02-10-2012, 03:28 PM
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Phil,
I understand and accept the prism through which most members here view the events of 9-11... that being that it was a deep state conspiracy of intricate and thorough detail. I happen not to agree with it, though I can't prove this is not correct.
We can agree that the government with the media spun the entire series of events and wrapped it up in a self serving narrative. We can agree that the outcomes they achieved.. such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11.
There are those who believe that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen and became the excuse to enter the war. This may be true (LIHOP). But it seems unlikely that the US actually conspired to attack Pearl Harbor (MIHOP). We don't know what was meant by the *need for a new Pearl Harbor*. Was it that an attack is what it takes for the US to get quickly onto a war footing...and grab the prize they sought... which they could not with provocation... or.... was it more pro active.. in that they would stage a false flag attack which could easily pave the road to the war they wanted and the prizes they sought?
One could argue that that intel in more pro active than a bunch of day dreamers and this statement had an ambiguous meaning.
The thrust of my study of WTC 7 is that IF the collapse was not a CD, and unequivocal unambiguous evidence for it is not there... then the official account may have provided cover for the engineering decisions and associated corruption and not undermine the narrative in play which led the nation to war. Can you envision the nation with 3,000 massive wrongful death negligence suits naming PANY, Giuliani et al, LERA and so forth as defendants as the nation was going to war in the ME because they had told us that the terrorists did it.
The official story is laced with lies and it's impossible to actually know what happened. And that served their goals. The deception does not necessarily mean that those who wanted war had actually been the MIHOP conspirators and not the LIHOP traitors.
You can see the same sort of myth building about Iran over the last few years and the spinning of the events in the ME over the last year. These guys are into message control and consensus manipulation big time.
Demolition of such a huge structure is not a simple operation and would take time and calculations anf lots of human resources and so on. But crashing a jet into the towers is a rather simple operation and it would have a very powerful effect on the population. Destroying the entire complex seemed over kill and not necessary for the war outcome.
It's all speculation because we are short on facts.
Some don't know what was meant by *the need for a New Pearl Harbor*.
Frankly I do not know how it could be any more clear, in your damn face!
Please tell me what the newly insured owner meant when he said "we had to pull it"?
Do you find Operation Northwoods equally a work of "speculation"?
Curious. Don't mean to be argumentative but it seems short of a signed confession by a conspirator, the plan could not be more obvious.
Dawn