[Not really racist!]

Iran’s Ahmadinejad calls Sept. 11 "big fabrication"

TEHRAN, March 6 (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday called the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States a "big fabrication" that was used to justify the U.S. war on terrorism, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West and Israel, made the comment in a meeting with Intelligence Ministry personnel.

It came amid escalating tension in the long-running dispute between Iran and the West over Tehran’s nuclear programme, with the United States pushing for new U.N. sanctions against the major oil producer.

Ahmadinejad described the destruction of the twin towers in New York on Sept. 11, 2001 as a "complicated intelligence scenario and act," IRNA reported.

He added: "The Sept. 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan." He did not elaborate.

Nearly 3,000 people died in the hijacked airliner attacks on New York and Washington, which were carried out by al Qaeda operatives.

In January, Ahmadinejad termed the Sept. 11 attacks "suspicious" and accused the West of seeking to dominate the Middle East.

Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, was re-elected in a disputed presidential vote last June that stirred the largest display of internal unrest in the country since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Iran%20Ahmadinejad%20calls%20Sept%20fabrication/2650448/story.html

[willcls]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/af/Jews_did_wtc_flowchart.jpeg

also see
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/af/Jews_did_wtc_flowchart.jpeg

[AutozamAZ-3]

old speculation. well never know until 30 years from now

[jeff19]

well never know until 30 years from now

care to explain?

[twitchyzero]

sounds like another cliche 24 plot :lol

[CRS]

care to explain?

Well, secret files are released after a certain amount of years. Though we can never truly know just how many secret files are hidden and how many come to light.

For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US had a plan to basically attack itself but make it seem like Cuba did it so that the public would back a war against Cuba.

It has since then been released to the public since it is no longer considered a secret or a matter of national security.

[skillznrice]

YouTube- ZEITGEIST - MOVIE (FULL VERSION) PLEASE SHARE WITH EVERYONE

Skip into the video about 30min in. unless you want to watch the whole thing.

i personally, believe this particular theory...its pretty legit. and i also really want to believe the jew theory lol!

[RollingStone]

"False flag" operations happen all the time.

Another prominent operation is the Gulf of Tonkin incident in which the US claimed that the North Vietnamese fired on an American destroyer, which was the justification for the subsequent invasion. In reality, there was no attack. They needed an excuse to destroy Vietnam because they were a Soviet ally (although the US lost the war, they did accomplish their objective) . The Pentagon doesn't even try to hide the fact anymore because they know that the "people" are too stupid and lazy to actually care. LOL.

[.Renn.Sport]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/af/Jews_did_wtc_flowchart.jpeg


so....hitler did the right thing by killing the jews in WW2..... :confused:

[Lomac]

For fucks sake.

Seriously people? Do I need to pull up all the old threads created by +theone+ / GunMetalTeg and pull out all of the responses a bunch of members and myself made that basically refuted all of these claims?

Guh...

[JD¹³]

Sorry if I'm misreading your response Lomac. But if you honestly believe that all that went on on Sept 11th 2001, as told by the American government, is really what happened - you're a fucking moron.

As weird as this sounds, I agree with the crazy Iranian.

Oh and BTW Zeitgeist isn't the best flick out there on the 9/11 subject. YouTube 'Loose Change' and watch the latest edition.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[m!chael]

Sorry if I'm misreading your response Lomac. But if you honestly believe that all that went on on Sept 11th 2001, as told by the American government, is really what happened - you're a fucking moron.

As weird as this sounds, I agree with the crazy Iranian.

Oh and BTW Zeitgeist isn't the best flick out there on the 9/11 subject. YouTube 'Loose Change' and watch the latest edition.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

You're an idiot. A gullible one too. That loose change 'flick' has been refuted repeatedly by people who actually know what they're talking. I'm not gonna post that shit on here because of the same reasons as Lomac.

[Meowjin]

i remember when the one was an idiot,

[SkinnyPupp]

Great, all the idiots are coming out again, making these fucking retarded conspiracy threads. Does this happen every other month or something? What does the mayan calendar have to say?

[willcls]

of course if you read all about freemasonry/skull and bones/satanist trying to take over the world its going to sound crazy and conspiratorial. but once you realize that history is written as opposed to recorded you dont care about what the name is you just know that there is a billionaires club who work in concert with each other to manipulate and control what goes on politically and economically in the world we live in for their benefit. war, famine are used against 3rd worlds to prevent development. you can call these people capitalist simply. here is a good long read about what is going on....Crashing Towards a New World Social Order 2012
Politics / New World Order
Mar 01, 2010 - 03:23 AM

By: Global_Research



Richard K. Moore writes: Historical background – the establishment of capitalist supremacy

When the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, in the late 1700s, there was lots of money to be made by investing in factories and mills, by opening up new markets, and by gaining control of sources of raw materials. The folks who had the most money to invest, however, were not so much in Britain but more in Holland. Holland was the leading Western power in the 1600s, and its bankers were the leading capitalists. In pursuit of profit, Dutch capital flowed to the British stock market, and thus the Dutch funded the rise of Britain, who subsequently eclipsed Holland both economically and geopolitically.



In this way British industrialism came to be dominated by wealthy investors, and capitalism became the dominant economic system. This led to a major social transformation. Britain had been essentially an aristocratic society, dominated by landholding families. As capitalism became dominant economically, capitalists became dominant politically. Tax structures and import-export policies were gradually changed to favor investors over landowners.

It was no longer economically viable to simply maintain an estate in the countryside: one needed to develop it, turn it to more productive use. Victorian dramas are filled with stories of aristocratic families who fall on hard times, and are forced to sell off their properties. For dramatic purposes, this decline is typically attributed to a failure in some character, a weak eldest son perhaps. But in fact the decline of aristocracy was part of a larger social transformation brought on by the rise of capitalism.

The business of the capitalist is the management of capital, and this management is generally handled through the mediation of banks and brokerage houses. It should not be surprising that investment bankers came to occupy the top of the hierarchy of capitalist wealth and power. And in fact, there are a handful of banking families, including the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who have come to dominate economic and political affairs in the Western world.

Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile – it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. Just as a copper mine might be exploited and then abandoned, so under capitalism a whole nation can be exploited and then abandoned, as we see in the rusting industrial areas of America and Britain.

This detachment from place leads to a different kind of geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can 'explain' the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandizement of monarchs and nations.

A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time 'explaining' World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives.

In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the real winner always turns out to be the house – the bankers who finance the war and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests.

Nations and populations are but pawns in their games. Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their postwar reconstruction investments.

From their position of power, as the financiers of governments, the banking elite have over time perfected their methods of control. Staying always behind the scenes, they pull the strings controlling the media, the political parties, the intelligence agencies, the stock markets, and the offices of government. And perhaps their greatest lever of power is their control over currencies. By means of their central-bank scam, they engineer boom and bust cycles, and they print money from nothing and then loan it at interest to governments. The power of the banking elites is both absolute and subtle...

"Some of the biggest men in the United

States are afraid of something. They

know there is a power somewhere, so

organised, so subtle, so watchful, so

interlocked, so complete, so pervasive

that they had better not speak above

their breath when they speak in

condemnation of it."

-- President Woodrow Wilson

The end of growth – capitalists vs. capitalism

It was always inevitable, on a finite planet, that there would be a limit to economic growth. Industrialization has enabled us to rush headlong toward that limit over the past two centuries. Production has become ever more efficient, markets have become ever more global, and finally we have reached the point where the paradigm of perpetual growth can no longer be maintained.

Indeed, that point was actually reached by about 1970. Since then capital has not so much sought growth through increased production, but rather by extracting greater returns from relatively flat production levels. Hence globalization, which moved production to low-waged areas, providing greater profit margins. Hence privatization, which transfers revenue streams to investors that formerly went to national treasuries. Hence derivative and currency markets, which create the electronic illusion of economic growth, without actually producing anything in the real world.

If one studies the collapse of civilizations, one learns that failure-to-adapt is fatal. Continuing on the path of pursuing growth would be such a failure to adapt. And if one reads the financial pages these days, one finds that it is full of doomsayers. We read that the Eurozone is doomed, and Greece is just the first casualty. We read that stimulus packages are not working, unemployment is increasing, the dollar is in deep trouble, growth continues to stagnate, business real estate will be the next bubble to burst, etc. It is easy to get the impression that capitalism is failing to adapt, and that our societies are in danger of collapsing into chaos.

Such an impression would be partly right and partly wrong. In order to understand the real situation we need to make a clear distinction between the capitalist elite and capitalism itself. Capitalism is an economic system driven by growth; the capitalist elite are the folks who have managed to gain control of the Western world while capitalism has operated over the past two centuries. The capitalist system is past its sell-by date, the banking elite are well aware of that fact – and they are adapting.

Capitalism is a vehicle that helped bring the bankers to absolute power, but they have no more loyalty to that system than they have to place, or to anything or anyone else. As mentioned earlier, they think on a global scale, with nations and populations as pawns. They define what money is and they issue it, just like the banker in a game of Monopoly. They can also make up a new game with a new kind of money. They have long outgrown any need to rely on any particular economic system in order to maintain their power. Capitalism was handy in an era of rapid growth. For an era of non-growth, a different game is being prepared.

Thus, capitalism has not been allowed to die a natural death. First it was put on a life-support system, as mentioned above, with globalization, privatization, derivative markets, etc. Then it was injected with a euthanasia death-drug, in the form of toxic derivatives. And when the planned collapse occurred, rather than industrial capitalism being bailed out, the elite bankers were bailed out. It's not that the banks were too big to fail, rather the bankers were too politically powerful to fail. They made governments an offer they couldn't refuse.

The outcome of the trillion-dollar bailouts was easily predictable, although you wouldn't know that from reading the financial pages. National budgets were already stretched, and they certainly did not have reserves available to service the bailouts. Thus the bailouts amounted to nothing more than the taking on of immense new debts by governments. In order to fulfill the bailout commitments, the money would need to be borrowed from the same financial institutions that were being bailed out.

With the bailouts, Western governments delivered their nations in hock to the bankers. The governments are now in perpetual debt bondage to the bankers. Rather than the banks going into receivership, governments are now in receivership. Obama's cabinet and advisors are nearly all from Wall Street; they are in the White House so they can keep close watch over their new acquisition, the once sovereign USA. Perhaps they will soon be presiding over its liquidation.

The bankers are now in control of national budgets. They say what can be funded and what can't. When it comes to financing their wars and weapons production, no limits are set. When it comes to public services, then we are told deficits must be held in check. The situation was expressed very well by Brian Cowan, Ireland's government chief. In the very same week that Ireland pledged 200 billion Euro to bailout the banks, he was being asked why he was cutting a few million Euro off of critical service budgets. He replied, "I'm sorry, but the funds just aren't there". Of course they're not there! The treasury was given away. The cupboard is bare.

As we might expect, the highest priority for budgets is servicing the debt to the banks. Just as most of the third world is in debt slavery to the IMF, so the whole West is now in debt slavery to its own central banks. Greece is the harbinger of what is to happen everywhere.

The carbon economy – controlling consumption

In a non-growth economy, the mechanisms of production will become relatively static. Instead of corporations competing to innovate, we'll have production bureaucracies. They'll be semi-state, semi-private bureaucracies, concerned about budgets and quotas rather than growth, somewhat along the lines of the Soviet model. Such an environment is not driven by a need for growth capital, and it does not enable a profitable game of Monopoly.

We can already see steps being taken to shift the corporate model towards the bureaucratic model, through increased government intervention in economic affairs. With the Wall Street bailouts, the forced restructuring of General Motors, the call for centralized micromanagement of banking and industry, and the mandating of health insurance coverage, the government is saying that the market is to superseded by government directives. Not that we should bemoan the demise of exploitive capitalism, but before celebrating we need to understand what it is being replaced with.

In an era of capitalism and growth, the focus of the game has been on the production side of the economy. The game was aimed at controlling the means of growth: access to capital. The growth-engine of capitalism created the demand for capital; the bankers controlled the supply. Taxes were mostly based on income, again related to the production side of the economy.

In an era of non-growth, the focus of the game will be on the consumption side of the economy. The game will be aimed at controlling the necessities of life: access to food and energy. Population creates the demand for the necessities of life; the bankers intend to control the supply. Taxes will be mostly based on consumption, particularly of energy. That's what the global warming scare is all about, with its carbon taxes and carbon credits.

Already in Britain there is talk of carbon quotas, like gasoline rationing in wartime. It's not just that you'll pay taxes on energy, but the amount of energy you can consume will be determined by government directive. Carbon credits will be issued to you, which you can use for driving, for heating, or on rare occasions for air travel. Also in Britain, the highways are being wired so that they can track how many miles you drive, tax you accordingly, and penalize you if you travel over your limit. We can expect these kinds of things to spread throughout the West, as it's the same international bankers who are in charge everywhere.

In terms of propaganda, this control over consumption is being sold as a solution to global warming and peak oil. The propaganda campaign has been very successful, and the whole environmental movement has been captured by it. In Copenhagen, demonstrators confronted the police, carrying signs in support of carbon taxes and carbon credits. But in fact the carbon regime has nothing to do with climate or with sustainability. It is all about micromanaging every aspect of our lives, as well as every aspect of the economy.

If the folks who are running things actually cared about sustainability, they'd be investing in efficient mass transit, and they'd be shifting agriculture from petroleum-intensive, water-intensive methods to sustainable methods. Instead they are mandating biofuels and selling us electric cars, which are no more sustainable or carbon-efficient than standard cars. Indeed, the real purpose behind biofuels is genocide. With food prices linked to energy prices, and agriculture land being converted from food production to fuel production, the result can only be a massive increase in third-world starvation. Depopulation has long been a stated goal in elite circles, and the Rockefeller dynasty has frequently been involved in eugenics projects of various kinds.

'The War on Terrorism' – preparing the way for the transition

The so-called War on Terrorism has two parts. The first part is a pretext for arbitrary abuse of citizen's rights, whenever Homeland Security claims the action is necessary for security reasons. The second part is a pretext for US military aggression anywhere in the world, whenever the White House claims that Al Qaeda is active there.

I emphasized the word 'claims' above, because the terrorism pretext is being used to justify arbitrary powers, both domestically and globally. No hard evidence need be presented to Congress, the UN, or anyone else, before some nation is invaded, someone is kidnapped and tortured as a 'terrorist suspect', or some new invasive security measure is implemented. When powers are arbitrary, then we are no longer living under the rule of law, neither domestically nor internationally. We are living under the rule of men, as you would expect in a dictatorship, or in an old-fashioned kingdom or empire.

Part 1: Preparing the way for a new social order

In a very real sense, the terrorism pretext is being used to undo everything that The Enlightenment and the republication revolutions achieved two centuries ago. The very heart of the Bill of Rights – due process – has been abandoned. The gulag, the concentration camp, and the secret arrest in the night – these we have always associated with fascist and communist dictatorships – and now they are not only functioning under US jurisdiction, but being justified publicly by the President himself.

Is there really a terrorist threat to the homeland, and would these measures be a sensible response to such a threat? People sre strongly divided in their answers to these questions. Quite a bit of hard forensic evidence has come to light, including links to intelligence agencies, and my own view is that most of the dramatic 'terrorist' events in the US, UK, and Europe have been covert false-flag operations.

From an historical perspective this would not be at all surprising. Such operations have been standard practice – modus operandi – in many nations, though we usually don't get proof until years later. For example, every war the US has been involved in has had its own phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or its Weapons of Mass Destruction scam, in one form or another. It's a formula that works. Instant mobilization of public opinion, prompt passage without debate of enabling resolutions and legislation. Why would the War on Terrorism be any different?

As regards motive: while Muslims have only suffered as a result of these dramatic events, our elite bankers have been able to create a police-state infrastructure that can be used to deal with any foreseeable popular resistance or civic chaos that might emerge as they prepare the way for their post-capitalist future.

With the collapse, the bailouts, and the total failure to pursue any kind of effective recovery strategy, the signals are very clear: the system will be allowed to collapse totally, thus clearing the ground for a pre-architected 'solution'. Ground Zero can be seen as a metaphor, with the capitalist economy as the Twin Towers. And the toxic derivatives illustrate the fact that the collapse is actually a controlled demolition.

It seems to me inevitable, given the many signals, that martial law will be part of the transition process, allegedly to deal with the problems of economic collapse. Perhaps a collapse in the food-supply chain, due to a collapse in the energy-supply chain. The US emergency responses in New Orleans and again in Haiti give us more signals, actual test trials, of what kind of 'emergency response' we can expect.

First and foremost comes the security of the occupation forces. Those suffering in the emergency are treated more like insurgents than victims in need of help. In the case of Haiti, the US response can only be described as an intentional genocide project. When people are pinned under rubble in an earthquake, the first 48 hours, and 72 hours, are absolutely critical points, as regards survival rates. When the US military systematically blocked incoming aid for those critical hours, turning back doctors and emergency teams, they sealed the fate of many thousands who could have been saved.

