15-11-2019, 09:07 PM
(This post was last modified: 15-11-2019, 09:28 PM by Anthony Thorne.)
Peter raises the subject of the goal of the bombing. It's almost like the elephant in the room in threads on this subject but doesn't come up as much as I would expect.
I haven't studied this nearly as much as the others in this thread, but understanding the goal requires crossing out and removing what they chose not to do, and looking carefully at what they did do. The truck exploded, obviously, but there were also explosives in the building. So, as everyone here knows, the truck bomb wasn't intended to be the main source of damage to the building. The truck bomb was intended to cover the fact that there were explosives in the building and that those explosives had gone off at the same time. (I can see how someone could examine whether all insiders knew that both the truck bomb and building explosives would be used, or whether only a select handful did, and others perhaps only knew of the truck bomb and weren't informed of what was being prepared to accompany it).
But forgetting the truck bomb for a moment - with the bombing inside the building, they used more than one explosive device, as there's footage out there where multiple folk discuss this. (Again I know other posters here have discussed this before). Someone felt that just one big bomb inside the building wasn't sufficient. If they just wanted to create a bigger explosive, destroy something within the building, cause substantially more damage, it probably would have been. But this wasn't sufficient. Whatever the goal was, it required multiple explosive devices.
Looking at before and after pictures of the building is instructive, and something I hadn't done for a long while. But the Alfred P Murrah building was a multi-storey office building with a sheer, flat glass front, in which explosive devices were covertly installed to bring it down via a controlled demolition while another simultaneous terrorist act served to provide the explanation for what had destroyed the building. This sounds awfully familiar.
In the case of the false flag events that hit the US, some of us - and I'm not excluding myself - are occasionally guilty of missing the forest for the trees. So there will be discussion about anomalies and what witnesses saw and government lies and who the patsies were, but some bigger parts of the story sit waiting at the back of the queue. But I know everyone here likely has some good opinions on it.
Here is mine. I think 9/11 required significant planning and preparation. It required that insiders have access to airline security systems and procedures. It required that insiders have access to security systems and procedures in the WTC, and it required that those same insiders could successfully bring down a multi-storey office building with a sheer, flat-glass front using multiple explosive devices.
In 1988, the Lockerbie bombing allowed insiders to thereafter gain access to airline security systems and procedures. After the bombing, the US government sponsored an investigation into the broad theme of terrorism prevention, and as part of that investigation, groups were permitted to scope out and investigate and document airline security procedures. You can find this cited in the reports released by the Office of Technology Assessment titled TECHNOLOGY AGAINST TERRORISM - THE FEDERAL EFFORT, and TECHNOLOGY AGAINST TERRORISM - SUSTAINING SECURITY, both of which are online, and where this is cited explicitly. Rumsfeld's later terrorism advisor' at RAND, Brian Jenkins, was a member of the group who participated in this, and he isn't the only name of interest in the group who did that work.
After the WTC bombing, another similar investigation occurred, looking at the security system of that building. In his book ANOTHER 19, Kevin Ryan cites Jenkins as either being part of that investigation, or of running it.
If you have access to airline and aircraft security systems, and access to the internal workings of the WTC buildings, you're well on the way to having a lot of what you need to get started on the 9/11 conspiracy. But the final part of the equation is that you're going to need to bring the buildings down on 9/11, you're going to need to do that part right, and somewhere along the way, a good time out from the event itself, you're going to need to blow up a building - preferably one with a somewhat similar design or layout to the WTC, but on a smaller scale - to see if your multiple explosive devices are going to work and initiate a collapse the way that you think they will, or if further testing - or replacement methods - will be required. So while Peter Dale Scott and others have documented how Oklahoma advanced steps towards the Patriot Act and other civil liberty restrictions, I think the Oklahoma bombing itself should be considered in light of a group that was very determined to carry out a much larger bombing event just a handful of years down the track, and was determined to have that later event be as well-rehearsed and studied and prepared as they needed it to be.
I haven't studied this nearly as much as the others in this thread, but understanding the goal requires crossing out and removing what they chose not to do, and looking carefully at what they did do. The truck exploded, obviously, but there were also explosives in the building. So, as everyone here knows, the truck bomb wasn't intended to be the main source of damage to the building. The truck bomb was intended to cover the fact that there were explosives in the building and that those explosives had gone off at the same time. (I can see how someone could examine whether all insiders knew that both the truck bomb and building explosives would be used, or whether only a select handful did, and others perhaps only knew of the truck bomb and weren't informed of what was being prepared to accompany it).
But forgetting the truck bomb for a moment - with the bombing inside the building, they used more than one explosive device, as there's footage out there where multiple folk discuss this. (Again I know other posters here have discussed this before). Someone felt that just one big bomb inside the building wasn't sufficient. If they just wanted to create a bigger explosive, destroy something within the building, cause substantially more damage, it probably would have been. But this wasn't sufficient. Whatever the goal was, it required multiple explosive devices.
Looking at before and after pictures of the building is instructive, and something I hadn't done for a long while. But the Alfred P Murrah building was a multi-storey office building with a sheer, flat glass front, in which explosive devices were covertly installed to bring it down via a controlled demolition while another simultaneous terrorist act served to provide the explanation for what had destroyed the building. This sounds awfully familiar.
In the case of the false flag events that hit the US, some of us - and I'm not excluding myself - are occasionally guilty of missing the forest for the trees. So there will be discussion about anomalies and what witnesses saw and government lies and who the patsies were, but some bigger parts of the story sit waiting at the back of the queue. But I know everyone here likely has some good opinions on it.
Here is mine. I think 9/11 required significant planning and preparation. It required that insiders have access to airline security systems and procedures. It required that insiders have access to security systems and procedures in the WTC, and it required that those same insiders could successfully bring down a multi-storey office building with a sheer, flat-glass front using multiple explosive devices.
In 1988, the Lockerbie bombing allowed insiders to thereafter gain access to airline security systems and procedures. After the bombing, the US government sponsored an investigation into the broad theme of terrorism prevention, and as part of that investigation, groups were permitted to scope out and investigate and document airline security procedures. You can find this cited in the reports released by the Office of Technology Assessment titled TECHNOLOGY AGAINST TERRORISM - THE FEDERAL EFFORT, and TECHNOLOGY AGAINST TERRORISM - SUSTAINING SECURITY, both of which are online, and where this is cited explicitly. Rumsfeld's later terrorism advisor' at RAND, Brian Jenkins, was a member of the group who participated in this, and he isn't the only name of interest in the group who did that work.
After the WTC bombing, another similar investigation occurred, looking at the security system of that building. In his book ANOTHER 19, Kevin Ryan cites Jenkins as either being part of that investigation, or of running it.
If you have access to airline and aircraft security systems, and access to the internal workings of the WTC buildings, you're well on the way to having a lot of what you need to get started on the 9/11 conspiracy. But the final part of the equation is that you're going to need to bring the buildings down on 9/11, you're going to need to do that part right, and somewhere along the way, a good time out from the event itself, you're going to need to blow up a building - preferably one with a somewhat similar design or layout to the WTC, but on a smaller scale - to see if your multiple explosive devices are going to work and initiate a collapse the way that you think they will, or if further testing - or replacement methods - will be required. So while Peter Dale Scott and others have documented how Oklahoma advanced steps towards the Patriot Act and other civil liberty restrictions, I think the Oklahoma bombing itself should be considered in light of a group that was very determined to carry out a much larger bombing event just a handful of years down the track, and was determined to have that later event be as well-rehearsed and studied and prepared as they needed it to be.