The 9/11 Forum

I have a sort of a general question relating to CD theories.

If we admit the CD hypothesis, what did the American Government gain by bringing Towers 1&2 down that it hadn't already gained by allowing the planes to be crashed into the towers in the first place?

I get that it's a false flag operation to justify the war in Iraq and the quest for more oil, but, what was gained by killing 3,000 people that wasn't already gained by killing 300?

Surely you have investigated this thing further than that ?

First of all, as a UK *citizen*, I find it mind-numbingly bizarre that folk think that there was any relation between 9/11 and Iraq. It's just bizarre.

Pre-note: I'm not interested in pointing fingers. Simplifying to *American Government* is just folly. *Allowing planes* is again a bit leading and given the *CD hypothesis* not an accurate picture as directed would be a pre-requisite. ....

The initial invasion was into Afghanistan, in order to find UBL. The Afghani government said at the time that if the US provided them with any evidence that he was involved, they would *hand him over*. Any government is obviously bound to such a process. If the US government accused *me* of being involved, then my government would obviously want proof before handing me over to a foreign state. (One would hope)

No evidence was forthcoming, and so the handover was refused. Clearly pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan then ensued, and is still in progress, though it would appear that focus has moved onto AlCIAda and all sorts of other goals, which I will not list out here.

Iraq was an entirely different thing, resulting from fraudulent claims of *Weapons of Mass Destruction*, but I digress...


Have you never heard of the terms *Problem, Reaction, Solution* (Hegelian Dialectic principle), *NWO*, social conditioning, etc, etc...

I do not think this thread is the right place to go into the actual meaning of any of these phrases, which very much depend upon certain levels of understanding and point-of-view, however, what is clear is...

The effect of the 9/11 events was not primarily a justification for military actions overseas, but a total and complete social environment change for every man, woman and child living in the western world. (At least)

We all now live in a world within which the infinite and never-ending virtual threat from *terrorism* is applied to every facet of our daily lives. We live in a world driven by governments justifying the removal of our freedoms in the name of protecting us from nasty unseen *threat*. We live in a world where it is *for our own good* to be treated like cattle. We live in a world moving closer to real globalism in it's very ugliest sense. Without the *catalysing* event, none of these gradual changes would have been possible.

I could *opine* for months without pausing for breath, but are you *seriously* asking the question without having a full idea of the kind of answers you could receive ?

It may be that you wish to test the more personal opinion of folk here, which is fine, as long as separation is retained from the relatively impartial work we all perform within the more technical threads here.

An unbelievable question really, given the only real inclusion being *Iraq*. Bizarre. I really do weep for the future, if the brain-washing and alteration of history so near in the past has been cleansed of reality.

The Past:


The Present (Took me ages to find one WITHOUT automatic weapons, and this is a tame image. The public face of those we *employ* to serve and protect us is so near to an allegory of *stormtroopers* it's really not funny.):


I mean :

femr2 wrote:Surely you have investigated this thing further than that ?

First of all, as a UK *citizen*, I find it mind-numbingly bizarre that folk think that there was any relation between 9/11 and Iraq. It's just bizarre.

Not my idea, but one of many I have seen presented, but, the specifics are actually irrelevant, the broad underlying question remains the same.

femr2 wrote:Pre-note: I'm not interested in pointing fingers. Simplifying to *American Government* is just folly. *Allowing planes* is again a bit leading and given the *CD hypothesis* not an accurate picture as directed would be a pre-requisite. ....

