From UnwelcomeGuests
Jump to: navigation, search

WTC6 = WTF? -- Putul 23:45, 15 September 2012 (PDT)


I considered myself pretty well informed on 9/11, but had completely failed to notice the gaping hole in the middle of WTC6. Could this possibly have been created by falling debris? When did this happen? Before, during or after the collapse of WTC 1/2/7? Are there good images of WTC6 online? Or testimony of bombs going off?

Re: WTC6 = WTF? -- Robin 20:06, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

See right for an image. I have seen one transcribed testimony claiming bombs. Superficial investigation suggests that WTC5/WTC6 seems to be a fairly popular topic with people proposing energy weapons/mini-nukes/other explanations. Hard to say why without a detailed study.

Just one piece of the puzzle -- Musik 02:49, 18 September 2012 (PDT)

To get closer to Sep 11th, I looked at history; the long history of false flag operations and then tried to find common patterns. To my surprise, most suspicious events have not left a trail that enables one to get the root of events. Life is easier if we accept that we will never know for sure.

Plausible Deniability is therefore a key concept and very successful. The book of history professor Daniele Ganser: "Gladio - Nato's secret armies" shows in detail how false flags were planned and carried out in Europe in the 1980ies to prevent Italy from "falling" to a "third option" (not Capitalism nor Communism but Syndicalism) leaving a bloody trail of hundreds if not thousands murdered, supported by the secret services of both east and west.

Following Smithy events like 9/11 or such alike can safely be provoked, observed, supported and taken advantage of using a statistical (game like) model of probability. This means that the one who seeks to win in this game cannot be 100% sure what and when things happen - but can profit from Plausible Deniability, even if he financed the terrorists, seems to have known things in advance, or put explosives near a place where maybe some time an attack might happen or not.

Regarding the motives and the monstrosity of 9/11, first, because of the game like nature of consenting, power elite's money starts flowing in certain directions to protect their interests very early. This means, years later, no one feels responsible for any specific action, decision or outcome. It's more like a neural network, I guess, some nodes better connected than others. Second, what is at stake for all of these rich kids is the "biggest achievement of modern times", their Anglo-Saxon banking system. The Dollar was questioned as world reserve currency by more than just a few intellectuals. The prosperity and all "achievements" of the past could slip away in the blink of an eye, if no "catalytic event" (PNAC) would help getting things right quickly. The so called "stability" of the banking system must have priority for those who need to pay their bodyguards and private armies in cash (otherwise they won't protect their feudal lords no more).

Analyzing all the other candidates for false flag events helps seeing how coldblooded things are carried out if people who give the money cannot be held responsible. Nobody cares about the lives of the suckers who die no matter whether it is a single person, hundreds, thousands or more. The cruelty lies in the description of the relationship between people as defined by monetary terms - which is a zero sum game.

That's all my simple mind needs for an explanation. It seems to be a good working hypothesis. What is $240,000,000,000 in securities? Not much compared to the above scenario. So, I think its a good article but does not get the big picture.

-- Criegod 09:38, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Again, i am left underwhelmed by a presentation regarding a motive for 9/11 being destruction of financial records. Given the number of people who died in a couple of specific organizations, you could also make the argument that the elimination of those people was also part of the motive. There's some logic to this idea, since written records are not the only motive force behind an investigation. People who feel they have a cause in doing what they're doing are often rather difficult to buy off or neutralize (if you can't kill them or threaten their family with impunity). Having said that, the argument (as Robin noted) was almost entirely speculative. Furthermore, i find it extremely implausible that this motivation to abort ongoing financial investigations could have been primary. I find it very difficult to believe that ONI contained elements within it that would have been capable of conducting any sort of independent investigation. The ONI, in many ways, is worse than the CIA. Similarly, federal or state organizations "empowered" (ha ha) to investigate financial crimes, i believe, do not really pose any kind of serious threat that they might get "out of control" and really investigate things (in a way that might conceivably lead to prosecution of those at the very top... from which all things flow). And also, as i said before, to go to such extraordinary, unique lengths (taking this as a causal motivating factor) to deal with ongoing, systemic corruption, of which this is only one of many, many instances, also seems rather implausible.

I'll give Robin that the show did include all the necessary qualifications in putting the issue presented in an appropriate, realistic context. My biggest problem is the relative insignificance of the issue. Something that, in my view, was at most (and probably) a contributing factor, but not a primary causal one, being discussed, at length, almost wholly in speculative terms is, in my opinion, of fairly low priority and importance. To me the most crucial fact that must be known about 9/11 is that it was, beyond doubt, an "inside job". Arguments which prove this case (beyond doubt) are (at this late date) still, perhaps, worth some time (to those too "stupid" to have yet seen and comprehended the blindingly obvious).

During this part of the show i was actually led to think of the show possibly getting into Illuminati type conspiracies at some point in the future. I agree with the above comment about a certain degree of "unknowability" being part of operations that are designed to include elements of misdirection. If, for an overall gestalt of reasons 9/11 was conceived and executed... when considering specific details of the operation, if someone decided to hit certain specific floors that related to large financial conspiracies (real, not theoretical), this could be seen as actually adding a confounding element to the overall story. In fact, the overall story does seem to be "designed" in this way... with so many disparate elements thrown in that anyone stupid enough to pursue a (single) "reason" can be easily dismissed as a nutjob.

I heartily and completely concur with Robin's wrapup of the show, though, which he led into by saying:

Quotes-66.gifEvery time we use money we are supporting the system. We can't, on the one hand, continue to use money and, on the other hand, be surprised that the system has control over us and the environment around us.Quotes-99.gif

Robin Upton, UG#621

Amen to that. That is the very heart of the matter. We delude ourselves in denying our connections to and support of the system that we, supposedly, oppose. In this delusion, we are forced to compartmentalize (and limit) our understanding of things so that we can participate in one area (in "good conscience") and "fail" to see the intimate connections this area has with the whole... how it is part of the entire fabric, and that without this support, the entire fabric would suffer a significant blow to its integrity (in terms of holding together)... while, at this very moment, the fabric is under stress from all quarters and threatens to be rent asunder. Not to say that the reconstitution of a different framework will necessarily be in our favor. But as long as we are willing to delude ourselves in supporting a system that, in toto, works unceasingly against our best interests, it is unlikely that the new system that emerges will be much better for us. And, as Robin, to his credit, gets... the heart of this system is money (as it is presently constructed).

As far as "we're not all selfish..." goes, though... of course, we're all selfish. It would be to deny the most elemental understanding of human nature not to believe this. The issue isn't whether we're selfish or not but what it means to be selfish. When one defines selfishness so narrowly that it can be construed as "selfish" to cut off one's nose to spite one's face, one is working with a definition that is not in the least helpful in clarifying the issues involved. We should understand that we're all selfish and that, after our needs for physically surviving are met (food, water, clothing, shelter) a large component of our selfishness relates to having positive communal relationships with others... not to mention that the best way for us to meet our physical survival needs is together, in a harmoniously cooperating group (community). The problem with this simplistic, dichotomistic definition of selfishness is that it reinforces the false notion that selfishness and harmonious, sharing relations with others are somehow contradictory or at odds with each other.

I will also say that the interview with Post about the specific origins and mechanisms of capitalism in the United States was very interesting... and educational.

Regarding Musik's comments, above... you've got it!