12-06-2012, 10:37 AM
Phil.
Yes, I tend to agree with you that there was fore knowledge and *it * may have been more than fore knowledge but *get by with a little help from my friends.* in high places. Whether this constitutes a MIHIP or a LIHOP is yet to be determined... as is whether *they* had the notion that the towers had to be completely destroyed along with WTC 7.
There seems to be the assumption that total destruction was the intent because it was what happened. But this is an assumption really. In various other CIA / intel apparent *sting* operations there was no intent to along the act to go to completion and cause major damage. The sting was meant to create the fear by presenting a terrorist incident nipped in the bud... and get the organization kudos probably from the intel committee who likely approved of such things because it does little harm and moves the agenda along.
I find the reasons offered for total destruction, such as destroying SEC records or a quickie asbestos abatement... or a cover for insurance fraud or to demo a few drags on the real estate market hardly serious to consider as motives for an *intel* or an Israeli black op. Intel and the Zionists and the MIC were interested in the GWOT and ME war response and I think that total destruction of the WTC was just not necessary to get the desired result. The other reasons would not get the GWOT kick started at all and that sort of corporate crime is going on everyday it seems.
I would like others to discuss why they think the *insiders* if they did it needed to have the WTC totally destroyed including building 7 to achieve the result we witnessed which seems to me like the main objective... endless money for the MIC and an excuse for military invasion of the ME to control the oil and navigation through the region.
Perhaps the total destruction was a sort collateral damage... and what they wanted to happen was simply a demonstrable event to get their wars... and allowing the planes to hit the towers likely was sufficient with the total destruction being an unforeseen out come... with no placed devices. If so this was the mother of all sting or black ops gone south. And it would show that they had no idea what was actually going to happen. Perhaps the 93 bombing was the demonstration that a truck bomb full of explosives at the core didn't cause the tower to collapse.... and it didn't get the wars and the MIC budgets but it did put the kabosh and the peace dividend coming from the collapse of the USSR public enemy #1. Something more showy... suicide bombing... commercial planes towering infernos left as scars looming over the city.
And if there was a let it happen approach and the belief that the towers would not collapse as they did... it should have raised a more far reaching discussion of how was it possible for these monsters to collapse? Did someone screw up? How can you seriously design for impacts and ignore fuel? or Why would they build over top a sub station when there was a build-able site cheap and easy across West Street and didn't necessitate the bizarre structure of building 7 which looks to have been its undoing. And how about a review of how the jerk Rudi slammed through his OEM and all those huge diesel tanks to fuel its emergency power. There was none of this discussion post 9/11... in fact it was the reverse and how strong and wonderful these designs were and how amazing that people were able to escape at all. blah blah blah.
There was lots to cover up and the official story did it nicely and they still got everything they dreamed about... and people are still debating whether it was a CD or mini nukes or DEWs with little actual tangible evidence of any of them. I repeat means, motive and opportunity is not evidence of CD.
Yes, I tend to agree with you that there was fore knowledge and *it * may have been more than fore knowledge but *get by with a little help from my friends.* in high places. Whether this constitutes a MIHIP or a LIHOP is yet to be determined... as is whether *they* had the notion that the towers had to be completely destroyed along with WTC 7.
There seems to be the assumption that total destruction was the intent because it was what happened. But this is an assumption really. In various other CIA / intel apparent *sting* operations there was no intent to along the act to go to completion and cause major damage. The sting was meant to create the fear by presenting a terrorist incident nipped in the bud... and get the organization kudos probably from the intel committee who likely approved of such things because it does little harm and moves the agenda along.
I find the reasons offered for total destruction, such as destroying SEC records or a quickie asbestos abatement... or a cover for insurance fraud or to demo a few drags on the real estate market hardly serious to consider as motives for an *intel* or an Israeli black op. Intel and the Zionists and the MIC were interested in the GWOT and ME war response and I think that total destruction of the WTC was just not necessary to get the desired result. The other reasons would not get the GWOT kick started at all and that sort of corporate crime is going on everyday it seems.
I would like others to discuss why they think the *insiders* if they did it needed to have the WTC totally destroyed including building 7 to achieve the result we witnessed which seems to me like the main objective... endless money for the MIC and an excuse for military invasion of the ME to control the oil and navigation through the region.
Perhaps the total destruction was a sort collateral damage... and what they wanted to happen was simply a demonstrable event to get their wars... and allowing the planes to hit the towers likely was sufficient with the total destruction being an unforeseen out come... with no placed devices. If so this was the mother of all sting or black ops gone south. And it would show that they had no idea what was actually going to happen. Perhaps the 93 bombing was the demonstration that a truck bomb full of explosives at the core didn't cause the tower to collapse.... and it didn't get the wars and the MIC budgets but it did put the kabosh and the peace dividend coming from the collapse of the USSR public enemy #1. Something more showy... suicide bombing... commercial planes towering infernos left as scars looming over the city.
And if there was a let it happen approach and the belief that the towers would not collapse as they did... it should have raised a more far reaching discussion of how was it possible for these monsters to collapse? Did someone screw up? How can you seriously design for impacts and ignore fuel? or Why would they build over top a sub station when there was a build-able site cheap and easy across West Street and didn't necessitate the bizarre structure of building 7 which looks to have been its undoing. And how about a review of how the jerk Rudi slammed through his OEM and all those huge diesel tanks to fuel its emergency power. There was none of this discussion post 9/11... in fact it was the reverse and how strong and wonderful these designs were and how amazing that people were able to escape at all. blah blah blah.
There was lots to cover up and the official story did it nicely and they still got everything they dreamed about... and people are still debating whether it was a CD or mini nukes or DEWs with little actual tangible evidence of any of them. I repeat means, motive and opportunity is not evidence of CD.