What makes you think I am?
And you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not referring to any CD Hypothesis specifically, simply the idea that CD was involved. Period. Controled Demolition being the deliberate use of explosives of some kind to bring the building down directly, or by weakening the structure sufficiently to allow it to succumb to the insults inflicted by the aircraft.
The simple fact is (or would seem to me at least) that if we admit the hypothesis of Controlled Demolition, then do we not also, then do we also not have to assume some level of complicitness of the United States Government?
But, once again, the specifics are largely irrelevant, and the basic underlying question remains the same.

femr2 wrote:The initial invasion was into Afghanistan, in order to find UBL. The Afghani government said at the time that if the US provided them with any evidence that he was involved, they would *hand him over*. Any government is obviously bound to such a process. If the US government accused *me* of being involved, then my government would obviously want proof before handing me over to a foreign state. (One would hope)

I'm aware of that, I do watch the news, from time to time. However, another hypothesis that I have seen forwarded is that the invasion of Afghanistan was merely a cover story so that an oil pipeline could be established, and used in conjunction with the oil driven invasion of Iraq. There has also been the 'suggestion' that the invasion of Iraq would never have been 'approved' if not for 9/11, so in that respect, 9/11 helped pave the way for the invasion.
Again, the specifics are largely irrelevant to the broad underlying question.

femr2 wrote:No evidence was forthcoming, and so the handover was refused. Clearly pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan then ensued, and is still in progress, though it would appear that focus has moved onto AlCIAda and all sorts of other goals, which I will not list out here.

You mean like the pre-planned strategies for invading Canada? And no, that's not meant to be insulting, it is however, intended to illustrate a point.

femr2 wrote:Iraq was an entirely different thing, resulting from fraudulent claims of *Weapons of Mass Destruction*, but I digress...

Partly, see above.

femr2 wrote:Have you never heard of the terms *Problem, Reaction, Solution* (Hegelian Dialectic principle), *NWO*, social conditioning, etc, etc...

Yes, although as I recall, Hegelian dialectic principles are more correctly stated as Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

femr2 wrote:I do not think this thread is the right place to go into the actual meaning of any of these phrases, which very much depend upon certain levels of understanding and point-of-view, however, what is clear is...

The effect of the 9/11 events was not primarily a justification for military actions overseas, but a total and complete social environment change for every man, woman and child living in the western world. (At least)

But what has actually changed?
Terrorist threats have always been there.
The bombing of the WTC proved that the USA was as vulnerable as any other country.
It seems to me that the thing that has changed the most is the level of complacency of the masses in this regard.

femr2 wrote:We all now live in a world within which the infinite and never-ending virtual threat from *terrorism* is applied to every facet of our daily lives. We live in a world driven by governments justifying the removal of our freedoms in the name of protecting us from nasty unseen *threat*. We live in a world where it is *for our own good* to be treated like cattle. We live in a world moving closer to real globalism in it's very ugliest sense. Without the *catalysing* event, none of these gradual changes would have been possible.

A nasty unseen threat that's always been there.
First it was Communism, and now this.
Homeland Security has always reminded me a bit of the Comission for Unamerican Activities.

femr2 wrote:I could *opine* for months without pausing for breath, but are you *seriously* asking the question without having a full idea of the kind of answers you could receive ?

It may be that you wish to test the more personal opinion of folk here, which is fine, as long as separation is retained from the relatively impartial work we all perform within the more technical threads here.

I have a genuine question that I was hoping to get an answer for.

femr2 wrote:An unbelievable question really, given the only real inclusion being *Iraq*. Bizarre. I really do weep for the future, if the brain-washing and alteration of history so near in the past has been cleansed of reality.

And you seem to have completely lost track of what I said in my post.
Yes, I mentioned Iraq, and from that you get brainwashing and revisionism? Why not also use it to prove that Marsupial's are mostly found in Australia, it would seem to me to be an equally relevant conclusion.

femr2 wrote:The Present (Took me ages to find one WITHOUT automatic weapons, and this is a tame image. The public face of those we *employ* to serve and protect us is so near to an allegory of *stormtroopers* it's really not funny.):


I mean :

And that depends entirely on where you live. But which do you think that has more to do with? The spectre of terrorism, or the general increase in violence and gang related crimes (and the increased availability of automatic weapons to criminals.

