Even though we had a little bit of warning about federation, I think we're off to a rocky start. Maybe we should have compiled a list of things we think that may make other people very upset. That way they can quickly get to know what we're about and go hide in a social media bubble if it scares them.
I figure I'd start with a good one. America deserved 9/11. I'm burying the lede a bit with that one. I don't think random acts of violence really accomplish much and I don't think randos, albeit imperial core randos, should die. But this wasn't a random act of violence, was it?
There's a little something called Foucault's Boomerang. Basically it's the tools, means, and experiments carried out by imperial countries tend to make their way back home one way or another. Military gear gets tried out on the battlefield then next thing you know cops at home have the same equipment. It also works for cause and effect. America did 9/11 to itself.
After WWII America courted the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, who had some really "interesting" religious ideas at the time, to ensure a source of oil. Oil was very important to American manufacturing and the war effort. Our domestic reserves helped us get through WWII. We needed more. So the US decided to look the other way on Saudi foreign policy while they ensured us first dibs on the oil. The UK also made deals on building their infrastructure and finance needs, to which the US eventually pushed them of the back rooms where such deals were made. But that's another story.
The US also backed anti-Soviet/anti-Communist groups in the Middle-East as they had in other parts of the world. This meant giving aide and weapons and training to those groups. In exchange they would beat up all the communists and pro-soviet people in their country and keep the borders open for US trade.
Not to "yadda yadda yadda" through a lot of interesting history but the US made a lot of enemies and ruined former alliances in these places because we valued the exploitation of their resources more than the actual relationships formed. Once the Soviets were gone, we could just do what we wanted to them and there was nobody left to oppose us.
So our former (and some current) friends stabbed us in the back. The imperialism boomeranged back home and we got a terrorist attack on US soil.
The people who died didn't particularly deserve it but people die when an imperial power does imperialism. That's part of why it's bad. Imperialism will never benefit the common person, it will only hurt us in the end. You best believe all this funding, weapons, and shit going into Ukraine will come back on us too.
What are some other real-ass takes for our visitors who need disillusioning?
So you still believe that 16 terrorists hijacked planes a flew into WTC and Pentagon? This was clearly an inside job to justify war. I still can't get that image out of my head about the way the towers collapsed. Controlled demolition looks exactly like that.
I don't think it was a "controlled demolition," but I do think that the Bush administration did know about it in advance and let it happen because it was a useful justification for what they already wanted to do. I like showing people this picture. Because this picture is what's really important to me: The fact that 9/11 was used as a flimsy justification for a "war on terror" but none of the countries the USA attacked had anything to do with 9/11 and the countries that the hijackers were supposedly from got left entirely alone.
We know the names of the people who died on the flights, so I think that part is very hard to fake. I think planes really were flown into the Pentagon and the WTC buildings.
To be fair (
) I don't get the impression that the controlled demolition conspiracy guys think the planes didn't exist or anything. Just that the planes were used as props in the show, and that the actual main event was a controlled demolition.
I think this is a silly view for the record, planes slamming really hard into a building which then starts a bunch of fires seems like plenty to cause that building to go down
A blacksmith years ago responded to the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" bs by heating a piece of steel to the burning temperature of jet fuel and then bending the steel with his pinky. It was a gun video.
Shit, hope he had gloves on
Yeah even if it was entirely a false flag you could just get some terrorists to do it for you.
I've never really thought about this, but this makes a lot of sense. If the Bush admin actually had done a controlled demolition false flag, they definitely wouldn't have said the hijackers were from countries friendly to the US. They would've just said Saddam did it.
There were also some guys who were convicted of insider trading they did the week before 9/11
They couldn't have made that profit if they didn't have advanced knowledge of what was going to happen, so at the very least there were some members of the ruling class who knew
Lastly one of Epstein's victims claimed that he was talking about 9/11 before it happened, don't know it if it's true but I'm inclined to believe her
It's this map that completely sank the controlled demolition theory for me, not that it had much to stand on in the first place. Wouldn't it make much more sense to have fake IDs of the countries you're going to invade instead of countries that are already allied with you?
The controlled demolition theory is libshit to explain away imperialism as some 'elite scheme'.
The US just used it as an excuse. They don't need to stage shit, crises they can lie and spin come about often enough that it's trivial to wait a few months for the next one.
Yes, we know the names of the people that died and we found the passport of one of the hijackers on the ground close to the towers. How convenient. As I asked others, explain me how the towers came down so fast. Free fall, no resistance. Buildings only collapse like this with a controlled demolition which confirmes to me that the story they gave us is not true. Pentagon, WTC 7 collapse due to fire?
That is weird, and I have always found that weird, but what has yet to be explained is if the passport was just a plant to justify attacking the middle east, why did the USA not actually attack the countries the hijackers were "from" according to the "fake passports"? Why didn't "they" plant passports from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen? Why did "they" plant passports from Saudi Arabia (US ally), UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon? Why aren't Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon invaded in the "War on Terror" if the passports were just plants to justify the invasion? This is why, rather than embracing controlled demolition and fake passports, I embrace something a little different. The US government knew it was gonna happen, let it happen, then used it as an excuse to do what they were already going to do, which is attack nations that had nothing to do with it.
I think there's a lot more fishy stuff if you actually buy into the fact that Osama Bin Laden did it. Like for example his family's wealth, their ties with the Saudi Royal Family, their business dealings with the Bush family, their ties to the petrodollar scheme that allowed the USA to easily maintain global dollar hegemony in that era because the Saudis would artificially glut the oil market on purpose on behalf of the USA private sector interests, in order to keep their theocratic absolute monarchy untouched.