One can imagine many nightmare scenarios, given these various signals, these ominous signs. World Wars 1 and 2 were nightmares that really happened, with millions dying, and these same banking dynasties orchestrated those scenarios and then covered their tracks. We must also keep in mind the Shock Doctrine, where catastrophe is seen as opportunity – when 'things can be done that otherwise could not be accomplished'. We are still being impacted by the shock waves that were sent out on 9/11, and again when the financial system collapsed. And the the really big shock, the general collapse of society, is yet to come. The ultimate version of the Shock Doctrine: 'If the collapse is total, we can accomplish any damned thing we want to accomplish'.

I won't venture a guess about how this transition process will play out, but I do expect that it will be a nightmare of one description or another. Already the growing homeless population is suffering a nightmare, by any civilized standards. One day you're living in a home whose value is going up, commuting to a good job, and the next thing you know your family is out on the streets. That's a nightmare. The transition time will be a difficult time, but it will be a transition, it will be temporary, like a war. And like a war, it will enable social and economic reconstruction in the aftermath.

Consider how Japan and Germany were socially and politically transformed by the postwar reconstruction process. Those were exercises in social engineering, as were the preceding transformations under Mussolini and Hitler. Although the outcomes were quite different, in each case a total collapse / defeat was the preamble to reconstruction. A total collapse of the capitalist economy is simply the application of a proven formula. The second part of the formula will be some new social order, or perhaps some old social order, or some mixture. Something appropriate to a non-growth, command economy.

That's part 1 of the War on Terrorism: it has enabled the creation of the police-state infrastructures required to to deal with the collapse of society, and to provide security for the reconstruction process.

Part 2: Preparing the way for global domination

Part 2 of the War on Terrorism is about the geopolitical dimensions of a non-growth-based global economy. Earlier I suggested that geopolitics was different under capitalism, than it was under sovereign monarchs. The whole dynamic was different, and outcomes were weighed on a different scale. Similarly, many things will change in a shift from chaotic, growth-oriented capitalism, to a centralized, micromanaged, economic regime.

Consider, for example, the significance of control over oil reserves. In a growth economy, profits were the prize, and controlling the markets and the distribution channels amounted to holding a winning hand in the game. The local dictators could manage things as they pleased, and take their cut of oil revenues, as long as they honored their contracts with the oil majors, who were happy to sell to the highest bidders.

In a non-growth economy, where the focus is on direct control over the supply and distributions of resources, it becomes necessary to secure, in the military sense, the sources of petroleum, and the routes for its distribution. It is no longer sufficient to merely profit from unbridled operations. Securing of the sources, and directly allocating the distribution, is the foundation for micromanaging the non-growth economy. This applies to other critical resources as well, such as uranium, and the rare minerals needed by the 'defense' and electronics industries.

In fact we are in the midst of a resource-grab war, with China and Russia making long-term energy deals with Iran and Venezuela, China buying up agricultural land in Africa, Washington making long-term deals for Brazilian biofuels, and there are many other examples. In many ways imperialism is reverting to colonial days, when direct administration was the model, rather than the capitalist model: profiting from corporate investments under dictators who suppress their populations.

There is a natural reversion to the dynamics of the 'good old days of empire' when the Great Powers of Europe focused their economic activity within their individual spheres of influence. Everyone knows that global resource limits are being reached, partly from population pressures, and partly from resource-exploitation practices. For this reason alone, we have the peaceful part of the resource-grab war.

In Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan and Yemen, the US, with NATO support, is playing a very non-peaceful hand in the resource-grab game. It's the hand of a bully, 'I have the biggest gun, so I'll take what I want'. These aggressive actions are very provocative to Russia and China, and threatening to their vital economic interests. An attack on Iran would be more than a provocation, it would be a direct slap in the face, a challenge: 'Fight now or resign yourself to being subdued piecemeal'.

In addition to all this petroleum grabbing, the US has been surrounding Russia and China with military bases, and has recently accelerated the installations of anti-missile systems on their borders, over the strong objections of Russia and China. The US is being intentionally provocative, and it is threatening vital interests of these potential adversaries.

Alliances are being formed in response, on a bilateral basis, and in the form of the SCO. China and Russia are very close in their military cooperation, and technology sharing. Their strategic planning is based on the expectation of a US attack, and their strategic response is based on the principle of asymmetric warfare. For example, a million dollar missile capable of taking out a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier. Or perhaps a handful of missiles capable of disabling the Pentagon's command-and-control satellite systems.

Meanwhile the US is spending astronomical sums developing a first-strike capability, with space-based weapons systems, control-of-theater capability, forward-based 'tactical' nukes, etc. The new anti-missile systems are an important part of a first-strike strategy, reducing the ability of Russia or China to retaliate. These systems are more than just provocative. They are the modern equivalent of marching your armies up to your adversary's border.

If there is a nuclear exchange between the major powers, historians will cite all of these things I've mentioned as 'obvious signs' that war was coming. Parallels would be drawn to the pre-World War 1 scenario, when Germany was eclipsing Britain economically, as China is eclipsing the US now. In both cases a 'desperate attempt to maintain hegemony' would be seen as the cause of the war.

There may or may not be a World War 3, but all of these preparations make it clear that our banking elite intend to preside over a global system, by hook or by crook. If they wanted a peaceful arrangement, a splitting of the third-world pie, so to speak, it could be easily arranged at any time, along with substantial nuclear disarmament. China and Russia would like to see a stable, multi-polar world; it is only our elite bankers who are obsessed with world domination.

It is possible that nuclear war is a 'desired outcome', accomplishing depopulation, and making the collapse even more total. Or perhaps China and Russia will be given an offer they can't refuse: 'Surrender your economic sovereignty to our global system, or face the consequences'.

One way or another, the elite bankers, the masters of the universe, intend to preside over a micromanaged global system. The collapse project is now well underway, and the 'surround your enemy' project seems to be more or less completed. From a strategic perspective, there will be some trigger point, some stage in the economic collapse scenario, when geopolitical confrontation is judged to be most advantageous. It's a multi-dimensional chess board, and with the stakes so high, you can rest assured that the timing of the various moves will be carefully coordinated. And from the overall shape of the board, we seem to be nearing the endgame.

Prognosis 2012 – a Neo Dark Age

2012 might not be the exact year, but it's difficult to see the endgame lasting much beyond that, and the masters of the universe love symbolism, as with 911 (both in Chile and in Manhattan), KLA 007, and others. 2012 is loaded with symbolism, eg. the Mayan Calendar, and the Internet is buzzing with various 2012-related prophecies, survival strategies, anticipated alien interventions, alignments with galactic radiation fields, etc. And then there is the Hollywood film, 2012, which explicitly portrays the demise of most of humanity, and the pre-planned salvation of a select few. One never knows with Hollywood productions, what is escapist fantasy, and what is aimed at preparing the public mind symbolically for what is to come.

Whatever the exact date, all the threads will come together, geopolitically and domestically, and the world will change. It will be a new era, just as capitalism was a new era after aristocracy, and the Dark Ages followed the era of the Roman Empire. Each era has its own structure, its own economics, its own social forms, and its own mythology. These things must relate to one another coherently, and their nature follows from the fundamental power relationships and economic circumstances of the system.

In our post-2012 world, we have for the first time one centralized global government, and one ruling elite clique, a kind of extended royal family, the lords of finance. As we can see with the IMF, WHO, and the WTO, and the other pieces of the embryonic world government, the institutions of governance will make no pretensions about popular representation or democratic responsiveness. Rule will be by means of autocratic global bureaucracies, who take their marching orders from the royal family. This model has already been operating for some time, within its various spheres of influence, as with the restructuring programs forced on the third world, as a condition for getting financing.

Whenever there is a change of era, the previous era is always demonized in mythology. In the Garden of Eden story the serpent is demonized – a revered symbol in paganism, the predecessor to Christianity. When republics came along, the demonization of monarchs was an important part of the process. In the post-2012 world, democracy and national sovereignty will be demonized. This will be very important, in getting people to accept totalitarian rule, and the mythology will contain much that is true...

In those terrible dark days, before the blessed unification of humanity, anarchy reigned in the world. One nation would attack another, no better than predators in the wild. Nations had no coherent policies; voters would swing from one party to another, keeping governments always in transition and confusion. How did they ever think that masses of semi-educated people could govern themselves, and run a complex society? Democracy was an ill-conceived experiment that led only to corruption and chaotic governance. How lucky we are to be in this well-ordered world, where humanity has finally grown up, and those with the best expertise make the decisions.

The economics of non-growth are radically different than capitalist economics. The unit of exchange is likely to be a carbon credit, entitling you to consume the equivalent of one kilogram of fuel. Everything will have a carbon value, allegedly based on how much energy it took to produce it and transport it to market. 'Green consciousness' will be a primary ethic, conditioned early into children. Getting by with less is a virtue; using energy is anti-social; austerity is a responsible and necessary condition.

As with every currency, the bankers will want to manage the scarcity of carbon credits, and that's where global warming alarmism becomes important. Regardless of the availability of resources, carbon credits can be kept arbitrarily scarce simply by setting carbon budgets, based on directives from the IPCC, another of our emerging units of global bureaucratic governance. Such IPCC directives will be the equivalent of the Federal Reserve announcing a change in interest rates. Those budgets set the scale of economic activity.

Presumably nations will continue to exist, as official units of governance. However security and policing will be largely centralized and privatized. Like the Roman Legions, the security apparatus will be loyal to the center of empire, not to the place where someone happens to be stationed. We have seen this trend already in the US, as mercenaries have become big business, and police forces are increasingly federalized, militarized, and alienated from the general public.

Just as airports have now been federalized, all transport systems will be under the jurisdiction of the security apparatus. Terrorism will continue as an ongoing bogey-man, justifying whatever security procedures are deemed desirable for social-control purposes. The whole security apparatus will have a monolithic quality to it, a similarity of character regardless of the specific security tasks or location. Everyone dressed in the same Evil Empire black outfits, with big florescent letters on the back of their flack jackets. In essence, the security apparatus will be an occupying army, the emperor's garrison in the provinces.

On a daily basis, you will need to go through checkpoints of various kinds, with varying levels of security requirements. This is where biometrics becomes important. If people can be implanted with chips, then much of the security can be automated, and everyone can be tracked at at all times, and their past activity retrieved. The chip links into your credit balance, so you've got all your currency always with you, along with your medical records and lots else that you don't know about.

There is very little left as regards national sovereignty. Nothing much in the way of foreign policy will have any meaning. With security marching to its own law and its distant drummer, the main role of so-called 'government' will be to allocate and administer the carbon-credit budget that it receives from the IPCC. The IPCC decides how much wealth a nation will receive in a given year, and the government then decides how to distribute that wealth in the form of public services and entitlements. Wealth being measured by the entitlement to expend energy.

In a fundamental sense, this is how things already are, following the collapse and the bailouts. Because governments are so deeply in debt, the bankers are able to dictate the terms of national budgets, as a condition of keeping credit lines open. The carbon economy, with its centrally determined budgets, provides a much simpler and more direct way of micromanaging economic activity and resource distribution throughout the globe.

In order to clear the way for the carbon-credit economy, it will be necessary for Western currencies to collapse, to become worthless, as nations become increasingly insolvent, and the global financial system continues to be systematically dismantled. The carbon currency will be introduced as an enlightened, progressive 'solution' to the crisis, a currency linked to something real, and to sustainability. The old monetary system will be demonized, and again the mythology will contain much that is true...

The pursuit of money is the root of all evil, and the capitalist system was inherently evil. It encouraged greed, and consumption, and it cared nothing about wasting resources. People thought the more money they had, the better off they were. How much wiser we are now, to live within our means, and to understand that a credit is a token of stewardship.

Culturally, the post-capitalist era will be a bit like the medieval era, with aristocrats and lords on top, and the rest peasants and serfs. A definite upper class and lower class. Just as only the old upper class had horses and carriages, only the new upper class will be entitled to access substantial carbon credits. Wealth will be measured by entitlements, more than by acquisitions or earnings. Those outside the bureaucratic hierarchies are the serfs, with subsistence entitlements. Within the bureaucracies, entitlements are related to rank in the hierarchy. Those who operate in the central global institutions are lords of empire, with unlimited access to credits.

But there is no sequestering of wealth, or building of economic empires, outside the structures of the designated bureaucracies. Entitlements are about access to resources and facilities, to be used or not used, but not to be saved and used as capital. The flow of entitlements comes downward, micromanaged from the top. It's a dole economy, at all levels, for people and governments alike – the global regimentation of consumption. As regards regimentation, the post-capitalist culture will also be a bit like the Soviet system. Here's your entitlement card, here's your job assignment, and here's where you'll be living.

With the pervasive security apparatus, and the micromanagement of economic activity, the scenario is clearly about fine-grained social control, according to centralized guidelines and directives. Presumably media will be carefully programmed, with escapist trivia, and a sophisticated version of 1984-style groupthink propaganda pseudo-news, which is pretty much what we already have today. The non-commercial Internet, if there is one, will be limited to monitored, officially-designated chat sites, and other kinds of sanitized forums.

With such a focus on social micromanagement, I do not expect the family unit to survive in the new era, and I expect child-abuse alarmism will be the lever used to destabilize the family. The stage has been set with all the revelations about church and institutional child sexual abuse. Such revelations could have been uncovered any time in the past century, but they came out at a certain time, just as all these other transitional things have been happening. People are now aware that widespread child abuse happens, and they have been conditioned to support strong measures to prevent it.

Whenever I turn on the TV, I see at least one public-service ad, with shocking images, about children who are physically or sexually abused, or criminally neglected, in their homes, and there's a hotline phone number that children can call. It is easy to see how the category of abuse can be expanded, to include parents who don't follow vaccination schedules, whose purchase records don't indicate healthy diets, who have dubious psychological profiles, etc. The state of poverty could be deemed abusive neglect.

With the right media presentation, abuse alarmism would be easy to stir up. Ultimately, a 'child rights' movement becomes an anti-family movement. The state must directly protect the child from birth. The family is demonized...

How scary were the old days, when unlicensed, untrained couples had total control over vulnerable children, behind closed doors, with whatever neuroses, addictions, or perversions the parents happened to possess. How did this vestige of patriarchal slavery, this safe-house den of abuse, continue so long to exist, and not be recognized for what it was? How much better off we are now, with children being raised scientifically, by trained staff, where they are taught healthy values.

Ever since public education was introduced, the state and the family have competed to control childhood conditioning. In religious families, the church has made its own contribution to conditioning. In the micromanaged post-capitalist future, with its Shock Doctrine birth scenario, it would make good sense to take that opportunity to implement the 'final solution' of social control, which is for the state to monopolize child raising. This would eliminate from society the parent-child bond, and hence family-related bonds in general. No longer is there a concept of relatives. There's just worker bees, security bees, and queen bees, who dole out the honey.

Postscript

This has been an extensive and somewhat detailed prognosis, regarding the architecture of the post-capitalist regime, and the transition process required to bring it about. The term 'new world order' is too weak a term to characterize the radical nature of the social transformation anticipated in the prognosis. A more apt characterization would be a 'quantum leap in the domestication of the human species'. Micromanaged lives and microprogrammed beliefs and thoughts. A once wild primate species transformed into something resembling more a bee or ant culture. Needless to say, regular use of psychotropic drugs would be mandated, so that people could cope emotionally with such a sterile, inhuman environment.

For such a profound transformation to be possible, it is easy to see that a very great shock is required, on the scale of collapse and social chaos, and possibly on the scale of a nuclear exchange. There needs to be an implicit mandate to 'do whatever is necessary to get society running again'. The shock needs to leave people in a condition of total helplessness comparable to the survivors in the bombed-out rubble of Germany and Japan after World War 2. Nothing less will do.

The accuracy of the prognosis, as prediction, is of course impossible to know in advance. However each part of the prognosis has been based on precedents that have been set, modus operandi that has been observed, trends that have been initiated, sentiments that have been expressed, signals that have been given, and actions that have been taken whose consequences can be confidently predicted.

In addition, in looking at all of these indicators together, one sees a certain mindset, an absolutist determination to implement the 'ideal solution', without compromise, using extreme means, and with unbridled audacity. World wars have been rehearsals for this historic moment. The police state infrastructure is in place and has been tested. The economy is in the process of collapse. The enemy is surrounded with missiles. Arbitrary powers have been assumed. If not now, the ultimate prize, then when will there be a better opportunity?

Our elite planners are backed up by competent think tanks, and they know that the new society must have coherence of various kinds. They've had quite a bit of experience with social engineering, nurturing the rise of fascism, and then engineering the postwar regimes. They understand the importance of mythology.

For example there is the mythology of the holocaust, where the story is all about extermination per se, and the story is not told of the primary mission of the concentration camps, which was to provide slave labor for war production. And some of the companies using the slave labor were American owned, and were supplying the German war machine. Thus does mythology, though containing truth, succeed in hiding the tracks and the crimes of elite perps, leaving others to carry the whole burden of historical demonization.