Here at least there have been more police officers killed in the line of duty in the last 4 years than in the preceeding 20 years. Would you rather they protected you from a gun weilding P-addict or a bunch of football hooligans, wearing a light t-shirt and bermuda shorts?

Look. Specifics to one side, seeing as how they seem to have been misunderstood by you, and they're largely irrelevant to the question i'm trying to ask. If we admit the hypothesis of WTC1 & WTC2 being controled demolition, then what was gained by bringing the buildings down that couldn't have been gained by simply flying the aircraft into them?

Trippy wrote:

femr2 wrote:Surely you have investigated this thing further than that ?

First of all, as a UK *citizen*, I find it mind-numbingly bizarre that folk think that there was any relation between 9/11 and Iraq. It's just bizarre.

Not my idea, but one of many I have seen presented, but, the specifics are actually irrelevant, the broad underlying question remains the same.

Regardsless, to actually present it is as *the singular reason* is simply bizarre. If there is anyone who states that the invasion of Iraq was justified by 9/11 they are full of crap. Two entirely unrelated events. If any of the US government officials have said so, they are simply lying. Tell me how Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 ?

What makes you think I am?

I never said you were. I said I wasn't, for my own reasons.

And you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not referring to any CD Hypothesis specifically, simply the idea that CD was involved. Period.

I do not misunderstand you at all. I would ask what makes you think I do, but the ensuing ping-pong has a high probability of being rather tedious. If I direct a phrase *at* you, then interpret it personally. Otherwise I'm expressing a to more general audience.

The simple fact is (or would seem to me at least) that if we admit the hypothesis of Controlled Demolition, then do we not also, then do we also not have to assume some level of complicitness of the United States Government?

Sure, but simplifying it to "what did the American Government gain by bringing Towers 1&2 down" is, as I said, an oversimplification.

another hypothesis that I have seen forwarded is that the invasion of Afghanistan was merely a cover story so that an oil pipeline could be established, and used in conjunction with the oil driven invasion of Iraq.

Probable, but important in my mind to state the *actual* reasons why each was invaded. Or do you not think that important ? Is it not interesting to see the contrast in common understandings, and how, when you asked whether 9/11 was the justification for invasion of Iraq, that stating the actual reasons is now pushed to one side as being irrelevant. Curious.

There has also been the 'suggestion' that the invasion of Iraq would never have been 'approved' if not for 9/11, so in that respect, 9/11 helped pave the way for the invasion.
Again, the specifics are largely irrelevant to the broad underlying question.

Yes, 9/11 opened *the war on terror*. A war that can never ever end. Hundreds of thousands of people have died. The man they started the war to find is not on a table somewhere, everyone now knows that alCIAda is an artificial entity originally created by those who purport to hunt it down. The specifics are hugely important. Not interested in *the war on terror* ?

You mean like the pre-planned strategies for invading Canada? And no, that's not meant to be insulting, it is however, intended to illustrate a point.

What strategies ? I am British. What point ?

femr2 wrote:Iraq was an entirely different thing, resulting from fraudulent claims of *Weapons of Mass Destruction*, but I digress...

Partly, see above.

Not partly, wholly. That the general opinion and maleability of the public had been so affected by 9/11 allowed them to be manipulated with ease in regards to Iraq is very relevant, but the distinction is clear.

Yes, although as I recall, Hegelian dialectic principles are more correctly stated as Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

Regardless, very relevant. The spectacle of full destruction is important. Not to mention the HUGE amount of money involved.

But what has actually changed?

What ? Again, I could write for a month without pausing for breath. Start with the now absolutely worthless "Constitution".

Terrorist threats have always been there.

Indeed, and the war on terror which results in me being filmed as soon as I step outside of my front door is supposedly there to protecte ME from THEM. In reality it's used to control ME by THEM. I am supposed to live in a world of fear. Personally, I don't, though I fully understand that 9/11 was the event which allowed it to become so.

It seems to me that the thing that has changed the most is the level of complacency of the masses in this regard.

