MP George Galloway on 9/11 - Calls for a new inquiry

[Dawn Meredith]

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

[Albert Doyle]

Orling's dead wrong on this. The attacks were guided by a group that wanted to execute an age-old Nixon-era plan of invading the Middle East. This is power and these people are drunk on it. It's how they define themselves. If they aren't killing Kennedy's they're launching raids on foreign countries. American economic and Military Industrial Complex power was being threatened by having its oil source compromised by growing foreign powers. If you don't understand that 9-11 was organized as a modern day Pearl Harbor then you don't understand the chess game being played right before you and how it is played. These are bastards who shoot Kennedy's out in the open. 9-11 is child's play for them and their evil.

[Charles Drago]

The attacks were guided by a group that wanted to execute an age-old Nixon-era plan of invading the Middle East ... These are bastards who shoot Kennedy's out in the open. 9-11 is child's play for them and their evil.

Correct.

And of course you realize that you're referencing the Facilitators of the 9-11 plot -- whose prime motive, as you describe it, may or may not have been the prime motive of the Sponsors.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Dawn,

I hold no brief for the US government or for the intel services and most corporations. None of these have my interest in their agendas.

Having said this, the fact that Silverstein had insured his property is perfectly normal for a property owner. It would be unusual had he not. I don't read a thing into the idea that he purchased insurance.

I assume the thrust of your statements is that Silverstein was part of the plot, purchased the WTC and faciliated having the CD devices installed and insured himself to make out on the deal. Perhaps. But that needs to be proven.

I can't know what people mean by what they say... Many statements have several meanings and most have nuance and interpretation issues.

One could argue that the - pull it - statement referred to the effort to assess the condition of the buildling as it likely was determined it MIGHT collapse. If this was the assessment it makes sense to agree to pulling the personnel from the building who were presumably there to assess its status. There was no effort to fight any of the blazes and it appears that they authorities were simply waiting to see what would happen. As two buildings had already collapse and NOT when struck but some time after... AND explosions of unknown origin or cause were heard throughout the day it is was reasoble guess at the time that they may have been bombs.

I've read that Silverstein was concerned whether his WTC 7 was covered as it wasn't hit by a hijacked plane and called his insurance company to discuss the matter during the day. Who know if this is true or what he was told by whomever and how the determination was made whether it was or was not covered and under what cause.

There may have been concern about why they were not able to stop the fires and if that would also threaten the structure. The electrical system was down as well as the sprinkler and there would be lots of issues to resolve in an insurance settlement.

Of course NIST solved all that and made the collapse a fire caused from WTC 1 damage which was caused by hijacked planes and so no need to go any further into what happened.


A new Peal Harbor.

I might make the same statement which seems to be pretty true... if the US was attacked by a foreign nation on our soil in a very destructive attack there is a very strong likelihood that the US response would be a military one. In fact, I can't imagine any other response to a Pearl Harbor attack.

As a presumptive democracy, the US cannot and does not go to war or invade without some manner of pretext or justification. You recall all the WMD nonsense before Shock and Awe and before that it was that Sadam was training AQ to hijack planes. There is no shortage of fake stories about world events which are intended to direct OFFICIAL policy decisions... or get congress to authorize war AUMF is what happened, not a declaration of war... but practically speaking the same thing.

The anthrax nonsense was clearly intel/DOD ops to make sure they got their AMUF, everyone was on board and the threat was real and people who dissent can be easily snuffed out opening the mail!

As readers may know, I believe that Intel/DOD was going to let the 9/11 attacks happen and did everything they could to block any defense or measures to stop them. I believe that the Pentagon and PA incidents were DOD staged events to make sure that:

it was clear that it was an attack of war... hitting our pentagon
that our young heros would fight back heroically against terrorism with their bare hands even (a la Jessica Lynch, Pat Tilman and so forth with came during the war) The fake new had worked wonderfully with the Kuwaiti incubator baby show in congress. The DOD has spend enormous resourses in PR and message control, disinformation and blocking the press (what's left of it) from getting the facts about what's going on.

There was actually no purpose in killing more than a few hundred people and simply hit the two towers with what was supposed to be hijacked planes. But when things got out of control, they had the mike and stalled the investigation, tried to pack the committee and control it and eventually 7 years later.. well after all their policies were in place issued a bogus cover up about what happened... which covered the negligence and LIHOP asses.

Of course Israel was jumping for joy... the US would now attack her enemies.

Sometimes things happen and people/groups benefit and they had nothing to do with the history that brought them the benefit. Rare but it happens. For example all the companies who are making a killing rebuilding the WTC had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks... they are beneficiaries of events they did not cause.

Mosad might have been in on the LIHOP aspects since they track the Islamic *opposition* to their own hegemonic agenda. it wouldn't surprise me that they were LIHOP co conspirators and did have fore knowledge.