So I think there is a sound basis for anticipating the kinds of mythology that would be designed for leaving behind and rejecting the old ways, and seeing the new as a salvation. There is a long historical precedent of era changes linked with mythology changes, often expressed in religious terms. There will be a familiar ring to the new mythology, a remixing and re-prioritizing of familiar values and assumptions, so as to resonate with the dynamics of the new regime.

The nature of the carbon economy has been somewhat clearly signaled. Carbon budgets, and carbon credits, are clearly destined to become primary components of the economy. As we've seen with the elite and grassroots supported global warming movement, the arbitrary scarcity of carbon credits can be easily regulated on the pretext of environmentalism. And peak oil alarmism is always available as a backup. As elite spokespeople have often expressed, when the time comes, the masses will demand the new world order.

The focus on control over consumption, resources, and distribution is implicit in the emphasis on energy limits, is latent in the geopolitical situation, as regards depletion of global resources, and is indicated by the need for a new unifying paradigm, as the growth paradigm is no longer viable.

The nature of the security apparatus has been clearly signaled by the responses to demonstrations ever since 1998 in Seattle, by the increased use of hardened-killer mercenaries at home and abroad, by excessive and abusive police behavior, by airport security procedures, by Guantanamo and renditions, by the creation of a domestic branch of the army, dedicated to responding to civil emergencies, and by the way Katrina and Haiti have been handled.

It would be a major mistake to think of those last two as bungled operations. They were exercises in collapse management of a certain kind, to be applied to certain populations, where the training and equipment appropriate for combat in Afghanistan is seen as being appropriate for administering aid to civilian disaster victims. These selected disaster victims will be seen primarily as threats to civil order, or perhaps undesirables to be incarcerated or eliminated. They will be demonized as rioters and looters. Assistance will comes later, if at all. And it can all be broadcast on TV, and somehow be seen as the way things have to be. These two exercises were not bungled at all. They were alarmingly successful, most notably in the case of the realtime PR mythology.

The limited role of national governments, being primarily allocators of mandated budgets, has been clearly signaled by long-standing IMF policies in the third world, and by the way the bankers have been dictating to governments, in the wake of the over-extended bailout commitments. The carbon entitlement budgeting paradigm accomplishes the same micromanagement in a much more direct way, and is the natural outcome of the push toward hard carbon limits.
Richard K. Moore is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Richard K. Moore

© Copyright Richard K. Moore , Global Research, 2010

[willcls]

so....hitler did the right thing by killing the jews in WW2..... :confused:

fwiw I believe Hitler was an illegitemate child of a Rothschild, one of the most elite banking families from Europe

[Lomac]

Sorry if I'm misreading your response Lomac. But if you honestly believe that all that went on on Sept 11th 2001, as told by the American government, is really what happened - you're a fucking moron.

As weird as this sounds, I agree with the crazy Iranian.

Oh and BTW Zeitgeist isn't the best flick out there on the 9/11 subject. YouTube 'Loose Change' and watch the latest edition.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

Do I believe 100% what's been told to me by official channels regarding 9/11 and all that? No, not 100%, but pretty damn close to it. I've seen Zeitgeist, Loose Change, The Secret Rulers of the World, and all of their sequels. I'll admit that they all bring up some interesting ideas, but I don't believe most of 'em. Why? A lot of what they say they like to twist and take out of context. A lot of the historical facts they state are incorrect (studying various historical periods is a hobby of mine... lol), a lot of video footage they point out as being tampered with actually isn't (I've worked in the film industry for many years, mainly as a editor), and the rest is easily refuted by people who work in the other industries (and have been my other members on here that I believe and trust far more than the people who made the videos).

I heard the fact those videos claim, and I've seen the majority of them disproved. That's good enough for me to disbelieve these gigantic conspiracies.

As for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, do you really believe the Holocaust was one big fabricated story? That's what he believes. How do I know it was real? Easy, I had family members both die and survive living in various concentration camps. I've seen the tattoos marking them. I've seen the scars, both physically and emotionally.

So, you see, it's a little hard for me to believe anything that comes out of Ahmadinejad's mouth when he continually spews this sort of shit.

[TomBox_N]

We need to hear from the Assasins. Where are you Altair?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[JD¹³]

No most of what Ahmadinejad spews IS bullshit. The holocaust denial just being one glaring example. I just agree with him on this one point that the attack on the World Trade Centre was 'fabricated'.

And yes a lot of Loose Change is refutable, I was simply referring to it as a more complete version of the conspiracy theory vs Zeitgeist. For me though, nothing anyone says is going to refute the fact that all the buildings of the WTC were brought down by controlled demolitions. And that had to be done over many weeks, by 'someone' inside the US. All the other conspiracy points are just a cherry on top, the proof is in watching those buildings not collapse but freefall to the ground. That is WAY beyond the capabilities of cave dwelling terrorists. All their other attacks have been large but basic explosions like the USS Cole or the train in Spain, suicide bombings, IEDs made out of shells that don't even work a lot of the time. But they brought down the WTC.... riiiight.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Kamui712]

Been there, discussed that

YouTube- '9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda

:D :D :D

[TekDragon]

YouTube- Penn & Teller on September 11, 2001

/thread

[cressydrift]

I can not believe 911 is still an issue almost 10 years later. 911 this and that, Americans still talk about it in there campaigns. No one really has a clue about what went down. Like someone has already said, we will never actually know untill 30 years from now. That being said, everything that happened was sketchy at best. Most crimes are investigated on the premise of who stands to gain what. That is the way I look at least.

What did the terrorist stand to gain by killing 2000+ people?
Nothing? I mean, truth be told, the only thing I knew about Afghan was the weed (Pre 911). I cannot imagine they would consider victory by having the worlds most advanced millitary invade there nation. Maybe thats what they wanted?

What did America stand to gain if they staged a fake terrorist attack?
- Oil - From invaded nation Iraq
- Control - From fear mongering the terrorist attack. Look at security pre and post 911.
- Wealth - Most war suppliers are in bed with the government officials. Easier to spend tax payer money when a war is on
- Drugs - Afghanistan is LOADED with drugs, Weed, Hash, Poppy plants
- Insurance money - The twin towers were loaded with asbestos and needed major renovating.
- ETC

A courier driver that picks up from my company was born and raised in Afghanistan. He told me Afghanistan is virgin. Grounds are littered with mineral deposits ie; Gold, Silver, Iron ore... etc. He also said that the news makes the war seem so much worse.

In conclusion, everyone should remember the war between Soviet Union vs Afghanistan. Back then, the CIA trained Afghany militants to fight. The Al Queda. Gave them weapons, money and elite training to fight the power full Soviets. Now, they are fighting against the guys they trained and the weapons they gave them. I do not believe in most of the jargon that said movies (Loose change, Zeigiest...etc) have told us. I believe it is far more deeper, and complicated than some CIA agents planting some thermite, flew fake planes (w.e there theories say) and it was all Bush. Bush is a retarded. I am smarter than Bush, and that is not saying much. All in all the people who have really suffered where the people that died during the attacks, and there poor family members. I wish that out of all of this non-sense the family members at some point get justice. RIP.

Edit* Also RIP to everyone who has died in the conflicts as well.

[Vansterdam]

ahh these conspiracies RS threads again lol wheres theONE at

[synchrocone]

For fucks sake.

Seriously people? Do I need to pull up all the old threads created by +theone+ / GunMetalTeg and pull out all of the responses a bunch of members and myself made that basically refuted all of these claims?

Guh...

I've served you long enough, your goin down buddy.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[EmperorIS]

of course if you read all about freemasonry/skull and bones/satanist trying to take over the world its going to sound crazy and conspiratorial. but once you realize that history is written as opposed to recorded you dont care about what the name is you just know that there is a billionaires club who work in concert with each other to manipulate and control what goes on politically and economically in the world we live in for their benefit. war, famine are used against 3rd worlds to prevent development. you can call these people capitalist simply. here is a good long read about what is going on....Crashing Towards a New World Social Order 2012
Politics / New World Order
Mar 01, 2010 - 03:23 AM

By: Global_Research



Richard K. Moore writes: Historical background – the establishment of capitalist supremacy

When the Industrial Revolution began in Britain, in the late 1700s, there was lots of money to be made by investing in factories and mills, by opening up new markets, and by gaining control of sources of raw materials. The folks who had the most money to invest, however, were not so much in Britain but more in Holland. Holland was the leading Western power in the 1600s, and its bankers were the leading capitalists. In pursuit of profit, Dutch capital flowed to the British stock market, and thus the Dutch funded the rise of Britain, who subsequently eclipsed Holland both economically and geopolitically.



In this way British industrialism came to be dominated by wealthy investors, and capitalism became the dominant economic system. This led to a major social transformation. Britain had been essentially an aristocratic society, dominated by landholding families. As capitalism became dominant economically, capitalists became dominant politically. Tax structures and import-export policies were gradually changed to favor investors over landowners.

It was no longer economically viable to simply maintain an estate in the countryside: one needed to develop it, turn it to more productive use. Victorian dramas are filled with stories of aristocratic families who fall on hard times, and are forced to sell off their properties. For dramatic purposes, this decline is typically attributed to a failure in some character, a weak eldest son perhaps. But in fact the decline of aristocracy was part of a larger social transformation brought on by the rise of capitalism.

The business of the capitalist is the management of capital, and this management is generally handled through the mediation of banks and brokerage houses. It should not be surprising that investment bankers came to occupy the top of the hierarchy of capitalist wealth and power. And in fact, there are a handful of banking families, including the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who have come to dominate economic and political affairs in the Western world.

Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile – it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. Just as a copper mine might be exploited and then abandoned, so under capitalism a whole nation can be exploited and then abandoned, as we see in the rusting industrial areas of America and Britain.

This detachment from place leads to a different kind of geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can 'explain' the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandizement of monarchs and nations.

A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time 'explaining' World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives.

In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the real winner always turns out to be the house – the bankers who finance the war and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests.

Nations and populations are but pawns in their games. Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their postwar reconstruction investments.

From their position of power, as the financiers of governments, the banking elite have over time perfected their methods of control. Staying always behind the scenes, they pull the strings controlling the media, the political parties, the intelligence agencies, the stock markets, and the offices of government. And perhaps their greatest lever of power is their control over currencies. By means of their central-bank scam, they engineer boom and bust cycles, and they print money from nothing and then loan it at interest to governments. The power of the banking elites is both absolute and subtle...

"Some of the biggest men in the United

States are afraid of something. They

know there is a power somewhere, so

organised, so subtle, so watchful, so

interlocked, so complete, so pervasive

that they had better not speak above

their breath when they speak in

condemnation of it."

-- President Woodrow Wilson

The end of growth – capitalists vs. capitalism

It was always inevitable, on a finite planet, that there would be a limit to economic growth. Industrialization has enabled us to rush headlong toward that limit over the past two centuries. Production has become ever more efficient, markets have become ever more global, and finally we have reached the point where the paradigm of perpetual growth can no longer be maintained.

Indeed, that point was actually reached by about 1970. Since then capital has not so much sought growth through increased production, but rather by extracting greater returns from relatively flat production levels. Hence globalization, which moved production to low-waged areas, providing greater profit margins. Hence privatization, which transfers revenue streams to investors that formerly went to national treasuries. Hence derivative and currency markets, which create the electronic illusion of economic growth, without actually producing anything in the real world.

If one studies the collapse of civilizations, one learns that failure-to-adapt is fatal. Continuing on the path of pursuing growth would be such a failure to adapt. And if one reads the financial pages these days, one finds that it is full of doomsayers. We read that the Eurozone is doomed, and Greece is just the first casualty. We read that stimulus packages are not working, unemployment is increasing, the dollar is in deep trouble, growth continues to stagnate, business real estate will be the next bubble to burst, etc. It is easy to get the impression that capitalism is failing to adapt, and that our societies are in danger of collapsing into chaos.

Such an impression would be partly right and partly wrong. In order to understand the real situation we need to make a clear distinction between the capitalist elite and capitalism itself. Capitalism is an economic system driven by growth; the capitalist elite are the folks who have managed to gain control of the Western world while capitalism has operated over the past two centuries. The capitalist system is past its sell-by date, the banking elite are well aware of that fact – and they are adapting.

Capitalism is a vehicle that helped bring the bankers to absolute power, but they have no more loyalty to that system than they have to place, or to anything or anyone else. As mentioned earlier, they think on a global scale, with nations and populations as pawns. They define what money is and they issue it, just like the banker in a game of Monopoly. They can also make up a new game with a new kind of money. They have long outgrown any need to rely on any particular economic system in order to maintain their power. Capitalism was handy in an era of rapid growth. For an era of non-growth, a different game is being prepared.

Thus, capitalism has not been allowed to die a natural death. First it was put on a life-support system, as mentioned above, with globalization, privatization, derivative markets, etc. Then it was injected with a euthanasia death-drug, in the form of toxic derivatives. And when the planned collapse occurred, rather than industrial capitalism being bailed out, the elite bankers were bailed out. It's not that the banks were too big to fail, rather the bankers were too politically powerful to fail. They made governments an offer they couldn't refuse.

The outcome of the trillion-dollar bailouts was easily predictable, although you wouldn't know that from reading the financial pages. National budgets were already stretched, and they certainly did not have reserves available to service the bailouts. Thus the bailouts amounted to nothing more than the taking on of immense new debts by governments. In order to fulfill the bailout commitments, the money would need to be borrowed from the same financial institutions that were being bailed out.

With the bailouts, Western governments delivered their nations in hock to the bankers. The governments are now in perpetual debt bondage to the bankers. Rather than the banks going into receivership, governments are now in receivership. Obama's cabinet and advisors are nearly all from Wall Street; they are in the White House so they can keep close watch over their new acquisition, the once sovereign USA. Perhaps they will soon be presiding over its liquidation.

The bankers are now in control of national budgets. They say what can be funded and what can't. When it comes to financing their wars and weapons production, no limits are set. When it comes to public services, then we are told deficits must be held in check. The situation was expressed very well by Brian Cowan, Ireland's government chief. In the very same week that Ireland pledged 200 billion Euro to bailout the banks, he was being asked why he was cutting a few million Euro off of critical service budgets. He replied, "I'm sorry, but the funds just aren't there". Of course they're not there! The treasury was given away. The cupboard is bare.

As we might expect, the highest priority for budgets is servicing the debt to the banks. Just as most of the third world is in debt slavery to the IMF, so the whole West is now in debt slavery to its own central banks. Greece is the harbinger of what is to happen everywhere.

The carbon economy – controlling consumption

In a non-growth economy, the mechanisms of production will become relatively static. Instead of corporations competing to innovate, we'll have production bureaucracies. They'll be semi-state, semi-private bureaucracies, concerned about budgets and quotas rather than growth, somewhat along the lines of the Soviet model. Such an environment is not driven by a need for growth capital, and it does not enable a profitable game of Monopoly.

We can already see steps being taken to shift the corporate model towards the bureaucratic model, through increased government intervention in economic affairs. With the Wall Street bailouts, the forced restructuring of General Motors, the call for centralized micromanagement of banking and industry, and the mandating of health insurance coverage, the government is saying that the market is to superseded by government directives. Not that we should bemoan the demise of exploitive capitalism, but before celebrating we need to understand what it is being replaced with.

In an era of capitalism and growth, the focus of the game has been on the production side of the economy. The game was aimed at controlling the means of growth: access to capital. The growth-engine of capitalism created the demand for capital; the bankers controlled the supply. Taxes were mostly based on income, again related to the production side of the economy.

In an era of non-growth, the focus of the game will be on the consumption side of the economy. The game will be aimed at controlling the necessities of life: access to food and energy. Population creates the demand for the necessities of life; the bankers intend to control the supply. Taxes will be mostly based on consumption, particularly of energy. That's what the global warming scare is all about, with its carbon taxes and carbon credits.

Already in Britain there is talk of carbon quotas, like gasoline rationing in wartime. It's not just that you'll pay taxes on energy, but the amount of energy you can consume will be determined by government directive. Carbon credits will be issued to you, which you can use for driving, for heating, or on rare occasions for air travel. Also in Britain, the highways are being wired so that they can track how many miles you drive, tax you accordingly, and penalize you if you travel over your limit. We can expect these kinds of things to spread throughout the West, as it's the same international bankers who are in charge everywhere.

In terms of propaganda, this control over consumption is being sold as a solution to global warming and peak oil. The propaganda campaign has been very successful, and the whole environmental movement has been captured by it. In Copenhagen, demonstrators confronted the police, carrying signs in support of carbon taxes and carbon credits. But in fact the carbon regime has nothing to do with climate or with sustainability. It is all about micromanaging every aspect of our lives, as well as every aspect of the economy.

If the folks who are running things actually cared about sustainability, they'd be investing in efficient mass transit, and they'd be shifting agriculture from petroleum-intensive, water-intensive methods to sustainable methods. Instead they are mandating biofuels and selling us electric cars, which are no more sustainable or carbon-efficient than standard cars. Indeed, the real purpose behind biofuels is genocide. With food prices linked to energy prices, and agriculture land being converted from food production to fuel production, the result can only be a massive increase in third-world starvation. Depopulation has long been a stated goal in elite circles, and the Rockefeller dynasty has frequently been involved in eugenics projects of various kinds.

