The truth about 9/11
10 Mar 2006, 7:50 am
Over the years this bloodline spread and became the aristocracy of the roman empire, then later on Europe and its various colonies. As the monarchies were eventually disbanded and colonies granted independance, the networks remained in place, pushing its initiates into positions of power and influenze - on BOTH sides of the so-called democratic political 'spectrum'. Apparantly if you trace the geneology of US presidents, something like 3/4 can be traced to the same 2 members of the european aristocracy. (Charlemaigne (sp?) of france and one of the english kings)
What about Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolksheviks? Were they part of the Illumaniti as forerunners to their democratic left-wing counterparts today?
10 Mar 2006, 3:47 pm
Thats an excellent question. The structure of the illuminati structure is a series of compartmentalised pyramids, wherby those at the bottom of each pyramid are ignorant of whats going on above. 99% of people involved in politics have a genuine conviction in what their doing, even towards the very top of each pyramid.
Sometimes great people become incredibly influential and form their own independant pyramids, simply because they are extremely talented, passionate or charismatic. If left to their own devices, these people can quickly generate a 'genuine' popular movement. The illuminati needs to hijack these movements, manipulating circumstances so that enough 'tame' or 'safe' people rise to the top.
I think in the examples you mention, Lenin & Trotsky were probably genuine revolutionaries acting independantly. Stalin was almost definately not.
Apparantly you see this all the time in Africa - popular democratically minded leaders emerge and start popular reform movements, but when reformation is imminent these 'real' people are swept aside or assasinated and the movements leadership gets hijacked by a 'tame' leader, who quickly turns into your stereotypical power-mad dictator.
11 Mar 2006, 4:47 pm
No offense to the person that posted this topic, but those websites seem like a bunch of crap. They claim that there are "gaps" in the official story, yet they assert that controlled demolition brought the towers down without anything to substantiate that claim? They replace what they consider to be a doubtful explanation with a totally fabricated one -- how is that in any way logical?
I'm not sure if anyone has taken philosophy or debate classes here in college, but there is principle of reasoning known as Occam's Razor that is best applied to these circumstances. "Numquam ponenda est pluritas sine necessitate," which means that if one is given two possible explanations for something, it is the most simple and likely explanation that is preferred over the more complex and outlandish. Where there is smoke, there is most likely fire; not a volcanic eruption taking place in your living room.
We have two scenarios. The first is that what we actually saw on TV happened, and that two Boeing jets with gallons of jet fuel collided with the upper portions of the WTC towers. This rendered structural damage to the integrity of the towers, created an imbalance in weight distribution and also incited a number of fires. These fires heated the steel of the tower, causing it to expand (as metal tends to do under extreme heat) and buckle. All of these contributing factors eventually lead to something giving way, causing one floor to collapse upon another. The weight and force of the first collapse contributed to another and another until eventually the towers collapsed in a pancaking effect upon themselves.
The second scenario is that Men in Black somehow managed to rig all of the towers with explosives. Not only did they accomplish this in a single day when the planning alone for demolition on such a scale would take months, but they did so without arising ANY suspicion. Not only is this improbable, but it is impossible, considering that controlled demolition would mean breaking down certain walls simply to set the explosives in strategic locations. I'd assume that most of us would notice if there was a giant hole in our cubicle. This scenario goes on to allege that thousands of individuals who make up local, state and federal organizations not only planned this disaster and slaughtered their own countrymen, but did so while working in perfect symbiosis on what was arguably the most chaotic day in American history. All of this despite the fact that these same organizations could not so much as communicate with each other during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Not only that, but after all of this time, not a single individual has apparently come forward to blow the whistle.
I do not expect to fully understand the first scenario as I am not a structural engineer. However, I do not need to be a physicist to know that it is far more likely that two planes are what brought those towers down; not Illuminati seeking a pretext for a war over oil that we have yet to see in any of our cars.
11 Mar 2006, 5:23 pm
Thats generally very good advice, the trouble is that when applied in certain scenarios it can leave you open to deceit. All someone has to do is reverse occams razor and theyve got you! This bluffing/double bluffing technique is how professional poker is played.
If the planes alone were responsible, that doesnt eliminate the possibility of illuminati involvement. The best way to hide a conspiracy is to create, or encourage fictional elements and muddy the waters enough so serious researchers get confused and casual observers find it easier to ridicule and dismiss all elements to the story.