My problem with most of the truth movement is that they INSIST the attack was a inside job planned and executed by elements in the MIC with 100% control of the media, and so forth. The media hardly has to be controlled since it evolved from the fourth estate into a for (huge profit monopoly) Pravda like PR operation for corporate America and the MIC. This has kept the people nicely dumbed down and arguing about social issues while the corpations insinuated themselves into the government leagally of course.. and turned america into a neo feudal fascist state in a silent coup beginning with the JFK asssassination leaving all the old (neutered) democratic institutions in place. How clever! It looks like a democracy... but it's not!

From a perspective of *bang for the buck* the MIC can get a lot more from spinning and PR than engaging in mega false flag operations. The CIA uses this approach all the time.. they don't WAR they do small ops and manage the response and outcomes.

Even with respect to Iran the MIC is hunting hard for some justification to attack. A false flag may happen... but it will be a small incident blown up to enormous proportions. Iran will not attack the US and is not a threat to the US... with or without nukes. There are few to no facts and lots of spin and message management (dis and mis information).

Shit happens and some make lemonade from lemons. Isn't that what your mommy told you to do?

[Phil Dragoo]

Charles distils a model into this:

And of course you realize that you're referencing the Facilitators of the 9-11 plot -- whose prime motive, as you describe it, may or may not have been the prime motive of the Sponsors.

We may not see or name the sponsors of what I continue to insist was an operation.

We were shown a parade of photos of men and told they were motivated by a jihad against the Great Satan.

How many times have we read (for example) Prouty on Lansdale, a circus ringmaster who regularly presented costumed spectacles.

A sponsor may be the closest a mortal may be to a mythic god: invisible, omniscient, ominpotent and immortal.

Okay, okay, some arching hyperbole used to sell the product.

The facilitator may need more salary to pay a gambling debt or satisfy a carping mother-in-law, or to avenge insults to one's culture, religion, other sacred cow.

The mechanic just asks who, when, and other pertinent logistical details.

"Pull it" may simply be the American people to their leaders since 1963:

Oh, that's precious. Now, pull my other leg.

[Albert Doyle]

And of course you realize that you're referencing the Facilitators of the 9-11 plot -- whose prime motive, as you describe it, may or may not have been the prime motive of the Sponsors.

Could it be accurately said that the definition of "Sponsor" is one whom, even though the facilitators did not act with the prime motive of the Sponsor in mind, was powerful enough to benefit from the result anyway? Or even better, the facilitators themselves are betrayed by a 'false flag' by the Sponsors?


These facilitators are evil men who knowingly act at a level beyond morality and national loyalty and kill their own people for what they consider to be a higher cause. Above them there are satanically illuminated greater facilitators who operate close to the glow of pure evil. The sad thing is the pathetic motive of some of those facilitators may be the simple destabilizing of the people's power in order to take greater control under fabricated emergencies designed to give them power under the guise of national defense. Fascists in other words. As intended, sound democracies tend to gravitate towards peaceful societies. That is something these lords of war fear.

In the case of 9-11 I think the facilitators' and sponsors' motives were fairly closely aligned. It's very obvious the "Plan For A New American Century" needed to be introduced close to the millenium for greatest effect.

[Charles Drago]

And of course you realize that you're referencing the Facilitators of the 9-11 plot -- whose prime motive, as you describe it, may or may not have been the prime motive of the Sponsors.

Could it be accurately said that the definition of "Sponsor" is one whom, even though the facilitators did not act with the prime motive of the Sponsor in mind, was powerful enough to benefit from the result anyway?

No.

By the model's definition, Facilitators cannot act absent "licensing" by Sponsors. Facilitators facilitate Sponsors' true and full agendas. Facilitators -- even at the highest levels -- of world-historic crimes are almost never aware of Sponsors' true and full agendas.

Or even better, the facilitators themselves are betrayed by a 'false flag' by the Sponsors?

"Better"???

I find this sentence to be indecipherable. Unless you're suggesting that, as was the case in the JFK hit, certain Facilitators who were promised certain post-hit outcomes that subsequently were not delivered were dissuaded from seeking retribution by the threat of being exposed after the fact as "Sponsors" of the assassination.

[Jeffrey Orling]

[Charles Drago]

The sponsor sounds more like an ideology than a person or group of persons. Ideology can be the motivator for the facilitators... no? And if so it is like a religion's god which motivates mortals.

No.

The model holds that Sponsors are flesh-and-blood Prime Movers within the deep political structure: humans who, regardless of their ideological and/or practical motivations, maintain hierarchical and situational control sufficient to initiate or prevent such world historic crimes as the JFK assassination and 9-11.

[Jeffrey Orling]

The veritable big cheese(s)..