I think this statement pretty much concludes this discussion. I have no desire to have a never-ending dialogue with someone with such a ridiculous viewpoint. I'll not waste my time.

But which do you think that has more to do with? The spectre of terrorism, or the general increase in violence and gang related crimes (and the increased availability of automatic weapons to criminals.

Rubbish. The vast majority of use of Police in the more advanced forms of *riot* gear, is to beat the crap out of people who decide that they wany to actually have a voice and attend some protest or other. The stormtroopers are there to control the ordinary people, not terrorism and gang crime. The designs are intended to instill fear, not authority and respect.

Look. Specifics to one side, seeing as how they seem to have been misunderstood by you, and they're largely irrelevant to the question i'm trying to ask.

Not misunderstood by me at all. You just cannot see the answer.

If we admit the hypothesis of WTC1 & WTC2 being controled demolition, then what was gained by bringing the buildings down that couldn't have been gained by simply flying the aircraft into them?

The catalysing spectacle. The imprinted video footage. The event SO enourmous it will *never* be allowed to be forgotten. Planes crash all the time. Who really gives a monkeys. The symbol of US/global *westernism* reduced to dust and imagery similar to nuclear holocaust.

What was gained ? Really.

You know what?

Forget about it.

I was simply trying to understand an aspect of 9/11 conspiracy theories that has always stuck in my craw (so to speak).

Maybe it's just because I live in a small country in a corner of the world noone cares about, but here Riot Gear doesn't come out at every little protest against the government, it only comes out when people start doing things like throwing bottles and rocks around, or burning furniture in the streets.

Our riot gear looks more like this: http://static.stuff.co.nz/1252893682/112/2862112.jpg
A stab proof vest, a clear plastic shield, a helmet (with a wrap around clear plastic visor), and I think there might be some elbow/knee protection.

Over here, yes, police attend protest marches, I think they show up in a stab proof vest, and a high vis vest over top of their beat uniform (which here is pretty much still dress trousers and shirt kind of style). Over here the police don't routinely carry side-arms (we also don't have comprehensive CCTV networks).

And no, I'm not going to apologize for any cultural differences the muddy the waters, the closest thing we have to the storm troopers are the Armed Offenders Squad who only ever get called out when it's suspected that there are fire arms involved in an incident.

Perhaps maybe now you can understand that at least some of what you're talking about is cultural and far from universal.

I had originally been going to skip a direct reply, but have since reconsidered this.

femr2 wrote:

Trippy wrote:

femr2 wrote:Surely you have investigated this thing further than that ?

First of all, as a UK *citizen*, I find it mind-numbingly bizarre that folk think that there was any relation between 9/11 and Iraq. It's just bizarre.

Not my idea, but one of many I have seen presented, but, the specifics are actually irrelevant, the broad underlying question remains the same.

Regardsless, to actually present it is as *the singular reason* is simply bizarre. If there is anyone who states that the invasion of Iraq was justified by 9/11 they are full of crap. Two entirely unrelated events. If any of the US government officials have said so, they are simply lying. Tell me how Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 ?

I have no idea. As I believe I have explicitly stated - it's not MY idea, but the idea that has been presented to me on multiple websites by multiple people who adhere to conspiracy others other than the official one.

Got it? Not my idea. I'm not going to defend it to you.

femr2 wrote:

What makes you think I am?

I never said you were. I said I wasn't, for my own reasons.

And you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not referring to any CD Hypothesis specifically, simply the idea that CD was involved. Period.

I do not misunderstand you at all. I would ask what makes you think I do, but the ensuing ping-pong has a high probability of being rather tedious. If I direct a phrase *at* you, then interpret it personally. Otherwise I'm expressing a to more general audience.

Awesome.

femr2 wrote:

The simple fact is (or would seem to me at least) that if we admit the hypothesis of Controlled Demolition, then do we not also, then do we also not have to assume some level of complicitness of the United States Government?

