" sense they were successful. But from another viewpoint they made mistake after mistake and left hole after hole for anyone caring to look.
 
For me, one of the most mind-blowing feats of the official theory is its (deliberate) blindness to the fact that the fall of WTC7 was reported in detail before it actually happened:


Interestingly, how mainstreamers explain this manifestation of precognitive abilities by the leading media outlets? Daryl Bem's, Dean Radin's and other retrocasuality experiments seem quite bleak compared to such prophetic prowess... :eek:
 
In fact, I am increasingly suspicious of Snowden and Assange as well. They are quite unlike all other whistleblowers: the latter are nearly always frightened and depressed. This is because of their sore conscience - after all, they have been participating in ugly activities they are exposing for a long time. This is also because of anticipation of repression from their former bosses, demonisation and supreession by all (quite numerous and powerful) media outlets which these former bosses control or influence, and - the worst of all! - mocking and derision from legions of naive mainstreamers who sincerely believe the "authoritative" sources.

A quick comparative "case study": William Thompson, Andrew Wakefield and vaccine-autism link...

Yet another whistleblower who was just ignored, no matter how actively he tried to bring his disturbing message to the general public and authorities:

Deafening Silence: What Happens When the Whistle Blows and Nobody Hears?

Well, the post-whistleblowing existence is certainly not sweet for the messenger who have brought unpleasant news...
 
Yet another whistleblower who was just ignored, no matter how actively he tried to bring his disturbing message to the general public and authorities:

Deafening Silence: What Happens When the Whistle Blows and Nobody Hears?

Well, the post-whistleblowing existence is certainly not sweet for the messenger who have brought unpleasant news...

From what I can tell, he had not actually revealed anything unknown or covered-up, a conspiracy if you will. I have only just skimmed the article however.

It seems benzodiazepines were brought up a few times. People have prescriptions for benzos lasting for years. That's totally normal. It's generally taken as a prn (as needed). They're mildly addicting and fairly harmless.

Drugs are used so frequently in mental health for a single reason. Because they are by many magnitudes more effective than non-pharma treatments.

I don't even want to get into it, but the anti-drug/anti-pharma stuff is so annoying. Nobody is forcing anything on anybody. If people don't like drugs then they don't have to take them. This isn't complicated. However, when it involves children, that's a whole other story. The widespread drugging of kids with amphetamines is disgraceful.

The five bolded items listed amount to basically nothing.

Everybody should understand not to blindly trust doctors. That's just common sense.
 
On the first day of this new year it struck me: Maybe we have been investigating this event under the wrong assumptions.

With the wrong assumptions we end up trying to solve issues that was not there. It is understandable, and excusable.

There might well exist already a relatively acceptable solution for 911. It has been presented in bits and pieces, but has not been accepted, because of, as I see it, the presence of erroneous underlying assumptions.

If you all like then I could try and start it off. It would need a blank slate.
 
On the first day of this new year it struck me: Maybe we have been investigating this event under the wrong assumptions.

With the wrong assumptions we end up trying to solve issues that was not there. It is understandable, and excusable.

There might well exist already a relatively acceptable solution for 911. It has been presented in bits and pieces, but has not been accepted, because of, as I see it, the presence of erroneous underlying assumptions.

If you all like then I could try and start it off. It would need a blank slate.
Please do
 
Okey.

We start with a clean slate, and then we bring in only the bare minimum of assumptions. I suggest two. These will be numbered #A1 and #A2, for eventual later reference. After that we set the scene for to understand what we are dealing with.

#A1 (assumption 1)
The twin towers of the World Trade Center were constructed in New York City, in the early 1970th, and then could be seen standing there for many years. This has been independently verified by all those that saw them and was able to take photos of them. They were constructed and could be seen standing there.

#A2 (assumption 2)
After 2011-09-11 the twin towers could no longer be seen there; instead there was a pile of mainly steel beams and a lot of white dust.

This, the transition from #A1 to #A2, is considered to be the event.

---

Now we set the scene by entering a quotation regarding the event:

"It's just a big magic trick," "It's an illusion."

If this quotation is actual and true then it specifies how we should consider things, including the event itself and how it was presented.

Who said this?

The quotation is assigned to a person called William Rodriguez, one of the key actors in the event. He was employed as a maintenance worker at the WTC. He was the only person at the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells. He is believed to be the last person to exit the North Tower alive.

This is his web site: http://william911.com/

Notice the images. There is the key.

"It's just a big magic trick," "It's an illusion."

We need the key to understand this illusion.

---

Notice that William Rodriguez used to be working for James Randi, (The Amazing Randi), a well known stage magician and an illusionist.

http://www.buffalobeast.com/89/wellen89.htm

Quote:
"Culpable or not, if this is what 9/11 represented to the administration, how, we asked Rodriguez, would he describe 9/11 to a child? He responded without hesitating.

"I was a magician for thirty years. . . It is very easy to do misdirection, to make you look into one place while you're doing the magic with the other hand." He's obviously inferring that in plain sight, the planes struck; out of sight, bombs exploded. "It's just a big magic trick," Rodriguez concludes. "It's an illusion."

Guess it would take an illusionist to know one."

---

If you want to fix your pipes you hire a plumber.
If you want to influence people's opinions you hire a propagandist.
If you want to present an illusion you hire an illusionist.

---

This is what we have on the slate now: Two factual assumptions and an event that is labelled as an illusion.

Next we can look at the evidence presented to us, in light of this scene, and without jumping into any conclusions based on other assumptions.
 
Back
Top