'The War on Terrorism' – preparing the way for the transition

The so-called War on Terrorism has two parts. The first part is a pretext for arbitrary abuse of citizen's rights, whenever Homeland Security claims the action is necessary for security reasons. The second part is a pretext for US military aggression anywhere in the world, whenever the White House claims that Al Qaeda is active there.

I emphasized the word 'claims' above, because the terrorism pretext is being used to justify arbitrary powers, both domestically and globally. No hard evidence need be presented to Congress, the UN, or anyone else, before some nation is invaded, someone is kidnapped and tortured as a 'terrorist suspect', or some new invasive security measure is implemented. When powers are arbitrary, then we are no longer living under the rule of law, neither domestically nor internationally. We are living under the rule of men, as you would expect in a dictatorship, or in an old-fashioned kingdom or empire.

Part 1: Preparing the way for a new social order

In a very real sense, the terrorism pretext is being used to undo everything that The Enlightenment and the republication revolutions achieved two centuries ago. The very heart of the Bill of Rights – due process – has been abandoned. The gulag, the concentration camp, and the secret arrest in the night – these we have always associated with fascist and communist dictatorships – and now they are not only functioning under US jurisdiction, but being justified publicly by the President himself.

Is there really a terrorist threat to the homeland, and would these measures be a sensible response to such a threat? People sre strongly divided in their answers to these questions. Quite a bit of hard forensic evidence has come to light, including links to intelligence agencies, and my own view is that most of the dramatic 'terrorist' events in the US, UK, and Europe have been covert false-flag operations.

From an historical perspective this would not be at all surprising. Such operations have been standard practice – modus operandi – in many nations, though we usually don't get proof until years later. For example, every war the US has been involved in has had its own phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident, or its Weapons of Mass Destruction scam, in one form or another. It's a formula that works. Instant mobilization of public opinion, prompt passage without debate of enabling resolutions and legislation. Why would the War on Terrorism be any different?

As regards motive: while Muslims have only suffered as a result of these dramatic events, our elite bankers have been able to create a police-state infrastructure that can be used to deal with any foreseeable popular resistance or civic chaos that might emerge as they prepare the way for their post-capitalist future.

With the collapse, the bailouts, and the total failure to pursue any kind of effective recovery strategy, the signals are very clear: the system will be allowed to collapse totally, thus clearing the ground for a pre-architected 'solution'. Ground Zero can be seen as a metaphor, with the capitalist economy as the Twin Towers. And the toxic derivatives illustrate the fact that the collapse is actually a controlled demolition.

It seems to me inevitable, given the many signals, that martial law will be part of the transition process, allegedly to deal with the problems of economic collapse. Perhaps a collapse in the food-supply chain, due to a collapse in the energy-supply chain. The US emergency responses in New Orleans and again in Haiti give us more signals, actual test trials, of what kind of 'emergency response' we can expect.

First and foremost comes the security of the occupation forces. Those suffering in the emergency are treated more like insurgents than victims in need of help. In the case of Haiti, the US response can only be described as an intentional genocide project. When people are pinned under rubble in an earthquake, the first 48 hours, and 72 hours, are absolutely critical points, as regards survival rates. When the US military systematically blocked incoming aid for those critical hours, turning back doctors and emergency teams, they sealed the fate of many thousands who could have been saved.

One can imagine many nightmare scenarios, given these various signals, these ominous signs. World Wars 1 and 2 were nightmares that really happened, with millions dying, and these same banking dynasties orchestrated those scenarios and then covered their tracks. We must also keep in mind the Shock Doctrine, where catastrophe is seen as opportunity – when 'things can be done that otherwise could not be accomplished'. We are still being impacted by the shock waves that were sent out on 9/11, and again when the financial system collapsed. And the the really big shock, the general collapse of society, is yet to come. The ultimate version of the Shock Doctrine: 'If the collapse is total, we can accomplish any damned thing we want to accomplish'.

I won't venture a guess about how this transition process will play out, but I do expect that it will be a nightmare of one description or another. Already the growing homeless population is suffering a nightmare, by any civilized standards. One day you're living in a home whose value is going up, commuting to a good job, and the next thing you know your family is out on the streets. That's a nightmare. The transition time will be a difficult time, but it will be a transition, it will be temporary, like a war. And like a war, it will enable social and economic reconstruction in the aftermath.

Consider how Japan and Germany were socially and politically transformed by the postwar reconstruction process. Those were exercises in social engineering, as were the preceding transformations under Mussolini and Hitler. Although the outcomes were quite different, in each case a total collapse / defeat was the preamble to reconstruction. A total collapse of the capitalist economy is simply the application of a proven formula. The second part of the formula will be some new social order, or perhaps some old social order, or some mixture. Something appropriate to a non-growth, command economy.

That's part 1 of the War on Terrorism: it has enabled the creation of the police-state infrastructures required to to deal with the collapse of society, and to provide security for the reconstruction process.

Part 2: Preparing the way for global domination

Part 2 of the War on Terrorism is about the geopolitical dimensions of a non-growth-based global economy. Earlier I suggested that geopolitics was different under capitalism, than it was under sovereign monarchs. The whole dynamic was different, and outcomes were weighed on a different scale. Similarly, many things will change in a shift from chaotic, growth-oriented capitalism, to a centralized, micromanaged, economic regime.

Consider, for example, the significance of control over oil reserves. In a growth economy, profits were the prize, and controlling the markets and the distribution channels amounted to holding a winning hand in the game. The local dictators could manage things as they pleased, and take their cut of oil revenues, as long as they honored their contracts with the oil majors, who were happy to sell to the highest bidders.

In a non-growth economy, where the focus is on direct control over the supply and distributions of resources, it becomes necessary to secure, in the military sense, the sources of petroleum, and the routes for its distribution. It is no longer sufficient to merely profit from unbridled operations. Securing of the sources, and directly allocating the distribution, is the foundation for micromanaging the non-growth economy. This applies to other critical resources as well, such as uranium, and the rare minerals needed by the 'defense' and electronics industries.

In fact we are in the midst of a resource-grab war, with China and Russia making long-term energy deals with Iran and Venezuela, China buying up agricultural land in Africa, Washington making long-term deals for Brazilian biofuels, and there are many other examples. In many ways imperialism is reverting to colonial days, when direct administration was the model, rather than the capitalist model: profiting from corporate investments under dictators who suppress their populations.

There is a natural reversion to the dynamics of the 'good old days of empire' when the Great Powers of Europe focused their economic activity within their individual spheres of influence. Everyone knows that global resource limits are being reached, partly from population pressures, and partly from resource-exploitation practices. For this reason alone, we have the peaceful part of the resource-grab war.

In Iraq, Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan and Yemen, the US, with NATO support, is playing a very non-peaceful hand in the resource-grab game. It's the hand of a bully, 'I have the biggest gun, so I'll take what I want'. These aggressive actions are very provocative to Russia and China, and threatening to their vital economic interests. An attack on Iran would be more than a provocation, it would be a direct slap in the face, a challenge: 'Fight now or resign yourself to being subdued piecemeal'.

In addition to all this petroleum grabbing, the US has been surrounding Russia and China with military bases, and has recently accelerated the installations of anti-missile systems on their borders, over the strong objections of Russia and China. The US is being intentionally provocative, and it is threatening vital interests of these potential adversaries.

Alliances are being formed in response, on a bilateral basis, and in the form of the SCO. China and Russia are very close in their military cooperation, and technology sharing. Their strategic planning is based on the expectation of a US attack, and their strategic response is based on the principle of asymmetric warfare. For example, a million dollar missile capable of taking out a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier. Or perhaps a handful of missiles capable of disabling the Pentagon's command-and-control satellite systems.

Meanwhile the US is spending astronomical sums developing a first-strike capability, with space-based weapons systems, control-of-theater capability, forward-based 'tactical' nukes, etc. The new anti-missile systems are an important part of a first-strike strategy, reducing the ability of Russia or China to retaliate. These systems are more than just provocative. They are the modern equivalent of marching your armies up to your adversary's border.

If there is a nuclear exchange between the major powers, historians will cite all of these things I've mentioned as 'obvious signs' that war was coming. Parallels would be drawn to the pre-World War 1 scenario, when Germany was eclipsing Britain economically, as China is eclipsing the US now. In both cases a 'desperate attempt to maintain hegemony' would be seen as the cause of the war.

There may or may not be a World War 3, but all of these preparations make it clear that our banking elite intend to preside over a global system, by hook or by crook. If they wanted a peaceful arrangement, a splitting of the third-world pie, so to speak, it could be easily arranged at any time, along with substantial nuclear disarmament. China and Russia would like to see a stable, multi-polar world; it is only our elite bankers who are obsessed with world domination.

It is possible that nuclear war is a 'desired outcome', accomplishing depopulation, and making the collapse even more total. Or perhaps China and Russia will be given an offer they can't refuse: 'Surrender your economic sovereignty to our global system, or face the consequences'.

One way or another, the elite bankers, the masters of the universe, intend to preside over a micromanaged global system. The collapse project is now well underway, and the 'surround your enemy' project seems to be more or less completed. From a strategic perspective, there will be some trigger point, some stage in the economic collapse scenario, when geopolitical confrontation is judged to be most advantageous. It's a multi-dimensional chess board, and with the stakes so high, you can rest assured that the timing of the various moves will be carefully coordinated. And from the overall shape of the board, we seem to be nearing the endgame.

Prognosis 2012 – a Neo Dark Age

2012 might not be the exact year, but it's difficult to see the endgame lasting much beyond that, and the masters of the universe love symbolism, as with 911 (both in Chile and in Manhattan), KLA 007, and others. 2012 is loaded with symbolism, eg. the Mayan Calendar, and the Internet is buzzing with various 2012-related prophecies, survival strategies, anticipated alien interventions, alignments with galactic radiation fields, etc. And then there is the Hollywood film, 2012, which explicitly portrays the demise of most of humanity, and the pre-planned salvation of a select few. One never knows with Hollywood productions, what is escapist fantasy, and what is aimed at preparing the public mind symbolically for what is to come.

Whatever the exact date, all the threads will come together, geopolitically and domestically, and the world will change. It will be a new era, just as capitalism was a new era after aristocracy, and the Dark Ages followed the era of the Roman Empire. Each era has its own structure, its own economics, its own social forms, and its own mythology. These things must relate to one another coherently, and their nature follows from the fundamental power relationships and economic circumstances of the system.

In our post-2012 world, we have for the first time one centralized global government, and one ruling elite clique, a kind of extended royal family, the lords of finance. As we can see with the IMF, WHO, and the WTO, and the other pieces of the embryonic world government, the institutions of governance will make no pretensions about popular representation or democratic responsiveness. Rule will be by means of autocratic global bureaucracies, who take their marching orders from the royal family. This model has already been operating for some time, within its various spheres of influence, as with the restructuring programs forced on the third world, as a condition for getting financing.

Whenever there is a change of era, the previous era is always demonized in mythology. In the Garden of Eden story the serpent is demonized – a revered symbol in paganism, the predecessor to Christianity. When republics came along, the demonization of monarchs was an important part of the process. In the post-2012 world, democracy and national sovereignty will be demonized. This will be very important, in getting people to accept totalitarian rule, and the mythology will contain much that is true...

In those terrible dark days, before the blessed unification of humanity, anarchy reigned in the world. One nation would attack another, no better than predators in the wild. Nations had no coherent policies; voters would swing from one party to another, keeping governments always in transition and confusion. How did they ever think that masses of semi-educated people could govern themselves, and run a complex society? Democracy was an ill-conceived experiment that led only to corruption and chaotic governance. How lucky we are to be in this well-ordered world, where humanity has finally grown up, and those with the best expertise make the decisions.

The economics of non-growth are radically different than capitalist economics. The unit of exchange is likely to be a carbon credit, entitling you to consume the equivalent of one kilogram of fuel. Everything will have a carbon value, allegedly based on how much energy it took to produce it and transport it to market. 'Green consciousness' will be a primary ethic, conditioned early into children. Getting by with less is a virtue; using energy is anti-social; austerity is a responsible and necessary condition.

As with every currency, the bankers will want to manage the scarcity of carbon credits, and that's where global warming alarmism becomes important. Regardless of the availability of resources, carbon credits can be kept arbitrarily scarce simply by setting carbon budgets, based on directives from the IPCC, another of our emerging units of global bureaucratic governance. Such IPCC directives will be the equivalent of the Federal Reserve announcing a change in interest rates. Those budgets set the scale of economic activity.

Presumably nations will continue to exist, as official units of governance. However security and policing will be largely centralized and privatized. Like the Roman Legions, the security apparatus will be loyal to the center of empire, not to the place where someone happens to be stationed. We have seen this trend already in the US, as mercenaries have become big business, and police forces are increasingly federalized, militarized, and alienated from the general public.

Just as airports have now been federalized, all transport systems will be under the jurisdiction of the security apparatus. Terrorism will continue as an ongoing bogey-man, justifying whatever security procedures are deemed desirable for social-control purposes. The whole security apparatus will have a monolithic quality to it, a similarity of character regardless of the specific security tasks or location. Everyone dressed in the same Evil Empire black outfits, with big florescent letters on the back of their flack jackets. In essence, the security apparatus will be an occupying army, the emperor's garrison in the provinces.

On a daily basis, you will need to go through checkpoints of various kinds, with varying levels of security requirements. This is where biometrics becomes important. If people can be implanted with chips, then much of the security can be automated, and everyone can be tracked at at all times, and their past activity retrieved. The chip links into your credit balance, so you've got all your currency always with you, along with your medical records and lots else that you don't know about.

There is very little left as regards national sovereignty. Nothing much in the way of foreign policy will have any meaning. With security marching to its own law and its distant drummer, the main role of so-called 'government' will be to allocate and administer the carbon-credit budget that it receives from the IPCC. The IPCC decides how much wealth a nation will receive in a given year, and the government then decides how to distribute that wealth in the form of public services and entitlements. Wealth being measured by the entitlement to expend energy.

In a fundamental sense, this is how things already are, following the collapse and the bailouts. Because governments are so deeply in debt, the bankers are able to dictate the terms of national budgets, as a condition of keeping credit lines open. The carbon economy, with its centrally determined budgets, provides a much simpler and more direct way of micromanaging economic activity and resource distribution throughout the globe.

In order to clear the way for the carbon-credit economy, it will be necessary for Western currencies to collapse, to become worthless, as nations become increasingly insolvent, and the global financial system continues to be systematically dismantled. The carbon currency will be introduced as an enlightened, progressive 'solution' to the crisis, a currency linked to something real, and to sustainability. The old monetary system will be demonized, and again the mythology will contain much that is true...

The pursuit of money is the root of all evil, and the capitalist system was inherently evil. It encouraged greed, and consumption, and it cared nothing about wasting resources. People thought the more money they had, the better off they were. How much wiser we are now, to live within our means, and to understand that a credit is a token of stewardship.

Culturally, the post-capitalist era will be a bit like the medieval era, with aristocrats and lords on top, and the rest peasants and serfs. A definite upper class and lower class. Just as only the old upper class had horses and carriages, only the new upper class will be entitled to access substantial carbon credits. Wealth will be measured by entitlements, more than by acquisitions or earnings. Those outside the bureaucratic hierarchies are the serfs, with subsistence entitlements. Within the bureaucracies, entitlements are related to rank in the hierarchy. Those who operate in the central global institutions are lords of empire, with unlimited access to credits.

But there is no sequestering of wealth, or building of economic empires, outside the structures of the designated bureaucracies. Entitlements are about access to resources and facilities, to be used or not used, but not to be saved and used as capital. The flow of entitlements comes downward, micromanaged from the top. It's a dole economy, at all levels, for people and governments alike – the global regimentation of consumption. As regards regimentation, the post-capitalist culture will also be a bit like the Soviet system. Here's your entitlement card, here's your job assignment, and here's where you'll be living.

With the pervasive security apparatus, and the micromanagement of economic activity, the scenario is clearly about fine-grained social control, according to centralized guidelines and directives. Presumably media will be carefully programmed, with escapist trivia, and a sophisticated version of 1984-style groupthink propaganda pseudo-news, which is pretty much what we already have today. The non-commercial Internet, if there is one, will be limited to monitored, officially-designated chat sites, and other kinds of sanitized forums.

With such a focus on social micromanagement, I do not expect the family unit to survive in the new era, and I expect child-abuse alarmism will be the lever used to destabilize the family. The stage has been set with all the revelations about church and institutional child sexual abuse. Such revelations could have been uncovered any time in the past century, but they came out at a certain time, just as all these other transitional things have been happening. People are now aware that widespread child abuse happens, and they have been conditioned to support strong measures to prevent it.

Whenever I turn on the TV, I see at least one public-service ad, with shocking images, about children who are physically or sexually abused, or criminally neglected, in their homes, and there's a hotline phone number that children can call. It is easy to see how the category of abuse can be expanded, to include parents who don't follow vaccination schedules, whose purchase records don't indicate healthy diets, who have dubious psychological profiles, etc. The state of poverty could be deemed abusive neglect.