Sure, but simplifying it to "what did the American Government gain by bringing Towers 1&2 down" is, as I said, an oversimplification.

I disagree - my point was that there must have been something that the US Government stood to gain by demolishing the towers that couldn't have been gained by simply crashing the planes into them. You've said that it's spectacle and imagery, and that's cool. That answers the question I was asking.

femr2 wrote:

another hypothesis that I have seen forwarded is that the invasion of Afghanistan was merely a cover story so that an oil pipeline could be established, and used in conjunction with the oil driven invasion of Iraq.

Probable, but important in my mind to state the *actual* reasons why each was invaded. Or do you not think that important ? Is it not interesting to see the contrast in common understandings, and how, when you asked whether 9/11 was the justification for invasion of Iraq, that stating the actual reasons is now pushed to one side as being irrelevant. Curious.

As I have explicitly stated several times now. It's NOT MY HYPOTHESIS, and it's not the point I was wanting to discuss. You're saying the that the invasion of Iraq had nothing directly to do with 9/11, and i'm saying I agree with you, however it's not what I want to talk about, and this is the idea as it has been put to me elsewhere.

femr2 wrote:

There has also been the 'suggestion' that the invasion of Iraq would never have been 'approved' if not for 9/11, so in that respect, 9/11 helped pave the way for the invasion.
Again, the specifics are largely irrelevant to the broad underlying question.

Yes, 9/11 opened *the war on terror*. A war that can never ever end. Hundreds of thousands of people have died. The man they started the war to find is not on a table somewhere, everyone now knows that alCIAda is an artificial entity originally created by those who purport to hunt it down. The specifics are hugely important. Not interested in *the war on terror* ?

Not what I was saying, and (apparently) a misunderstanding of my statement.

femr2 wrote:

You mean like the pre-planned strategies for invading Canada? And no, that's not meant to be insulting, it is however, intended to illustrate a point.

What strategies ? I am British. What point ?

That most military powers have half a dozen 'scenarios' or so lying around regarding invasion of, or invasion by various foreign powers they regard as being threats - so the invasion of afghanistan having the apperance of being pre planned although probably not a coincidence doesn't neccessarily imply forknowledge of 9/11.

I mentioned Canada because it was invasion by the UK through Canada that the US was worried about.

femr2 wrote:

femr2 wrote:Iraq was an entirely different thing, resulting from fraudulent claims of *Weapons of Mass Destruction*, but I digress...

Partly, see above.

Not partly, wholly. That the general opinion and maleability of the public had been so affected by 9/11 allowed them to be manipulated with ease in regards to Iraq is very relevant, but the distinction is clear.

You don't see me arguing against either of these points do you?

femr2 wrote:

Yes, although as I recall, Hegelian dialectic principles are more correctly stated as Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.

Regardless, very relevant. The spectacle of full destruction is important. Not to mention the HUGE amount of money involved.

\
Right. Spectacle and Money.

femr2 wrote:

But what has actually changed?

What ? Again, I could write for a month without pausing for breath. Start with the now absolutely worthless "Constitution".

Poorly phrased on my part, not quite what I meant. I don't wish to pursue what I was trying to get at further, because it's pretty much irrelevant now.

femr2 wrote:

Terrorist threats have always been there.

Indeed, and the war on terror which results in me being filmed as soon as I step outside of my front door is supposedly there to protecte ME from THEM. In reality it's used to control ME by THEM. I am supposed to live in a world of fear. Personally, I don't, though I fully understand that 9/11 was the event which allowed it to become so.

I don't live in a world of fear either.

femr2 wrote:

It seems to me that the thing that has changed the most is the level of complacency of the masses in this regard.

I think this statement pretty much concludes this discussion. I have no desire to have a never-ending dialogue with someone with such a ridiculous viewpoint. I'll not waste my time.[/quyote]
I think you've misunderstood what I meant here.

femr2 wrote:

But which do you think that has more to do with? The spectre of terrorism, or the general increase in violence and gang related crimes (and the increased availability of automatic weapons to criminals.