Please don't. Just don't do this. People used to hijack planes constantly. Like shockingly often. And the vast majority of the time they just demanded the release of some political prisoners or money and it was fine. The 9/11 attack worked because up until that point no one in the general public had considered the idea of using planes as improvised cruise missiles. If someone hijacks your plane you comply with them, they fly to cuba or whatever, there's some diplomatic hijinks, and eventually everyone goes home. The 9/11 attacks were almost totally unprecedented, which is pretty much the only reason they worked.
Yup, I'm friends with enough boomers and genxers that I know multiple people who were on hijacked flights. Anecdata, but still, it used to be kind of common. The List of notable hijackings makes it pretty clear, and even that is scoped to "notable."
A couple of books existed with that idea, but most people don't want to suicide like that.
And I will repeat my question to you. How was it possible that the towers collapsed with that speed? Free fall, no resistance. Due to a plane hitting them? Sorry, but I cannot believe this. On top comes the Pentagon and WTC 7. The whole story is a big lie.
Yes I believe people flew planes into buildings. I also think there was a lot of intelligence knowledge about it beforehand and the situation was knowingly shaped to support a lot of heinous shit even as it unfolded. Cheney taking secret calls by himself. CoG stuff that Cheney and Rumsfeld both came up with suddenly going into effect. MOSSAD watching across the river. NORAD and others being asked to stand down.
I'm not a controlled demo person though.
Same. The Bush clique and others definitely knew it was going to happen, there's some evidence that suggests that they (and Saudi intelligence) intervened at various steps to facilitate the hijackers' activities, but I do think that the towers came down because planes hit them.
Controlled demolition would be a smoking gun, so I see why people fixate on it, but I've never been impressed by the evidence/arguments supporting the theory.
How could they collapse without any resistance? Nearly free fall! Have you seen something like this before? Something is off here.
Eh, we are not so much a fan of that conspiracy on this site. Imperial governments don't have to control all the things, they can just use bs to justify invasions in any case.
If you like it or not, this is my believe after seeing countless videos and reading about it. Planes hit the WTC? True. Commercial planes? Maybe not. What nobody seems to be able to explain is the speed of the collapse. Nearly free fall, no resistance. Can you explain it to me?
You should check out the Well There's Your Problem episode on 9/11. They go pretty deep into the construction of the buildings, and once you realize how the towers were designed, it makes a lot more sense that they collapsed that way. Rough summary is that instead of the whole thing being a stack of load bearing columns, the buildings were held up by the outside skin, which was held up by the roof, which was held up by a reinforced elevator shaft. Which is an alarming way to design a building, but apparently it's cheaper.
Also if 9/11 was an inside job they would've made the hijackers be from the country they had planned to invade, instead of the whole WMDs song and dance they ended up doing (the actual conspiracy here).
This still doesn't explain the speed these towers collapsed. Free fall, no resistance. How do you explan this?
"sweety , they found all the passports , this case is closed ... "
Since when does America bother to justify invasions? Woodrow Wilson burned Haiti to the ground because they refused a shitty trade deal and he decided that meant they were communists. The country barely needs an excuse.
the WTC? yeah planes definitely crashed into them causing their collapse. the Pentagon? no, i dont think a plane hit the Pentagon, there isnt enough evidence and the timing and location of the “crash” is too convenient for the US
I'm not arguing that planes actually hit the WTC but I would argue that they where comercial planes.
So, if the Pentagon story seems a lie to you, why do you believe the WTC story?
I remember watching the documentary of those 2 french guys, following a fireman rookie. Nothing special at the beginning until 9/11 happened. One of them was the one filming the first impact with some firemen. Anyhow, these firemen were convinced that the towers came down by controlled demolition and I believe them because they may have seen a few.
And then WTC 7, collapsing due to fire. Come on!!!! This was planned and could only have been done internally.
WTC 7 seems a bit sus, but idk. what i do know is that it took years for the FBI to release the pentagon footage. and they initially only released footage from CCTV that was recording at what appears to be 1 fps, so there is only 1 frame where the “plane” appears, and it only shows the very tip of the nose. could easily be a missile from that footage. its reasonable that theres only 1 frame as the Boeing 757-223 allegedly used has a max speed of 238 m/s, and the FOV of the video could easily cover less than 238 meters, but they also had plenty of time to doctor any footage.
also the strike happened to hit a day after an investigation was initiated into the military. and the wing of the pentagon hit contained important documents and personnel related to that investigation.
not to mention the angle and altitude at which the “plane” hit the pentagon is near impossible even for expert pilots. the plane appears to be no more than 10 meters off the ground, flying parallel to the ground. any pilot will tell you that is a maneuver even the best pilots would consider impossible.
and there was no airplane debris found, and the damage to the pentagon was more consistent with a cylindrical missile rather than a plane with a wide wingspan
Here another bit of proof that something was way off. Not sure if you have ever seen this video from BBC. I did, live as I was in Spain at the time and the bar I was at had BBC on all day. In a few words, the collapse of WTC 7 was announced before it actually happened. So, that day you just see it and believe what is said. How should I know that WTC 7 is actually in the background. I'm not from New York. But you see that video later again with comments that in fact it is still standing and you ask yourself, what else is a lie in that whole story.
Please watch and ignore the comments as they do not add any value to it but it's the only one I could find straight away.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f0HPqd8dPeE&pp=ygU2YmJjIHJlcG9ydCBvZiBmYWxsZW4gd3RjIDcgYmVmb3JlIGl0IGFjdHVhbGx5IGhhcHBlbmVk
Anyhow, this and all other stories, articles and analysis I have been reading over the years make me believe that the whole story is a big lie and it was in fact an inside job.
Some call me a believer of conspiracy theories but I just think this is my truth. It does not change my life nor does it impact me deeply beside all new laws and rules that have been passed due to it which I have to life with but we all have to. It is the past and I only brought it up due to reading this post.