With the right media presentation, abuse alarmism would be easy to stir up. Ultimately, a 'child rights' movement becomes an anti-family movement. The state must directly protect the child from birth. The family is demonized...

How scary were the old days, when unlicensed, untrained couples had total control over vulnerable children, behind closed doors, with whatever neuroses, addictions, or perversions the parents happened to possess. How did this vestige of patriarchal slavery, this safe-house den of abuse, continue so long to exist, and not be recognized for what it was? How much better off we are now, with children being raised scientifically, by trained staff, where they are taught healthy values.

Ever since public education was introduced, the state and the family have competed to control childhood conditioning. In religious families, the church has made its own contribution to conditioning. In the micromanaged post-capitalist future, with its Shock Doctrine birth scenario, it would make good sense to take that opportunity to implement the 'final solution' of social control, which is for the state to monopolize child raising. This would eliminate from society the parent-child bond, and hence family-related bonds in general. No longer is there a concept of relatives. There's just worker bees, security bees, and queen bees, who dole out the honey.

Postscript

This has been an extensive and somewhat detailed prognosis, regarding the architecture of the post-capitalist regime, and the transition process required to bring it about. The term 'new world order' is too weak a term to characterize the radical nature of the social transformation anticipated in the prognosis. A more apt characterization would be a 'quantum leap in the domestication of the human species'. Micromanaged lives and microprogrammed beliefs and thoughts. A once wild primate species transformed into something resembling more a bee or ant culture. Needless to say, regular use of psychotropic drugs would be mandated, so that people could cope emotionally with such a sterile, inhuman environment.

For such a profound transformation to be possible, it is easy to see that a very great shock is required, on the scale of collapse and social chaos, and possibly on the scale of a nuclear exchange. There needs to be an implicit mandate to 'do whatever is necessary to get society running again'. The shock needs to leave people in a condition of total helplessness comparable to the survivors in the bombed-out rubble of Germany and Japan after World War 2. Nothing less will do.

The accuracy of the prognosis, as prediction, is of course impossible to know in advance. However each part of the prognosis has been based on precedents that have been set, modus operandi that has been observed, trends that have been initiated, sentiments that have been expressed, signals that have been given, and actions that have been taken whose consequences can be confidently predicted.

In addition, in looking at all of these indicators together, one sees a certain mindset, an absolutist determination to implement the 'ideal solution', without compromise, using extreme means, and with unbridled audacity. World wars have been rehearsals for this historic moment. The police state infrastructure is in place and has been tested. The economy is in the process of collapse. The enemy is surrounded with missiles. Arbitrary powers have been assumed. If not now, the ultimate prize, then when will there be a better opportunity?

Our elite planners are backed up by competent think tanks, and they know that the new society must have coherence of various kinds. They've had quite a bit of experience with social engineering, nurturing the rise of fascism, and then engineering the postwar regimes. They understand the importance of mythology.

For example there is the mythology of the holocaust, where the story is all about extermination per se, and the story is not told of the primary mission of the concentration camps, which was to provide slave labor for war production. And some of the companies using the slave labor were American owned, and were supplying the German war machine. Thus does mythology, though containing truth, succeed in hiding the tracks and the crimes of elite perps, leaving others to carry the whole burden of historical demonization.

So I think there is a sound basis for anticipating the kinds of mythology that would be designed for leaving behind and rejecting the old ways, and seeing the new as a salvation. There is a long historical precedent of era changes linked with mythology changes, often expressed in religious terms. There will be a familiar ring to the new mythology, a remixing and re-prioritizing of familiar values and assumptions, so as to resonate with the dynamics of the new regime.

The nature of the carbon economy has been somewhat clearly signaled. Carbon budgets, and carbon credits, are clearly destined to become primary components of the economy. As we've seen with the elite and grassroots supported global warming movement, the arbitrary scarcity of carbon credits can be easily regulated on the pretext of environmentalism. And peak oil alarmism is always available as a backup. As elite spokespeople have often expressed, when the time comes, the masses will demand the new world order.

The focus on control over consumption, resources, and distribution is implicit in the emphasis on energy limits, is latent in the geopolitical situation, as regards depletion of global resources, and is indicated by the need for a new unifying paradigm, as the growth paradigm is no longer viable.

The nature of the security apparatus has been clearly signaled by the responses to demonstrations ever since 1998 in Seattle, by the increased use of hardened-killer mercenaries at home and abroad, by excessive and abusive police behavior, by airport security procedures, by Guantanamo and renditions, by the creation of a domestic branch of the army, dedicated to responding to civil emergencies, and by the way Katrina and Haiti have been handled.

It would be a major mistake to think of those last two as bungled operations. They were exercises in collapse management of a certain kind, to be applied to certain populations, where the training and equipment appropriate for combat in Afghanistan is seen as being appropriate for administering aid to civilian disaster victims. These selected disaster victims will be seen primarily as threats to civil order, or perhaps undesirables to be incarcerated or eliminated. They will be demonized as rioters and looters. Assistance will comes later, if at all. And it can all be broadcast on TV, and somehow be seen as the way things have to be. These two exercises were not bungled at all. They were alarmingly successful, most notably in the case of the realtime PR mythology.

The limited role of national governments, being primarily allocators of mandated budgets, has been clearly signaled by long-standing IMF policies in the third world, and by the way the bankers have been dictating to governments, in the wake of the over-extended bailout commitments. The carbon entitlement budgeting paradigm accomplishes the same micromanagement in a much more direct way, and is the natural outcome of the push toward hard carbon limits.
Richard K. Moore is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Richard K. Moore

© Copyright Richard K. Moore , Global Research, 2010

what he said.

[twitchyzero]

i doubt even in 30 years the US would release any secrets/details if something sketchy is going on

too many heartaches on the american psyche of what probably is thebiggest tragedy in US' 21st century.

[Lomac]

I've served you long enough, your goin down buddy.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

:lol Bring it, bitch! :D

I can not believe 911 is still an issue almost 10 years later. 911 this and that, Americans still talk about it in there campaigns. No one really has a clue about what went down. Like someone has already said, we will never actually know untill 30 years from now. That being said, everything that happened was sketchy at best. Most crimes are investigated on the premise of who stands to gain what. That is the way I look at least.

What did the terrorist stand to gain by killing 2000+ people?
Nothing? I mean, truth be told, the only thing I knew about Afghan was the weed (Pre 911). I cannot imagine they would consider victory by having the worlds most advanced millitary invade there nation. Maybe thats what they wanted?

What did America stand to gain if they staged a fake terrorist attack?
- Oil - From invaded nation Iraq
- Control - From fear mongering the terrorist attack. Look at security pre and post 911.
- Wealth - Most war suppliers are in bed with the government officials. Easier to spend tax payer money when a war is on
- Drugs - Afghanistan is LOADED with drugs, Weed, Hash, Poppy plants
- Insurance money - The twin towers were loaded with asbestos and needed major renovating.
- ETC

A courier driver that picks up from my company was born and raised in Afghanistan. He told me Afghanistan is virgin. Grounds are littered with mineral deposits ie; Gold, Silver, Iron ore... etc. He also said that the news makes the war seem so much worse.

In conclusion, everyone should remember the war between Soviet Union vs Afghanistan. Back then, the CIA trained Afghany militants to fight. The Al Queda. Gave them weapons, money and elite training to fight the power full Soviets. Now, they are fighting against the guys they trained and the weapons they gave them. I do not believe in most of the jargon that said movies (Loose change, Zeigiest...etc) have told us. I believe it is far more deeper, and complicated than some CIA agents planting some thermite, flew fake planes (w.e there theories say) and it was all Bush. Bush is a retarded. I am smarter than Bush, and that is not saying much. All in all the people who have really suffered where the people that died during the attacks, and there poor family members. I wish that out of all of this non-sense the family members at some point get justice. RIP.

Edit* Also RIP to everyone who has died in the conflicts as well.

It's a relatively established fact that, yes, the USA supplied Al Qaeda because they were fighting a guerilla-style war that the US approved of against the Soviets. However, near the end of the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia's arrangement with the Americans to allow US troops into Saudi's soil angered Al Qaeda and saw it as a slight against Muslims. He thought that foreign soldiers there soiled sacred lands. That's where his hatred for the USA (and the west in general) started.

Let's face it; Before the attacks on 9/11, it was easy to gain access to the cockpit of a plane. All you had to do was ask to see and most likely you were allowed to. I had been up front a few times by request, and I know plenty of others that had as well. So, what did Al Qaeda have to gain from attacking the Twin Towers and Pentagon (and, as some believe, the White House)? Simple: The proof that even their strongest enemies were capable of being felled by something as simple as a civilian aircraft. They struck fear into hundreds of millions of people with such relatively simple acts. I don't believe they were looking to gain land, riches and gold by doing so; rather, they simply wanted to do what they did best.

I don't believe that Afghan had much to do with the attacks, other than being the location of Al Qaeda's base. The majority of the alleged attackers in the planes were from Saudi Arabia, after all (although this is one fact that I find a little hard to believe... after all, they had trouble ID'ing the majority of remains from the plane... how did they manage to pinpoint every single terrorist?). That's why the US attacked there first. The subsequent attack on Iraq was something that I believe the USA took advantage of. Sadam Hussein stood against everything Al Qaeda believed in, but I think the USA was hoping the rest of the world would ignore that when they asked the UN (unsuccessfully) for approval to attack Iraq. That war was based on fabricated lies, in my opinion. It had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda attacks, but they simply used it as an excuse.

[ericthehalfbee]

No most of what Ahmadinejad spews IS bullshit. The holocaust denial just being one glaring example. I just agree with him on this one point that the attack on the World Trade Centre was 'fabricated'.

And yes a lot of Loose Change is refutable, I was simply referring to it as a more complete version of the conspiracy theory vs Zeitgeist. For me though, nothing anyone says is going to refute the fact that all the buildings of the WTC were brought down by controlled demolitions. And that had to be done over many weeks, by 'someone' inside the US. All the other conspiracy points are just a cherry on top, the proof is in watching those buildings not collapse but freefall to the ground. That is WAY beyond the capabilities of cave dwelling terrorists. All their other attacks have been large but basic explosions like the USS Cole or the train in Spain, suicide bombings, IEDs made out of shells that don't even work a lot of the time. But they brought down the WTC.... riiiight.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)
So I want you to explain the controlled demolition. Specifically I want you tell tell me why they used pyrocool.

[underscore]

No most of what Ahmadinejad spews IS bullshit. The holocaust denial just being one glaring example. I just agree with him on this one point that the attack on the World Trade Centre was 'fabricated'.

And yes a lot of Loose Change is refutable, I was simply referring to it as a more complete version of the conspiracy theory vs Zeitgeist. For me though, nothing anyone says is going to refute the fact that all the buildings of the WTC were brought down by controlled demolitions. And that had to be done over many weeks, by 'someone' inside the US. All the other conspiracy points are just a cherry on top, the proof is in watching those buildings not collapse but freefall to the ground. That is WAY beyond the capabilities of cave dwelling terrorists. All their other attacks have been large but basic explosions like the USS Cole or the train in Spain, suicide bombings, IEDs made out of shells that don't even work a lot of the time. But they brought down the WTC.... riiiight.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

quick question, did you miss the planes slamming into them? going with the assumption that the terrorists simply slammed planes into big buildings, I'd doubt that that knew it would actually bring them down. here's about what their "plan" was:

1) get people into the US
2) get them to learn to fly a plane half-decently
3) steal big planes with big fuel tanks shortly after takeoff
4) slam them into big buildings filled with "western infidels"
5) ???

[Benz_05TSX]

Holy shit.... how can I use revscene to my advantage?? Hmm... I guess I will quote this thread in my next poli sci essay!!! hahahhaa

[welfare]

if you ever want to know why anything gets done, just follow the money

[van_driver]

if you ever want to know why anything gets done, just follow the money

QFT:thumbsup:

[shenmecar]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/af/Jews_did_wtc_flowchart.jpeg

also see
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/af/Jews_did_wtc_flowchart.jpeg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/xTeddieZx/25536070.jpg

[m4k4v4li]

half of the worlds jewish population live in north america. total population they are 1/4 of the size of california.
thats pretty small considering the scale of influence they have on the rest of the world.

[Teh Doucher]

quick question, did you miss the planes slamming into them? going with the assumption that the terrorists simply slammed planes into big buildings, I'd doubt that that knew it would actually bring them down. here's about what their "plan" was:

1) get people into the US
2) get them to learn to fly a plane half-decently
3) steal big planes with big fuel tanks shortly after takeoff
4) slam them into big buildings filled with "western infidels"
5) profit!?!?!

.

[hal0g0dv2]

what a cluster fuck

[synchrocone]

:lol Bring it, bitch! :D



It's a relatively established fact that, yes, the USA supplied Al Qaeda because they were fighting a guerilla-style war that the US approved of against the Soviets. However, near the end of the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia's arrangement with the Americans to allow US troops into Saudi's soil angered Al Qaeda and saw it as a slight against Muslims. He thought that foreign soldiers there soiled sacred lands. That's where his hatred for the USA (and the west in general) started.

Let's face it; Before the attacks on 9/11, it was easy to gain access to the cockpit of a plane. All you had to do was ask to see and most likely you were allowed to. I had been up front a few times by request, and I know plenty of others that had as well. So, what did Al Qaeda have to gain from attacking the Twin Towers and Pentagon (and, as some believe, the White House)? Simple: The proof that even their strongest enemies were capable of being felled by something as simple as a civilian aircraft. They struck fear into hundreds of millions of people with such relatively simple acts. I don't believe they were looking to gain land, riches and gold by doing so; rather, they simply wanted to do what they did best.

I don't believe that Afghan had much to do with the attacks, other than being the location of Al Qaeda's base. The majority of the alleged attackers in the planes were from Saudi Arabia, after all (although this is one fact that I find a little hard to believe... after all, they had trouble ID'ing the majority of remains from the plane... how did they manage to pinpoint every single terrorist?). That's why the US attacked there first. The subsequent attack on Iraq was something that I believe the USA took advantage of. Sadam Hussein stood against everything Al Qaeda believed in, but I think the USA was hoping the rest of the world would ignore that when they asked the UN (unsuccessfully) for approval to attack Iraq. That war was based on fabricated lies, in my opinion. It had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda attacks, but they simply used it as an excuse.

I may have been a little recklously hasty a few hours ago, but wow that's pretty original.
Am I supposed to take it for what it is or are you trying say somethibg else. Its OK, you can
take a cheap shot if you'd like.

Wow, what a contribution to the thread.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[Lomac]

I may have been a little recklously hasty a few hours ago, but wow that's pretty original.
Am I supposed to take it for what it is or are you trying say somethibg else. Its OK, you can
take a cheap shot if you'd like.

Wow, what a contribution to the thread.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

lol it was a joke.

[m!chael]

half of the worlds jewish population live in north america. total population they are 1/4 of the size of california.
thats pretty small considering the scale of influence they have on the rest of the world.

Why thank you ;)

[- kT]

Well, secret files are released after a certain amount of years. Though we can never truly know just how many secret files are hidden and how many come to light.

For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US had a plan to basically attack itself but make it seem like Cuba did it so that the public would back a war against Cuba.

It has since then been released to the public since it is no longer considered a secret or a matter of national security.

yes, but that's not too relevant to 9/11, since 1) nobody was killed in the case you're talking about, and 2) it didn't even happen

9/11 is far from either of those things
i don't think (if it is fake), the truth will ever see the light of day

[kookoobird88]

i honestly dont think an airplane crashing into the building would make the buildings collapse how they did, especially into complete dust. i dont think they'd all free fall as they did, you would think one side may have gave out. especially with building 7 which claims to have fallen because of a fire. i think it was controlled demoltion imo
who knows what happened well probably never know the truth

[Bouncing Bettys]

stupid Truthers
YouTube- National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 1

[zulutango]

Personally I can't wait till 2012 when algore's tidal wave kills us all and I don't have to hear any more 911 theories.

[Qmx323]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/af/Jews_did_wtc_flowchart.jpeg

also see
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/af/Jews_did_wtc_flowchart.jpeg


good lord....

cartman knew the truth all along! thats why he hates kyle

[JD¹³]

quick question, did you miss the planes slamming into them? going with the assumption that the terrorists simply slammed planes into big buildings, I'd doubt that that knew it would actually bring them down. here's about what their "plan" was:

1) get people into the US
2) get them to learn to fly a plane half-decently
3) steal big planes with big fuel tanks shortly after takeoff
4) slam them into big buildings filled with "western infidels"
5) ???
Yeah that was the 'Al-Queda' side of the plot. The cover story.

