Who really caused 9-11?

Post Reply New Topic

Then there's the thought that all that "ineptness" was no accident.

Well that's just barely a thought, but don't be so coy, do you think it's a plausible thought or not? Personally I think perfectly faked ineptness is a good deal less likely than actual ineptness.

I personally think the global elite was the cause behind the 9-11 attacks. They had too much to gain from them. Of course you can all scoff at my "conspiracy theories".

Then there's the thought that all that "ineptness" was no accident.

If the government is so inept, how did they pull off such an elaborate conspiracy as the one claimed by 9/11 inside job adherents?

Why haven't we heard from the Illuminati or the NWO about 9/11 and how they were behind everything? Conspiracy people, help me out here.

How does the average person come to know of these secret societies? If they really were secret, no one at all would know they exist and their names would be on no one's lips. Why is it that we know just enough to become tantalized?

How does the average person come to know of these secret societies? If they really were secret, no one at all would know they exist and their names would be on no one's lips. Why is it that we know just enough to become tantalized?

Attention 911 Conspiracy Theorists: If you finally have all of your fish in one barrel, then why do you keep shooting into the sky?

Trust me ... the NWO had nothing to do with 911. We were already luring Senator Ryan into sex clubs and encouraging him to bring his wife Jeri while simultaneously impressing upon her the concepts of traditional family values so that she would end up filing for divorce and the media would pick up on the backstory and a scandal would explode around Senator Ryan so that he would have to leave office and Mr. Obama would take his place and eventually be elected president over John McGeezer and Caribou Barbie ...

... and the rest is history.

"This democracy has perfected for itself a fabrication of its inconceivable enemy: terrorism. In effect, this democracy wants to be judged more by its enemies than by its results. The history of terrorism is written by the State, and is therefore very educational. The masses of spectators can never by allowed to know everything about terrorism, but they must nevertheless be told enough so that they are persuaded that - compared to terrorism - everything else appears to be acceptable and in every case more rational and more democratic [... ] The secret dominates this world, and primarily as the secret of domination." - Guy Debord, Commentaries on the Society of the Spectacle, 1988.

"It remains to be said that people are naturally changeable and it is easy to persuade them of something, but it is difficult to strengthen their degree of persuasion; it is necessary that things be so arranged that, if there are those who do not believe, one can persuade them by the use of force." Machiavelli, The Prince.

In this society that is in an advanced state of decomposition, terrorism has proved itself to be a means by which power strengthens itself or simply maintains its existence.

The practice of terrorism is both modern and archaic. It responds to precise requirements when public order is menaced by social forces that appear to be uncontrollable. Without going as far back a Nero - who, in 64 A.D., burned all of Rome so as to persecute the Christians who, claiming equality for all before God, menaced the foundations of Roman civilization (i.e. slavery) - we can recall that terrorist strikes planned in high places have marked the entire history of the 20th century. And these strike haven't laced originality as far as form is concerned, for they always have the same purpose. From the direct manipulation of Russian terrorists by the Okhrana the Czar's secret police, at the beginning of the 20th century, to the kidnapping and assassination of Aldo Moro in 1978 by the teleguided Red Brigades; from the burning of the Reichstag (staged by Goebbels in 1933) to the police bombs in the Piazza Fontana in Milan in 1969 - all the acts of spectacular terrorism have as their common objectives the silencing of the opposition, the justification of the imprisonment or killing of dissidents, the rallying of frightened populations to existing power, and the consolidation of generalized oppression.

All of these operations spread fear, feed unverifiable rumors, sustain the use of paid informants, train their abused spectators in the most servile behaviors, and extend the special powers devoted to the services of control and surveillance. In each of the cases cited above, the "guilty parties" were evidently those who were the easiest to give up to the furious public, whose responses had already been conditioned. The "mysteries" that nevertheless enveloped each of these acts of war were also and simultaneously presented as impenetrable, that is, until changes in the administration of affairs made it possible to reveal the plausible nature of the truly guilty parties to the mystified public, but, as one says, after it was too late.

The strategic act of terror of 11 September 2001, to which the enslaved media pompously refer to as "the events" so as to thicken the plot, is also a "mystery" [full of] contradictory official declarations, aberrant proofs of guilt, pre-selected media rumors, repeated lies, untestable hypotheses, furies who avenge but are unknown, suspects who are not responsible [endnote 1], mass arrests (public and secret), varieties of military mobilizations, increases in the illegal use of surveillance, [and] fraudulent stock market transactions. But the reviled act encapsulates the direction of the irresistible march of domination, which is present in all the parties of the world of the commodity.

The owners of this world, speaking with the unanimous voice of all of their political representatives, miraculously find within these attacks the justification that guarantees the replication of all their currently existing enterprises, which don't fail to take in all the domains that concern them: from genetic manipulation to industrial war, from the mastery of resources (notably energy) to the falsification of food, [and] from the re-development of land to the management of the living. Already, as the result of this surprising gift from the skies, fear - that ancient leaven in the bread of servitude (commodity servitude, too, for fear sells) - has taken over. For the owners of this world, it is now a question not only of violently dispersing a contestatory movement that seems to break out everywhere (Cincinnati, Gotenborg, Genoa, Addis-Adeba, Kabul), but also, and even more profoundly, of assuring the total voluntary submission of all citizens by increasing consumption ("a patriotic act") and by reinforcing at the global level illegal police tactics that accompany these urgent measures. The war against Afghanistan is part of this larger action; it prolongs it.

With all our international friends, we call for the complete opposition to this war. Because it is also against us that this war is being fought. Its true aim is "the crushing of all opposition, even the most benign, until the total colonization of all aspects of life is everywhere on the entire surface of the earth." It is necessary to expect that "where a sign of a dissidence is found, a terrorist will also be discovered."

"If this world - which silently kills hundreds of thousands of Africans each year and relegates the youths in the suburbs (which resemble camps) to a life that is an interminable and deadly bore - chooses to bomb the Afghans on prime-time TV so that it can forget about the prior crisis and pursue its opponents, we must do something. We must show this world - using all possible means, including demonstrations, texts, radio interventions and speeches in the street - that it cannot massacre its own population."

"This world is at the mercy of an indiscretion, and 'they' come to us to furnish the occasion. It's up to us to seize it."