Rubbish. The vast majority of use of Police in the more advanced forms of *riot* gear, is to beat the crap out of people who decide that they wany to actually have a voice and attend some protest or other. The stormtroopers are there to control the ordinary people, not terrorism and gang crime. The designs are intended to instill fear, not authority and respect.

Because Fear has no use when managing gang crime?
But this seems to be a largely cultural thing, which i've addressed in a seperate post.

femr2 wrote:

Look. Specifics to one side, seeing as how they seem to have been misunderstood by you, and they're largely irrelevant to the question i'm trying to ask.

Not misunderstood by me at all. You just cannot see the answer.

So now your resorting to statements about blindness? Why not just drop the cognitive dissonance bomb and be done with it.
Misunderstood by you includes 'misunderstood by you because I did not communicate my point effectively'. It doesn't imply fault on your part, it simply states that there has apparently been a communication error which has meant that what i've tried to say is not what you've heard, whether that's because I have mis communicated it, or you haven't comprehended it the end result is the same.

femr2 wrote:

If we admit the hypothesis of WTC1 & WTC2 being controled demolition, then what was gained by bringing the buildings down that couldn't have been gained by simply flying the aircraft into them?

The catalysing spectacle. The imprinted video footage. The event SO enourmous it will *never* be allowed to be forgotten. Planes crash all the time. Who really gives a monkeys. The symbol of US/global *westernism* reduced to dust and imagery similar to nuclear holocaust.

What was gained ? Really.

Finally.

Again, allow me to reiterate, the alleged link between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq is NOT MY SYNTHESIS, I am simply trying to communicate what has been communicated to me by a particular group of people. If that's not representative of your personal view, that's fine, it's a point we're in agreement on. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer than that.

To put it another way.

If we accept the hypothesis that it was controled demolition, and everything that goes with that hypothesis, then we're left with the question of motivation.

I understand that, broadly speaking, the motivation is generally attributed to controlling the population, and justifying the war on terror, and that's not what I was asking.

What I was asking was what was the motivation behind crashing a plane into the towers and demolishing them, versus simply crashing a plane into them, because it seems to me that in spite of the fact that planes crash every day, most or all of the same ends could be met through simply crashing the plane into them, which would have been a lot easier to carry out and cover up.

Basically (because i'm running out of time) what would motivate whoever orchestrated 9/11 to carry out such a seemingly un neccessarily complicated plan as a disguised controled demolition in plain view of the world. What was gained that couldn't have been gained by simply crashing some planes into some buildings.

I'm not sure how else to say it.

Trippy, if you are asking for a motivation of why the WTC were demolished, then let me chime in with this for your consideration.

The WTC were known as White Elephants, as they were very expensive to run and were a drain on the budget of Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. They were considered for demolition but couldn't because of the asbestos contained within them. I think it was back in May 2001, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey lost a 10 year battle against insurers over a $600 million asbestos abatement program at the World Trade Centre and 3 airports. So George Pataki began major spending cuts and privatise the WTC.

Larry Silverstein gets his hands on the WTC and insures them with additional coverage in the event of a terrorist attacks back in July 2001. Then we know what happens. Towers collapse, Larry makes lots of money.

How is that for motivation?

What was gained that couldn't have been gained by simply crashing some planes into some buildings.

Afghanastan, Iraqi oil fields......Iran

Acceptance of torture as civilized

Stoke Arab hatred

Dumb the population way, way down

US citizen acceptance of third world conditions around them daily. Searches. Increased militarization within the US. Preparation of the acceptance of a drastically reduced standard of living.

Greed for power

Stoke ultra right hatred of others


Trippy, you need to pump up the horror. You are trying to scare the sh*t out of people, remember? Need more sacrificial lambs.


Ya know, just like the last few thousand years. Different names, same old song. Shiny new weapons.