Now this has all been discussed before obviously but: It's known fact that the towers were designed to withstand airliner impacts, and that the fuel used by commercial airliners does not burn hot enough to melt the heated steel used in the frames of modern buildings - including the WTC. The fuel from the plane also would have all burnt off almost immediately in the explosion, the fires that continued to burn long after were office furniture, walls, carpet, etc etc - those don't burn very hot!! Damage to the structure from the impacts themselves would not have been sufficient enough to collapse the central core of the building allowing the entire structure to collapse.

This is a good video. Watch closely at 1:06 seconds, down the left edge of the left tower. Halfway between the lamp post and the bottom of the fires you'll see a puff of smoke or dust shoot out from the building, that's gotta be about 25-30 floors down from the very bottom of the damage sustained by the airplane. At 1:09 again you'll see a bigger puff of smoke 3/4 of the way down between the bottom of the fires and the lamp post. Like 50 floors down from the impact. Shortly after, the tower collapses: YouTube- World Trade Center Building Collapse

There's a TON of video of these little explosions happening just before both towers collapse. The official story is that the puffs seen while the building is collapsing is the pancaking of floors and the air being forced out windows etc. In the video above the building isn't collapsing yet. Also, how the tower topples off to the side at the corner where the plane hit is interesting, because all of the weight wouldn't have been focused on the bottom of the building. If anything it would have been a glancing downward blow and yet the entire building is pulverized to DUST. The concrete and steel core evaporates down to the ground floor. There should have been LARGE chunks of the building left, but it was all blown up.

YouTube- Building collapse shows "Turkishness" - ABC 080209
Versus YouTube- WTC - demolition - the real proof UNSEEN before

I'd like someone to explain to me how Tower 7 collapsed in the same way when it wasn't hit by an airplane at all, and was barely damaged from the collapse of the main towers. A large but basic office fire reduced that building to dust and small rubble...... :bullshit:

[matter]

So the US Govt wants to fake the biggest terrorist plot ever, and to throw everyone off, they use controlled demolition?

Ask yourself if its plausible to collapse the way it did, if everything went right and the stars aligned, could it happen?
People have no problem denying the chances of this happening, but have no problem accepting that life just appeared on our planet via some primordial ooze and chance? yeesh

[goo3]

YouTube- 9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained

+

YouTube- 9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained

LOL - This is what happens when stupid ppl try to be smart:

YouTube- 9/11 Simple Experiment

[RRxtar]

speaking of conspiracies. why does a 4L of milk at IGA cost almost $1 more than at Safeway, but a pack of bagels at Safeway costs about $1 more than at IGA? dont be fooled people. the truth is out there.

[ericthehalfbee]

Now this has all been discussed before obviously but: It's known fact that the towers were designed to withstand airliner impacts,
**great big snip**

You still didn't answer my question. Are you afraid to? Can't find the right thing to say?

Why did they pour huge amounts of Pyrocool (the UV absorbing fire fighting foam) onto the WTC rubble? C'mon, all good conspiracy theorists know the answer to this one by heart.



This can all be simplified so easily. Let's ssume the US needed an excuse to go to war and wanted to fake an attack to gain support from the people and the UN.

Why kill 1,000's of your own citizens and destroy billions in property? Not to mention the huge amount of money spent after the fact in insurance claims paid to all the people who died. Finanically, this little "exercise" cost the US an unbelievable amount of money.

All the US had to do was to fabricate a few small terrorist attacks on their own soil of carefully selected targets. A bomb that kills a few school children. A few US soldiers kidnapped and tortured to death. Woman and children executed by "extremists" that snuck into the country. These would all be very easy to fabricate and very easy to cover-up. They would also get the American public so riled up and furious that they'd be demanding revenge.

They could have gained the same support for a fraction of the cost in terms of human and financial losses.


Now what makes more sense: kill thousands of people and cause billions in financial losses, or kill a few dozen with a couple million? Both would serve their purpose to allow the US to retalitate any way they wanted.

[CRS]

Now this has all been discussed before obviously but: It's known fact that the towers were designed to withstand airliner impacts,
**great big snip**


Actually, you are both correct and wrong. The towers were constructed to withstand the plans of that era. In other words, the planes that were around when the tower was designed/built. Since then, planes have gotten bigger, stronger and faster. As a result, the towers simply could not stand the impact of planes from our generation.

Think of it this way, imagine that you have some armor designed back in the 1900s facing a modern day gun. Chances are was that the armor will not withstand the damage the modern day gun will cause but would have sustained a weapon from that era instead.

[Jsunu]

Awesome, this thread will be a good litmus test to root out the crazies who actually truly believe that 9/11 was fabricated.

[- kT]

Think of it this way, imagine that you have some armor designed back in the 1900s facing a modern day gun. Chances are was that the armor will not withstand the damage the modern day gun will cause but would have sustained a weapon from that era instead.

Guns aren't a good example. there are a million types of guns, all which do different things and fire differently

as for planes, it's all basically the same thing: they fly, they're big, and they fly fast
think about it this way - if a highway barricade was built to withstand car collisions from cars built 30 years ago, i'd wager that the barricade would still be able to stand most of todays average daily driven cars

how can you explain why building 7 collapsed when it wasn't hit by any plane? we're supposed to believe an office fire brought down a steel building?

[Jsunu]

Guns aren't a good example. there are a million types of guns, all which do different things and fire differently

as for planes, it's all basically the same thing: they fly, they're big, and they fly fast
think about it this way - if a highway barricade was built to withstand car collisions from cars built 30 years ago, i'd wager that the barricade would still be able to stand most of todays average daily driven cars

how can you explain why building 7 collapsed when it wasn't hit by any plane? we're supposed to believe an office fire brought down a steel building?

For the towers, from my understanding, the initial impact both weakened the structure and removed all the fire prevention material. As a result, the weakened structure collapsed on itself created a domino or cascade all they way down as more weight came crashing down.

Remember, it was not the plane that eventually caused the collapse but the building itself crashing in itself.

[underscore]

Yeah that was the 'Al-Queda' side of the plot. The cover story.

Now this has all been discussed before obviously but: It's known fact that the towers were designed to withstand airliner impacts, and that the fuel used by commercial airliners does not burn hot enough to melt the heated steel used in the frames of modern buildings - including the WTC. The fuel from the plane also would have all burnt off almost immediately in the explosion, the fires that continued to burn long after were office furniture, walls, carpet, etc etc - those don't burn very hot!! Damage to the structure from the impacts themselves would not have been sufficient enough to collapse the central core of the building allowing the entire structure to collapse.

The way they explained it in a TV special was that yes, the towers could have taken a plane hitting them with fairly minimal damage. But the sheer amount of fuel bursting into flames all at once right near that big steel support in the middle caused it to melt/deform and then break after. The burning temperature of the jet fuel may not have been high enough, but the total amount of energy transferred to the steel was pretty massive.

I'd like to continue what ericthehalfbee said. If it was a conspiracy, they could have easily slammed those jets into something else that would cause less financial damage. Or even slammed them all into the ground like the one that got kind of reverse-highjacked (I think that one was intended to hit the white house) and simply claim they were aiming for the WTC.

[CRS]

Guns aren't a good example. there are a million types of guns, all which do different things and fire differently

as for planes, it's all basically the same thing: they fly, they're big, and they fly fast
think about it this way - if a highway barricade was built to withstand car collisions from cars built 30 years ago, i'd wager that the barricade would still be able to stand most of todays average daily driven cars

how can you explain why building 7 collapsed when it wasn't hit by any plane? we're supposed to believe an office fire brought down a steel building?

But barricades are specifically designed to withstand crashes. Buildings are not. If anything, it was only a added feature. Besides, the planes it was designed to take were far smaller than the ones that actually hit it.

So it wouldn't be like your scenario where the cars are of the same size. This would be more like a semi hitting a guard rail.

[AzNightmare]

http://nefariouslabs.r30.net/Dead%20Horse.jpg

[Lomac]

how can you explain why building 7 collapsed when it wasn't hit by any plane? we're supposed to believe an office fire brought down a steel building?

A building that was damaged from one of the two Twin Towers falling? It's not impossible to believe that it happened. The structure of the building was likely already compromised and with the heat from the fire playing with the steel structure, that's a good indication it really was brought down by fire.

There's another possibility that plays along with the controlled demolition theory, but not as part of a conspiracy... Building 7 contained a lot of classified and sensitive material. Wall Street, the CIA, and other various government agencies operated out of there. When it was damaged, there might have been thoughts throughout the government that it was better to let the information stored inside a building that was possibly structurally unsound to be destroyed intentionally instead of risking the chance that it could be looted by people sneaking in through the various police and fire agencies mopping up the remaining fires.

[- kT]

A building that was damaged from one of the two Twin Towers falling? It's not impossible to believe that it happened. The structure of the building was likely already compromised and with the heat from the fire playing with the steel structure, that's a good indication it really was brought down by fire.

There's another possibility that plays along with the controlled demolition theory, but not as part of a conspiracy... Building 7 contained a lot of classified and sensitive material. Wall Street, the CIA, and other various government agencies operated out of there. When it was damaged, there might have been thoughts throughout the government that it was better to let the information stored inside a building that was possibly structurally unsound to be destroyed intentionally instead of risking the chance that it could be looted by people sneaking in through the various police and fire agencies mopping up the remaining fires.

it's not impossible, but it's rather hard
putting aside every other building involved in 9/11, if it was a (rather small) office fire that brought building 7 down, why'd it collapse exactly like in a controlled demo scenario?

also, in the (only) video released of the pentagon on 9/11, you can't clearly see a plane crashing into the pentagon. it's just a streak. you'd think a boeing 757 would be a lot easier to see than a streak, no matter how fast it was going

there's a lot of facts that conspiracy theorists have come up with that i don't agree with, but at the same time, there are a lot of things that have been said that does make a lot of sense

[Graeme S]

also, in the (only) video released of the pentagon on 9/11, you can't clearly see a plane crashing into the pentagon. it's just a streak. you'd think a boeing 757 would be a lot easier to see than a streak, no matter how fast it was going

there's a lot of facts that conspiracy theorists have come up with that i don't agree with, but at the same time, there are a lot of things that have been said that does make a lot of sense

You ever seen the security camera footage from a convenience store? Ever seen a person moving at normal speed who seems blurry? Now imagine you've got a 757 travelling a thousand kilometres per hour.

When I was in korea, I tried to take a picture of the KTX high speed train with my point & shoot, and the only time I got anything that wasn't a blur was when it had almost stopped at the station. That thing only goes 200 km/hr. Is it really so ridiculous?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[- kT]

You ever seen the security camera footage from a convenience store? Ever seen a person moving at normal speed who seems blurry? Now imagine you've got a 757 travelling a thousand kilometres per hour.

When I was in korea, I tried to take a picture of the KTX high speed train with my point & shoot, and the only time I got anything that wasn't a blur was when it had almost stopped at the station. That thing only goes 200 km/hr. Is it really so ridiculous?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

fair enough, but surveillance tapes were seized from nearby buildings. tapes that have clearer shots then the ones that were released. so why is it that they don't release those? why'd they release a 5 image shot where no plane is evident?

[kookoobird88]

building 7 was empty even before the planes crashed into the twin towers...strange? i think so.
for people saying that the airplanes caused the buildings to collapse then heat weakened it and collapsed on itself, i have never seen anything that collapses on its self fall in such perfect form
and the goverment obviously had to perform something huge and drastic to get the rest of the county behind them in support of anti terrorism. people would never think there own government would kill there own people thats why this worked well, a lot of people dont realize how much shit their governments arent telling them. like all that shit at area 51, and how many people spot ufo's but the governement doesnt even care to investigate

[SlySi]

Great, all the idiots are coming out again, making these fucking retarded conspiracy threads. Does this happen every other month or something? What does the mayan calendar have to say?

Well it is about that time where nutcase conspiracy theorists unit..

[1exotic]

9/11 was terrorism caused by the art of krumpin.


YouTube- Krumping

[darnold]

building 7 was empty even before the planes crashed into the twin towers...strange? i think so.
for people saying that the airplanes caused the buildings to collapse then heat weakened it and collapsed on itself, i have never seen anything that collapses on its self fall in such perfect form
and the goverment obviously had to perform something huge and drastic to get the rest of the county behind them in support of anti terrorism. people would never think there own government would kill there own people thats why this worked well, a lot of people dont realize how much shit their governments arent telling them.

Anyone who truely believes that 911 wasnt fabricated by the US government/international bankers is completely naive. Im sure these same people still believe that we are fighting the good fight on the "war on terrorism" :lol.

The entire media is completely orchestrated by these same elites.... Most people are sheep who would rather turn a blind eye and ignore the elephant in the room than face reality.

It really speaks volumes about our society when the general consensus prioritizes what Paris Hilton ate for dinner the previous night over relevant news that seriously affects matters in our lives.

[Lomac]

building 7 was empty even before the planes crashed into the twin towers...strange? i think so.
for people saying that the airplanes caused the buildings to collapse then heat weakened it and collapsed on itself, i have never seen anything that collapses on its self fall in such perfect form
and the goverment obviously had to perform something huge and drastic to get the rest of the county behind them in support of anti terrorism. people would never think there own government would kill there own people thats why this worked well, a lot of people dont realize how much shit their governments arent telling them. like all that shit at area 51, and how many people spot ufo's but the governement doesnt even care to investigate

Er.... even the conspiracy websites state that Building 7 was evacuated...
Building 7 was supposedly evacuated around 9 AM. The area around the building was evacuated in the hour before the collapse.

Source (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html)

Anyone who truely believes that 911 wasnt fabricated by the US government/international bankers is completely naive. Im sure these same people still believe that we are fighting the good fight on the "war on terrorism" :lol.

The entire media is completely orchestrated by these same elites.... Most people are sheep who would rather turn a blind eye and ignore the elephant in the room than face reality.

It really speaks volumes about our society when the general consensus prioritizes what Paris Hilton ate for dinner the previous night over relevant news that seriously affects matters in our lives.

Funny. I've yet to see any definitive evidence proving that it was an "inside job." Many of the theories put forth can be (and have been) easily debunked.

[goo3]

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report’s probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

The Report. Have a read.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ericthehalfbee]

It really speaks volumes about our society when the general consensus prioritizes what Paris Hilton ate for dinner the previous night over relevant news that seriously affects matters in our lives.

This made me laugh out loud. A conspiracy theorist commenting on the state of society? ROFL

It really speaks volumes about our society when people will still cling to their beliefs when their arguments have been proven wrong time & again by a huge body of evidence. Oh, and let's not forget the laws of physics.

[ericthehalfbee]

Since JD13 doesn't want to comment, perhaps you other experts will answer my question for me.

Why did they pour Pyrocool fire fighting foam into the wreckage of the WTC? Why did they care about using ultra-violet absorbing foam?

[- kT]

Many of the theories put forth can be (and have been) easily debunked.

such as?

[StaxBundlez]

http://i35.tinypic.com/23rqykz.jpg

[Lomac]

such as?

Do a search of VOT under either "9/11" or "conspiracy" and you'll see half a dozen threads with theories being shot down. I'm not going to retype all of it.

[- kT]

Do a search of VOT under either "9/11" or "conspiracy" and you'll see half a dozen threads with theories being shot down. I'm not going to retype all of it.

i'm not gonna bother, i'll take your word for it
i'm sure not every theory has been shot down. like i said, i don't believe everything that the conspiracy theorists are saying, but there's a lot of things that do make sense

[underscore]

Since JD13 doesn't want to comment, perhaps you other experts will answer my question for me.

Why did they pour Pyrocool fire fighting foam into the wreckage of the WTC? Why did they care about using ultra-violet absorbing foam?

care to explain why that makes a difference?

[ericthehalfbee]

care to explain why that makes a difference?
Conspiracy theorists are always harping about the use of thermite to demolish the WTC. They also love to use the infrared images of the site to show how hot it was even days after the collapse. Again, trying to say thermite was used because the temperatures were supposedly "too hot" to be caused by a "normal" fire.

But the point they love the best is that thermite gives off a lot of ultra-violet radiation. So the conspiracy theorists say the government used Pyrocool to hide the UV radiation emitted by the thermite to aid in the cover up.

There's a huge flaw in their reasoning: thermite only emits UV while it's reacting (burning). So for the few seconds the thermite was actually being used (when the towers fell) it would emit a lot of UV. But by the time the towers collapsed, the thermite reaction would be over and so would the UV radiation.


So their idea that Pyrocool was used to hide UV radiation from thermite is beyond stupid, since it was days later they used it and the UV would have stopped within minutes of the towers collapse.

Yet the conspiracy sites still argue that the Pyrocool was used to hide UV radiation. Shows just how stupid these people are when they can come up with complex engineering analysis of the WTC towers and then show exactly how thermite could bring them down, yet they overlook something so simple as how and when thermite emits UV radiation.

[cressydrift]

I'm not a truther or some nut just logical.

Top 3 Non De-Bunked "conspiracy" theories:

1) No plane debris at Pentagon - ?????????
2) Free fall speeds of towers falling - ?????????
3) Pilots barely trained to fly Cessnas perfectly flying into there targets - ???????