Its not really possession of oil itself thats important (atm), its the currency in which oil is traded abroad.
Iraq had switched over to trading in Euros a while back - thats why the US had to invade at all costs.
11 Mar 2006, 9:21 pm
The truth about 9/11? The truth is that George Bush was warned on several occasions that there was a terrorist plot but chose to do nothing about it. He was warned specifically about Osama bin Laden and Al Queda. The FBI had even arrested one of the student pilots. They knew about a similar hijacking in Algiers by a group that wanted to fly a plane into the Eiffel tower. He was told when he was first elected that they needed to create a Department of Homeland Security but he refused.
The truth of 9/11 is that Bush was more concerned with making Democrats look bad than with protecting the USA from attack.
_________________
What would Flying Spaghetti Monster do?
16 Mar 2006, 1:27 am
I do believe that the administration was behind 9/11, but then I've always been suspicious of that because of my prejudice against them. However, I would like to bring up Hurricane Katrina--the fact that the administration had been warned about the levees, and the fact that they did nothing about it, PLUS the fact that they didn't even provide sufficient relief shows that they simply don't care about massive amounts of Americans dying.
I don't believe that the Israelis are trying to take over and rule over everyone else, however, because that would take so many generations to plan, and I don't see the point, really. I also don't think that they strictly control the US government, but I do believe that they're definately involved in it, and that the US government tries to have its policies support theirs. It's why the administration's been very pro-Israel. Additionally, I'm not exactly in support of Israel's involvement in the middle-east, and think that what they've been doing to Palistinians is similar to what the Nazi's did to them. At least, what they were doing--I haven't been keeping up on the issue as much as I should lately.
For the record, I also think that FDR and co knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen but didn't stop it because that way they could finally have an excuse to enter the war. To politicians, war is good. It theoretically boosts the economy (though this isn't always the case) and keeps nationalism and patriotism strong--even moreso when antiwar movements come. (You'd think antiwar movements would weaken patriotism, but really they tend to make the "mildly pro-war" become "super pro-war." You believe what you believe even more strongly when someone disagrees with you.) And once you're in a war, you want to stay in it for as long as you can, because once it's over the economy goes seriously downhill. That's one of the reasons why the administration is so passionate about staying in Iraq. (I kind of doubt appearing "weak" is really that big of a concern, for that kind of attitude is one of the reasons why so much of the rest of the world hates our country.)
Let me stress that the administration had every reason for 9/11 to happen. People were angry at Bush because they knew Al Gore had gotten a majority of the vote, and technically "won" the election. Bush had become president by making the votes of African Americans in florida not be counted. The Administration needed a way to win the support. An attack on American soil is a rare thing, rare enough to really, really matter to the common man. And it did matter to the common man. Flags were everywhere after 9/11. People felt the need to be jingoistic because deaths of 9/11 demanded it. Combined with the "with us or against us" attitude that was being subscribed to, the atmosphere was that if you weren't mourning for the 9/11 deaths, and if you weren't mourning for the health of the nation as a whole, then you were as bad as the terrorists. Furthermore, back in 2000--before Bush was even President, I mean--the administration drafted their plan of things to do. Iraq was on the list. (I don't have a link, sorry, so if you want to ignore this one, that's fine--I can't really back it up, it's just what I read. And given the country's need for oil (see gas prices), not to mention factors like the first Iraq war, I believe it. Heh.) The Bush Administration needed a way to go to war. 9/11 was that way. It put the country in a state of fear, and when people are afraid, they are easy to manipulate, for nearly every action that one does is performed due to the hope of one future and the fear of another. (Some Deists may disagree with that, however.)
I'm no physicist. I won't debate about the structural damage or anything like that. But I do believe that bomb theory could have easily taken place. Say a few weeks before the event, a government spy gets false ID and starts work at the World Trade Centers. New employee security guard. Just hired. Nobody asks about it. He goes on a night shift. Provided with keys for every door, he plants the bombs where he needs to, in inconspicuous places. Remote detonation. Just when the planes hit, boom.
Rather than going on this Israel tangent, I'd like to see some naysayers actually refute specific claims made in some of the articles--and not just the physics-related ones. (Because really, can you speak physicist and at least seem to prove that it's impossible, like the authors of said articles at least seem to prove that it is more than possible, even likely?)