I can not make assumptions. 90% of the info on the net is garbage. Inside job, or MORE TO THE terrorist job which for security reasons can not be released. I don't know. 1 piece of info that is kind of weird. The first tower hit had a major broadcasting antena on it for most local news stations. So CNN, NBC, ABC, etc (Major networks) were the only ones able to broadcast. Most likely means nothing, but food for thought.

[underscore]

1) If anything, the Pentagon is the only "questionable" one. But hell it might've just been a smaller plane but the gov't said it was a big jet to help fuel the anger. No clue.

2) There's tonnes of weight holding, holding, holding, falling. With so much of the design being around that one central beam, when it goes, it's going down hard. My $0.02.

3) From talking to my cousin (pilot) and watching shit like Mayday, flying a plane is pretty much flying a plane. The take-off/landing and other more technical bits can get more complex, but the actual steering of the thing is pretty consistent.

[kookoobird88]

the one plane that was headed for the white house the crashed in the field had almost little to no debris which is completely bogus. you watch mayday or w/e on discovery and they show videos of planes that crashed in to mountains, run ways, fields etc. This crash you couldnt even find 1 panel of the plane, or even a single suite case. like i said before, to me it doesnt make sense how the buildings fell in such perfection, but each to their own.
bush really messed up the usa

[- kT]

I'm not a truther or some nut just logical.

1) No plane debris at Pentagon - ?????????

i'm pretty much on the same page as this guy
simply put, the government said it was a boeing 757 that flew into the pentagon. putting aside the lack of debris, the hole in the pentagon wasn't sufficient with the dimensions of a 757

so either: there was no plane, or it wasn't a 757. either way, there's something wrong with the story

[goo3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg/800px-Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg

Cockpit voice recorder

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flight_77_CVR.jpg/658px-Flight_77_CVR.jpg

I'm not a truther or some nut just logical.


i'm pretty much on the same page as this guy
simply put, the government said it was a boeing 757 that flew into the pentagon. putting aside the lack of debris, the hole in the pentagon wasn't sufficient with the dimensions of a 757

so either: there was no plane, or it wasn't a 757. either way, there's something wrong with the story

Either this or that? Logic? Really. It's obviously option c.

[- kT]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG/800px-DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG

does this hole look like it fits a boeing 757, from wing to wing?

and how much of the plane went in, only the nose? no? then why is there so little penetration into the building?

[Graeme S]

does this hole look like it fits a boeing 757, from wing to wing?

and how much of the plane went in, only the nose? no? then why is there so little penetration into the building?

No, it wouldn't go from wing to wing; it's a fucking plane against a hardened armoured building. The wings would have/did shear off on impact.

if you measure the length and size of the penetration, and compare it to the size of a 757 fuselage, then it does actually fit.

Oh, and the pictures showing that there's no engines are actually the post-action photos once the engines have been REMOVED.

The pentagon is a hardened building. If the planes' WINGS penetrated the building, it'd be a pretty shitty building.
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[underscore]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG/800px-DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG

does this hole look like it fits a boeing 757, from wing to wing?

and how much of the plane went in, only the nose? no? then why is there so little penetration into the building?

well looking at that, the nose managed to break in, with the whole fuselage plowing in behind it, which is why it managed to get that far in. looking at the sides around the hole, there's a bunch of burnt area, which would be from the wings (which are also fuel tanks) hitting and tossing fuel everywhere.

remember, these things were filled to the tits with fuel as they had just taken off and were going on longass flights. If anyone else saw the episode of Destroyed in Seconds where they slammed a tester plane full of fuel into these shredder things, there was next to nothing left. Now slam that into an armoured building, well fuck you're not gonna find a whole lot of stuff left.

does this hole look like it fits a boeing 757, from wing to wing?

no, but your moms does :haha:

sorry I couldn't resist

[- kT]

No, it wouldn't go from wing to wing; it's a fucking plane against a hardened armoured building. The wings would have/did shear off on impact.

i'm sure the wings would've left at least an imprint on the building even if they did shear off on impact

[Graeme S]

i'm sure the wings would've left at least an imprint on the building even if they did shear off on impact
And so those giant scorchmarks and the impact crunch to the right of the wall don't look like any damage?

[NJMR]

geez to all the people saying it would cost too much- didn't you know america is built on debt?

[- kT]

And so those giant scorchmarks and the impact crunch to the right of the wall don't look like any damage?

scorchmarks are from the fire
and i meant something more along the lines of damage that resembles the shape of a wing, at the very least

[goo3]

LOL

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/attack-usat.htm


"(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target," said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA TODAY near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."

Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military.

'Nobody could believe it'

"There was a big boom," he said. "Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled ‘Did you see that?' Nobody could believe it."

Kizildrgli was found wandering in an Arlington neighborhood about five miles from the Pentagon an hour after the crash.

Flight 77 hijacked? check
Flight path over the pentagon? check
Leftover American Airlines debris? check
Human Remains? check (seriously, just google it. what's wrong with you?)
Eyewitness accounts? check

Case Closed? Yes

[matter]

imagine a bird slamming through a window...what kind of hole does it leave? where are the wing impacts? They pretty much shear right off unless you are flying through something really weak. You can definately see the wing imprints on the WTC towers, but the WTC =/= the Pentagon.


scorchmarks are from the fire
and i meant something more along the lines of damage that resembles the shape of a wing, at the very least

[SlySi]

No it will never be case closed.
Conspiracy nutjobs have a hard time letting go what they read on the internet.
They have read what they believe is true and have fabricated this into their mind.
Its an addiction. They are very introspective and preoccupied with their fantasy.
They are so caught up with what they believe is right, the truth is ignored.
All conspiracy theorist replies above have clearly proven that.

Now not saying all conspiracy's are fake.
But this 9/11 nutcase story is ridiculous.
This thread will end soon.... within a year.. a new post will be back..
Some newb will read and watch a video and restart the nutjob theory again.
The web has created the largest mass of nutjobs. Its viral.
Every kid now believes they have this new acquired knowledge from something they read or watched on the internet.

In fact... its not the theorists that need to let it go.
Its us.
Specifically the 9/11 hoax.

[Presto]

Let the PCT's (Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists) have their fun. It's not worth our time to try and pull them away from the "truths" they believe in.

A blurb from Skeptic's Dictionary (http://www.skepdic.com/illuminati.html):

...it is pointless to argue here because the PCTs are expert pseudo historians (http://www.skepdic.com/pseudohs.html): contradictory evidence is used to support rather than refute their notions. Does the U.S. Government go after the world's richest man, Bill Gates? Hah! It's a charade, aimed at getting us off the scent. Wasn't Hitler the one who thought he could rule the world and didn't the Allies stop him? Hitler was a dupe, used to advance the sinister plot to rule the world by the Illuminati.


One can only speculate as to why PCTs exist. It is easy to explain their proliferation: modern mass communications has made it possible for anyone to become his or her own press and propaganda machine. But why PCTs in the first place? The only other experience I've had with such thinking was when I had to get involved with some mentally ill people. I am not joking here. A relative had a "psychotic break" and severe paranoia. We (a group of relatives) were all targets of assassination by some unknown evil people. They could be partially identified by their license plate numbers. If the number started with a "5" then they were evil. No amount of logic or reasoning as to the preposterous of the notion that anyone would want to kill a person of absolutely no political significance was of any use. No amount of reasoning as to how license plate numbers are assigned was of any use. Phone calls could only be made from "secure" lines, which involved either going to the fire department or talking your way up through a series of supervisors until you got a "good one." Through my ill relative I met others who were also afflicted with delusions and incredibly faulty judgment. They did not lose their ability to reason--in fact, my relative seemed even more intelligent in some ways when manic--but their assumptions were taken from sources inaccessible to the ordinary mind. They put vast faith in their intuitions and thought their ideas were brilliant insights when they were little more than the fancies of diseased brains. When I compare reading the literature of the PCTs to entering Bedlam, I mean to be taken literally.

For example, many PCTs consider the Great Seal of the United States and the motto Novus Ordo Seclorum (new order of the ages) to be Masonic and to mean New World Order. These "facts" are considered evidence in the argument to prove the vast conspiracy of the Illuminati. It is useless to argue against these "facts" with PCTs. They consider us dupes who would note that the Latin is usually translated as New Order of the Ages (http://www.greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html) and that the symbol of the eye in the pyramid relates to a poem in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.* Even granting that the Great Seal of the United States and the symbols on our dollar bill are Masonic (which they are not) and that novus ordo seculorum means New World Order (which it does not), nothing significant follows, certainly not that there is a vast conspiracy to take over the world.[url]

[underscore]

No it will never be case closed.
Conspiracy nutjobs have a hard time letting go what they selectively read on the internet.

fixt

[JD¹³]

Since JD13 doesn't want to comment, perhaps you other experts will answer my question for me.

Why did they pour Pyrocool fire fighting foam into the wreckage of the WTC? Why did they care about using ultra-violet absorbing foam?
Sorry I don't live on RS so my reply is a little slow. I've never heard of these Pyrocool details you're talking about until you brought them up. Who gives a shit about that minor detail. If that point is your main rebuttal against the towers being demolished then power to you. Sorry but anyone trying to tell me that not one but TWO 100+ floor towers collapsed to the ground at the same speed, around 11 seconds from top to bottom, because of fire - I'll think they're idiots. But ignorance is bliss I guess.

As for the Pentagon, it wasn't hit by a plane. I won't speculate on what it was but it wasn't a fullsize airliner. Armoured walls or not there's no way it would have escaped with that little damage from being hit by an airliner going fullspeed. Here's one of the planes hitting the WTC:

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts/Frame29.jpg
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts/Frame31.jpg
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts/Frame33.jpg
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts/Frame35.jpg
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts/Frame37.jpg

Look at the holes punched by the wings. Look at the shape of the impact damage. Not even close to matching the damage at the Pentagon. The primary point of impact, before there's even an explosion, has gotta be like 60-70ft wide from the fuselage and engines and THEN the length of the wings. The hole at the Pentagon looked like this:

http://www.travelinlibrarian.info/911/WTCimages/pentagon.jpg

The fuselage plowing in behind the nose at the point of impact is what speared damage through 3 rings of the Pentagon with armoured walls supposedly so strong the fuel filled wings of the plane couldn't pierce them or blow them apart upon initial impact? Do some of you guys really believe the shit you're saying!? The final exit hole on the inside of C Ring sure looks like it was done by an airliner....

http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4957.jpg

Let's not also forget that initially, the roofline at the point of impact remained and collapsed later while they were fighting the fire. And don't even get me started on the complete impossibility of the ability of the alleged pilot, who couldn't even get a private license in a Cessna, flying an airliner low and fast above the ground without bouncing or skidding off tarmac or grass before hitting the building.

[underscore]

Sorry I don't live on RS so my reply is a little slow. I've never heard of these Pyrocool details you're talking about until you brought them up. Who gives a shit about that minor detail. If that point is your main rebuttal against the towers being demolished then power to you. Sorry but anyone trying to tell me that not one but TWO 100+ floor towers collapsed to the ground at the same speed, around 11 seconds from top to bottom, because of fire - I'll think they're idiots. But ignorance is bliss I guess

because of structural failure. dur.

[JD¹³]

because of structural failure. dur.
OK so let's say the central structure did fail completely. Do you think the roofline of one of the towers, falling through 100+ floors of resistance, would reach the ground as fast as a brick would if you dropped it off the roof free falling through the air? Because the towers came down almost as fast. Even given the immense weight of a collapsing WTC tower I find it hard to believe all that material, including the entire undamaged core of the building, would give out that fast with seemingly no resistance.

[underscore]

well from my understanding of the design, the part that failed was the primary support structure. essentially all of the load travelled through that column of steel. if you knock out that support it's gonna come down pretty fast.

answer me this: if it was a controlled demo, would you not see some blasting or hear some explosions?

[JD¹³]

answer me this: if it was a controlled demo, would you not see some blasting or hear some explosions?
Yep. Plenty of eyewitness accounts from people on the scene saying there were lots of supplemental explosions inside the building.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
.. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

And so on, and so on.

If you watch video of the towers collapsing, or shortly before the collapses, you can see the outward detonations blowing out the buildings. Here are a couple good stills, look at how linear the blast line is!

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/sor80000.jpg
http://mayavision2012.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/tower2mushroom.jpg

YouTube- 9/11 North Tower collapse in slow motion show clear explosions

[Graeme S]

Sorry I don't live on RS so my reply is a little slow. I've never heard of these Pyrocool details you're talking about until you brought them up. Who gives a shit about that minor detail. If that point is your main rebuttal against the towers being demolished then power to you. Sorry but anyone trying to tell me that not one but TWO 100+ floor towers collapsed to the ground at the same speed, around 11 seconds from top to bottom, because of fire - I'll think they're idiots. But ignorance is bliss I guess.

Actually, because of planes crashing into them, but that's just a nitpick. Also, isn't it logical to expect that two towers designed and built in the same way ("twin" towers) when struck with the same problem (a plane hitting them) would fall in the same manner? Especially given that gravity tends to be a constant.

As for the Pentagon, it wasn't hit by a plane. I won't speculate on what it was but it wasn't a fullsize airliner. Armoured walls or not there's no way it would have escaped with that little damage from being hit by an airliner going fullspeed. Here's one of the planes hitting the WTC:

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts/Frame33.jpg
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~johnm/Three-Lightbursts/Frame37.jpg
Look at the holes punched buy the wings. Look at the shape of the impact damage. Not even close to the match of the damage at the Pentagon. The primary point of impact, before there's even an explosion, has gotta be like 60-70ft wide from the fuselage and engines and THEN the length of the wings.

Yep, I see a plane smashing into one of the WTC towers. I see aluminum smashing through glass and plowing its way into the main building.

The hole at the Pentagon looked like this:

http://www.travelinlibrarian.info/911/WTCimages/pentagon.jpg

The fuselage plowing in behind the nose at the point of impact is what speared damage through 3 rings of the Pentagon with armoured walls supposedly so strong the fuel filled wings of the plane couldn't pierce them or blow them apart upon initial impact? Do some of you guys really believe the shit you're saying!?

Ever punched a window? Chances are if you hit it strongly enough, it's gonna break. Ever punched a solid wood door? Chances are you've got cracked/broken knuckles. Comparing the effects of a plane on the exterior of a glass businesstower is quite different than that of a hardened building. Last time I checked, hardened buildings were designed to be protection against things like shelling, artillery fire, tanks, and the like. Seems like a bit better protection than glass, eh?


The final exit hole on the inside of C Ring sure looks like it was done by an airliner....

http://www.fema.gov/photodata/original/4957.jpg

Let's not also forget that initially, the roofline at the point of impact remained and collapsed later while they were fighting the fire. And don't even get me started on the complete impossibility of the ability of the alleged pilot, who couldn't even get a private license in a Cessna, flying an airliner low and fast above the ground without bouncing or skidding off tarmac or grass before hitting the building.

So you're saying that the roofline collapsed afterwards...almost as though something plowed into it and tunnelled through...hunh. Who'da thunk it?

As far as skills...ever heard the story of how the cat learned to swim? When people find the need, people somehow find the means.

OK so let's say the central structure did fail completely. Do you think the roofline of one of the towers, falling through 100+ floors of resistance, would reach the ground as fast as a brick would if you dropped it off the roof free falling through the air? Because the towers came down almost as fast. Even given the immense weight of a collapsing WTC tower I find it hard to believe all that material, including the entire undamaged core of the building, would give out that fast with seemingly no resistance.

Let's imagine, shall we, that we make a human pyramid about 50 layers high. But let's be awesome engineers and make it a tower type deal. Now let's knock out one of those layers about 1/3 from the top, meaning that all the layers above that fall down nearly directly on the bottom ones. All things being constant, and each person being (essentially) able to support what they were holding up are now facing a great number of people who are not just in need of support, but are also FALLING (representing a much greater mass); these impacts are sent down and as each level hits the sequential one they fall--those who fell apart from said human tower falling at NEARLY the same speed as those who are falling on top of it.

You find it hard to believe, I do not. There are numerous experts on physics and multiple other sciences who understand and agree. And a great number fewer who do not. A majority of the proponents of conspiracy theories are those who are not professionals in the field they are quoting information from. I find it hard to believe that such a great number of experts could be paid off. Occam's Razor.

answer me this: if it was a controlled demo, would you not see some blasting or hear some explosions?
You would expect to, yes. And conspiracy theorists insist that you DO start to see/hear explosions as the building goes down.

Yep. Plenty of eyewitness accounts from people on the scene saying there were lots of supplemental explosions inside the building.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
.. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

And so on, and so on.

If you watch video of the towers collapsing, or shortly before the collapses, you can see the outward detonations blowing out the buildings. Here are a couple good stills, look at how linear the blast line is!

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/sor80000.jpg
http://mayavision2012.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/tower2mushroom.jpg

Those quotes can be attributed to never having seen a building like this go down before--a collapse of a central support beam would result in simultaneous decompression/explosion on all four sides. The picture you've got up makes total sense--it seems that the air pressure of the collapsing building is smashing open the windows on the lower structure.





My turn now, though: why did nobody notice anybody setting up these massive amounts of explosives over the months and weeks before 9/11?

[underscore]

I agree with Graeme, as the floors smush together on the way down, everything that was occupying the space between them (mostly air) is going to be forced outwards, the only way it can go.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/5/sor80000.jpg
http://mayavision2012.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/tower2mushroom.jpg

I see two puffs of dust/debris on one part of one side of the building...

[JD¹³]

... isn't it logical to expect that two towers designed and built in the same way ("twin" towers) when struck with the same problem (a plane hitting them) would fall in the same manner? Especially given that gravity tends to be a constant.
Then why did the second tower collapse first? The first tower was hit straight on, the second as pictured was hit on an angle and the main impact damage would have only glanced the core of the building. The plane shot out the side of the building just as much as it did the backside, and the fires didn't burn as long as the plane that went straight through the middle of the first tower.

Yep, I see a plane smashing into one of the WTC towers. I see aluminum smashing through glass hardened steel beams and concrete pillars sand plowing its way into the main building.
This wasn't like throwing a rock into a glass house.

Ever punched a window? Chances are if you hit it strongly enough, it's gonna break. Ever punched a solid wood door? Chances are you've got cracked/broken knuckles. Comparing the effects of a plane on the exterior of a glass businesstower is quite different than that of a hardened building. Last time I checked, hardened buildings were designed to be protection against things like shelling, artillery fire, tanks, and the like. Seems like a bit better protection than glass, eh?
Then why did your hardened building allow the hallow and collapsible fuselage to punch through SIX exterior walls? All that came out the backside of the WTC towers was exploding jetfuel, no pieces solid enough to continue to punch through hardened walls of a secure building.

So you're saying that the roofline collapsed afterwards...almost as though something plowed into it and tunnelled through...hunh. Who'da thunk it?
So your airliner was powerful enough to tunnel through six exterior reinforced walls, but didn't hit hard enough to cause enough damage at the point of inital impact to bring the entire structure of the building down?

Do you know anything about military weaponry? Harpoon missles, bunker busters, armour piercing rounds? Uranium tipping? Anything?

As far as skills...ever heard the story of how the cat learned to swim? When people find the need, people somehow find the means.
I actually laughed, are you serious? A cat learning to swim, or "fight or flight" scenarios are in no way comparable to operating something as complex as a jet airliner. My dad flew them for 15 years and I've spent a lot of time in the cockpit. If the alleged pilot couldn't even fly a Cessna straight and level there is no way he piloted a 757 into the Pentagon with the precision flying he supposedly did.

Let's imagine, shall we, that we make a human pyramid about 50 layers high. But let's be awesome engineers and make it a tower type deal.
Comparing the strength of a human being to that of a structure designed to support all that is above it is a bit of a stretch don't you think? The compounding force argument is sound, but I still don't think a building of that height would collapse that fast even given that scenario.

There are numerous experts on physics and multiple other sciences who understand and agree. And a great number fewer who do not. A majority of the proponents of conspiracy theories are those who are not professionals in the field they are quoting information from. I find it hard to believe that such a great number of experts could be paid off. Occam's Razor.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are just as many experts who say the official story is BS as there are confirming it.

You would expect to, yes. And conspiracy theorists insist that you DO start to see/hear explosions as the building goes down.
Because people did hear, and you can see, the explosions taking place.

Those quotes can be attributed to never having seen a building like this go down before--a collapse of a central support beam would result in simultaneous decompression/explosion on all four sides.
True, but not before the building was actually collapsing and gaining steam. The firefighters I quoted were referring to the moments just before the building could be seen collapsing.

The picture you've got up makes total sense--it seems that the air pressure of the collapsing building is smashing open the windows on the lower structure.
If you look a the picture with the arrow, you can see where the actual frame of the building is failing. Look up the corner ridge, and right around where the bottom of the falling debris is you can see the line of the building corner is no longer straight. That's where the floors of the building are starting to fail. Remember that the falling debris is from high floors, and the approximate line of destruction would be drawn somewhere right through the middle of the "mushroom cloud". By your theory, the pancaking of floors blowing air out the windows, it would be a floor by floor downward blowout correct?

The bottom of the debris lines up with the bottom of where the structure is actually failing, you can see it in the picture. So why is there then a 10-15 floor gap and then a perfectly linear blowout of a floor? Shouldn't the 10-15 floors above it have blownout already? They still look perfectly intact and stable to me.

My turn now, though: why did nobody notice anybody setting up these massive amounts of explosives over the months and weeks before 9/11?
It's been documented that employees who worked in the "inner working" areas of the towers such as janitors were suddenly given restricted access to different areas on different floors of the towers over a period of months leading upto the attacks. Along with that was a massive increase in security within the building which suddenly disappeared a day or so before the attack. Now someone will say "no way that many security personnel were in on it". They didn't have to be, they just had to stand outside a door and only let people with certain credentials go through it no questions asked. There are a lot of details that could be argued about your question, noone will ever know the truth of those details.

[JD¹³]

I agree with Graeme, as the floors smush together on the way down, everything that was occupying the space between them (mostly air) is going to be forced outwards, the only way it can go.
Then why is there such a big gap? Why isn't the air in the floors above being forced out?

K I'm done for tonight haha

[ericthehalfbee]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are just as many experts who say the official story is BS as there are confirming it.
I'd love you to list the names and credentials of these "experts". In all the WTC conspiracy theory crap I've read it's idiots mis-quoting the experts and twisting their words to fit their ridiculous theories.

So why not name names? Give us links to these experts so we can read what they have to say and make our own judgement, rather then telling us "the experts said so, therefore it must be true".


As to the Pyrocool, it's very relevant. The same people you're getting your conspiracy information from subscribe to the theory Pyrocool was used to hide evidence of thermite. This is easy to prove wrong. So if your "experts" are so utterly wrong on this issue, how can you trust them to be right on other issues? How could an "expert" not even understand something so simple as the fact that thermite doesn't emit UV after it's fnished "burning"?

It's like asking your "expert" to tell me what 2+2 is and he guesses 5, but then tell me I should listen to his theories on the strucutal analysis of the WTC towers.


This is how you guys think:

- Pyrocool was used on the WTC wreckage.
- Pyrocool absorbs UV radiation.
- Thermite emits UV radiation.
- Conclusion: There's thermite in the WTC wreckage.

Why would thermite be present in the WTC? Could only be for demolition purposes. :rolleyes:

[underscore]

This is how you guys think:

- Pyrocool was used on the WTC wreckage.
- Pyrocool absorbs UV radiation.
- Thermite emits UV radiation.
- Conclusion: There's thermite in the WTC wreckage.

Why would thermite be present in the WTC? Could only be for demolition purposes. :rolleyes:

Mythbusters also uses it. Did you see that episode where the thermite burns through all those layers of metal? That's like a mini WTC!

OH MY GOD THE MYTHBUSTERS BLEW UP THE WTC!!!

[ericthehalfbee]

http://mayavision2012.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/tower2mushroom.jpg

I just realized something looking at this picture. The conspiracy guys are always saying the towers came down at "free fall" speed, which they say is impossible.

So in this picture I see debris on the bottom right that is several stories below the tower. Is this debris falling faster than what gravity will allow? How is it possible for debris to be ahead of the free-falling tower? Do the laws of physics not apply to this debris?

[- kT]

So in this picture I see debris on the bottom right that is several stories below the tower. Is this debris falling faster than what gravity will allow? How is it possible for debris to be ahead of the free-falling tower? Do the laws of physics not apply to this debris?

that's not even relevant. the laws of physics state that 2 objects, no matter the mass, will fall at the same rate of speed, yes. but that is assuming they are dropped from the same height. given that the debris "exploded" (blew outward, upward, etc), it's not even something you can compare given that the building and the debris did not fall from the same height

keep in mind the tower has to fall to create debris, too. meaning while the tower was already in motion, the debris was only then being created to start their fall

[Graeme S]

that's not even relevant. the laws of physics state that 2 objects, no matter the mass, will fall at the same rate of speed, yes. but that is assuming they are dropped from the same height. given that the debris "exploded" (blew outward, upward, etc), it's not even something you can compare given that the building and the debris did not fall from the same height

keep in mind the tower has to fall to create debris, too. meaning while the tower was already in motion, the debris was only then being created to start their fall
So what falls faster, a feather or an equal weight of lead?

[- kT]

So what falls faster, a feather or an equal weight of lead?

do you really want a serious answer to this question?

[Graeme S]

do you really want a serious answer to this question?
I do. Enlighten me on why a parachute with a man falls more slowly than an equal weight of lead.


All things being equal, everything falls at the same rate. Yet that pesky atmosphere keeps getting in the way...

[cressydrift]

Someone with deep pockets needs to build a tower and fly a plane into it. Then we will know and end all this BS.

OK so if we found out the the Americans had more than a helping hand in all this, how does it really effect us as Canadians, Vancouverites??? To 90% of this forum it doesn't change shit. Other than a shit load of band wagon jumpers.

[- kT]

I do. Enlighten me on why a parachute with a man falls more slowly than an equal weight of lead.


All things being equal, everything falls at the same rate. Yet that pesky atmosphere keeps getting in the way...

well like you said, it depends on the air resistance

if anything, you're just agreeing with me that that's why the debris wasn't falling at the same speed the building was

Someone with deep pockets needs to build a tower and fly a plane into it. Then we will know and end all this BS.

it isn't like it hasn't happened before, a plane's been flown into the empire state

[Lomac]

it isn't like it hasn't happened before, a plane's been flown into the empire state

A WW2-era B-25 bomber flying into the Empire State Building is slightly different than a Boeing 767 trans-continental passenger plane flying into one of the Twin Towers...

[Graeme S]

well like you said, it depends on the air resistance

if anything, you're just agreeing with me that that's why the debris wasn't falling

Actually, you're misinterpreting the data. I am saying that there are many factors your simplified analogy is leaving out. I am not a physicist, so I am not one to judge what 'is' or 'isn't' possible. Am I blind? No. Stupid? Depends who you ask. I am not swayed, however, by doubt. Show me proof, show me evidence.

Where are or were the explosives? Why did nobody see them being set up? Why was the building demolished from the top down instead of the bottom up? Most importantly, how can you believe that so many THOUSANDS of people have managed to keep these secrets?

[- kT]

A WW2-era B-25 bomber flying into the Empire State Building is slightly different than a Boeing 767 trans-continental passenger plane flying into one of the Twin Towers...

The post I was replying to stated that we should "build a tower and fly a plane into it"

Empire state building, WTC both fit under that category.

Actually, you're misinterpreting the data. I am saying that there are many factors your simplified analogy is leaving out. I am not a physicist, so I am not one to judge what 'is' or 'isn't' possible. Am I blind? No. Stupid? Depends who you ask. I am not swayed, however, by doubt. Show me proof, show me evidence.

Where are or were the explosives? Why did nobody see them being set up? Why was the building demolished from the top down instead of the bottom up? Most importantly, how can you believe that so many THOUSANDS of people have managed to keep these secrets?

I don't think you understand what my post was getting at. I was replying to this:

I just realized something looking at this picture. The conspiracy guys are always saying the towers came down at "free fall" speed, which they say is impossible.

So in this picture I see debris on the bottom right that is several stories below the tower. Is this debris falling faster than what gravity will allow? How is it possible for debris to be ahead of the free-falling tower? Do the laws of physics not apply to this debris?

and ONLY this. I said nothing of the building being demolished in a controlled fashion. the only word that I said that could be misinterpreted is the word "exploded", in which I meant the resulting explosion from the plane hitting the WTC

regardless, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. you believe what you want, and everybody else can believe what they want

[ericthehalfbee]

it isn't like it hasn't happened before, a plane's been flown into the empire state

An engineer once said: "Anyone can make a bridge to carry a certain load. A smart engineer will build a bridge that can just carry a certain load."

The Empire State Building was over-built since engineers back then didn't have as good an understanding of materials. If it was built today, they'd use 1/3 the amount of steel. The Empire State is a tank of a building, grossly over-built.

The World Trade Centre towers weigh in at about 35% more than the Empire State, despite being just over twice as large in terms of size and floor space. The WTC towers actually used less steel than the Empire State, again despite being over twice as large.


A B-25 has a max weight of around 13-14 tons, and can carry 874 US gallons of fuel. Max speed is 285 MPH.

A 767-200 has a max weight of 150-180 tons, and can carry 24,800 US gallons of fuel. Max speed is 530 MPH.


So the 767 that hit the WTC has a weight that is about 12 times that of a B-25. And it travels much faster than the B-25. The kinetic energy release by the 767 into the WTC (factoring plane mass and speed) is easily over 20 times that of the B-25.

So we have 20 times the energy going into a building (WTC) that is constructed weaker than the Empire State.

Oh, and there's the fuel. The 767 carries 27 times the amount of fuel as the B-25.


But yeah, I can see why you'd compare them. I mean, having 20 times the kinetic energy hitting the WTC and 27 times the fuel isn't really going to be that much worse than a B-25 into the Empire State. :rolleyes:

[cococly]

answer me this: if it was a controlled demo, would you not see some blasting or hear some explosions?

I am bringing this thread back.

May Wikileak tells us something about 9/11 :fullofwin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

[Hondaracer]

islam is planning a nucelar 9/11

bigger threat than global warming

[dinamix]

islam is planning a nucelar 9/11

bigger threat than global warming

Was Eklund your main source?
Posted via RS Mobile (http://www.revscene.net/forums/announcement.php?a=228)

[TheKingdom2000]

if wikileaks has ANYTHING about the 9/11 being a conspiracy the shit is going to hit the fan!

i would be interested if they have any documents related to this.

[Xnova86]

cool story bros.

[strykn]

islam is planning a nucelar 9/11

bigger threat than global warming

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Qaida+brink+using+nuclear+bomb/4205104/story.html

Fucking scary if you ask me.

[Slifer]

^Damn, we need Jack Bauer!!

[EmperorIS]

eliminate religion and we'll have peace

oh and brown ppl

[TheKingdom2000]

I'm just curious. Can anyone comment on these secondary explosions?
Are these people just making it up? Is the video fake?

And if they're not fake, where did the secondary explosions come from?

If this can't be explained this might be the thing that turned me from being skeptical to believing there is something fishy going on with 9/11

[penner2k]

An engineer once said: "Anyone can make a bridge to carry a certain load. A smart engineer will build a bridge that can just carry a certain load."

The Empire State Building was over-built since engineers back then didn't have as good an understanding of materials. If it was built today, they'd use 1/3 the amount of steel. The Empire State is a tank of a building, grossly over-built.

The World Trade Centre towers weigh in at about 35% more than the Empire State, despite being just over twice as large in terms of size and floor space. The WTC towers actually used less steel than the Empire State, again despite being over twice as large.


A B-25 has a max weight of around 13-14 tons, and can carry 874 US gallons of fuel. Max speed is 285 MPH.

A 767-200 has a max weight of 150-180 tons, and can carry 24,800 US gallons of fuel. Max speed is 530 MPH.


So the 767 that hit the WTC has a weight that is about 12 times that of a B-25. And it travels much faster than the B-25. The kinetic energy release by the 767 into the WTC (factoring plane mass and speed) is easily over 20 times that of the B-25.

So we have 20 times the energy going into a building (WTC) that is constructed weaker than the Empire State.

Oh, and there's the fuel. The 767 carries 27 times the amount of fuel as the B-25.


But yeah, I can see why you'd compare them. I mean, having 20 times the kinetic energy hitting the WTC and 27 times the fuel isn't really going to be that much worse than a B-25 into the Empire State. :rolleyes:

Except that the WTC was tested to be able to withstand more kinetic energy then what the 767 could produce.. Go look in the Joe Rogan thread. I posted the numbers there.
The 767 was also only carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel...

The WTC was designed to withstand an impact from a 707 at 600 mph. They say the 767 hit the building at around 466 mph..

And just so nobody can say that I'm getting my info from "truther" websites..
Seattle Times article from 1993 when the WTC was bombed

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

And for the unaware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

Why didnt the building come down then?

[StylinRed]

something definitely isn't right about the whole situation but i doubt we'll ever know what or why


I don't believe there's a global terrorist syndicate in cahoots with all other forms of crime and criminal organizations in the world though... (look at every international crime; hell even local crime they tie it alllll back with AlQaeda.... come on)

That sounds like they're trying to get people to believe that COBRA actually exists and is possible ;) and Bin Laden is Cobra Commander

[CanadaGoose]

At the end of the day, who cares.

There are people out there, in much higher and more powerful places then we are, that will make sure things stay so convoluted and unintelligible that people like you and I will never be able to unravel the mess and see what really happened....and by the time we do, so much time would've passed that we simply don't care anymore. The answer is so painfully obvious, but to PROVE it - it's simply too complicated, too much hard work. There's a lot going on out there in this world. And people like you and I can just never connect A to B.

If I had to send a message to the American people in the future based on things I've seen in my life so far, I would say: Get a gun, learn to shoot it well, and hope the day never comes you have to use it to defend yourself against a corrupt government.