Just Because You Haven’t Committed a Crime Doesn’t Mean That You Didn’t Have a Motive For It

The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, the building outside of the WTC proper and across Vesey St., on September 11, 2001 was highly suspect because of the flimsy, implausible reason that was offered up for that collapse, to wit, the failure of the building’s steel frame due to fire even though that building was not totally consumed by raging fire for hours upon hours on end... far from it.

If there were some nefarious motive for the destruction of that building, then what would that motive be?

Well, back then, it was noted in internet discussions that there had been major money laundering investigations that were in progress by a federal agency in Bldg. 7 (the F.B.I., I think), plus other money laundering investigations in Bldg. 5 or 6 or both (by, I think, the Customs Department).

Now, according to an article in New Republic, the Russian mafia has been implicated in numerous and significant instances of money laundering that go much further back in time than September 11, 2001. (See: newrepublic.com... .) So, players in that game of money laundering would have had a motive for the destruction of the WTC Bldg. 7, which was to destroy evidence of money laundering cases thus preventing those criminal cases from moving forward... and not just the destruction of Bldg. 7, but of the whole WTC complex for a whole host of other reasons, like, for example and hypothetically speaking, of course, a piece of the action of insurance proceeds, such filthy lucre very much in need of laundering... where? Well, one obvious choice would be the friendly money laundromat up Fifth Avenue... hypothetically speaking, of course.

Guess whose name came up in that New Republic article in a very big way in connection with the Russian shenanigans? Why, that guy is actually the focus of that article. Guess where that guy is today? Have you noticed how this guy is sweating bullets about the Special Prosecutor’s touching upon his family’s finances? Did you take notice of an indiscreet slip by this guy’s personal lawyer that he made in an email. That lawyer mentioned that a lot of issues that are dogging his client are covered by the Statue of Limitations, anyway. Was he referring to anything that goes back about 16 years and is connected to the events of 9/11? Who knows at this point?

Last night on his MSNBC show, Lawrence O'Donnell made that guy out to be a blathering senile fool suffering from incoherence. However, the truth is that a much younger man under similar stress would start to lose it upstairs as well. This is what intense fear of things coming to light can do to a fellow.

Anyway, just because you may have a motive for a crime does not mean that you have committed that crime. It’s all hypothetical.

OoooOOOOO.... tagging to get back to when I am home and have time in a couple of days as this is what ATS is all about.

Thanks OP.

Warmest

Lahs

And furthermore, it was my firm belief back in 2001, and it is still my firm belief today that the total destruction of the WTC was never part of any plot of any D.C. faction. What happened after two gapping holes were punched in the Twin Towers, to wit, the total destruction of the WTC including Bldg. 7, was carried out by NEW YORK CITY FACTIONS. This destruction of the WTC shocked the D.C. faction as much as it shocked the rest of the world, and maybe even more so!

Certain nefarious individuals in N.Y.C. had advanced notice as to what was coming on 9/11, and they jumped at the opportunity presented for a whole host of reasons to profiteer on the complete destruction of the WTC.

That NYC faction knew that the people in D.C. had their own hands tied and could not do a darn thing about the additional use of weapons of mass destruction on 9/11 because to do so would blow the lid off the 9/11 culpability of the D.C. folks, that is, culpability that was limited to just the puncturing of holes in the Twin Towers.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Well you did it. Congratulations. I didn't think it was possible.

Of course, why didn't we see this coming! Trump did 9/11!

You Sir, have surpassed full retard. You've gone plaid.

I'm in awe.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

The really sad thing is that someone somewhere on another site will link your post as a fact .

Once again , you dont like Trump do you .

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Anyway, just because you may have a motive for a crime does not mean that you have committed that crime. It’s all hypothetical.

Hypothetical motives is stretching things a bit.
150 million Americans have motives to over throw the administration but it means nothing until they take real actions.

It means nothing.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Cite, list examples, and provide page numbers of items you find faulty from the NIST reports concerning the WTC.

Are you saying teams ran into burning buildings with elevators destroyed by the jet impacts carrying thousands of pounds of explosives while people were trying to escape to bring down the towers? While everyone was watching?

Same with WTC 7. Except no jet impacts destroy the elevators. But WTC 7 was damage during the collapse of the towers.

Is it believable... can it possibly be that a President would go to great lengths and pull a number of strategic maneuvers, which can easily be construed to be “consciousness of guilt” and which only serve to compound headaches, in order to counteract ultimate charges of campaign collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice in conjunction with that collusion?

Or is there something much more serious, much more sinister going on here?

Remember, the Prez flipped out and read the riot act to Special Counsel Robert Mueller about touching upon the President’s family’s finances. Bear in mind, it is not in the President’s place and power to read the riot act to any Special Prosecutor... hmmm, sounds like more consciousness of guilt and obstruction of justice (intimidation of a prosecutor), but about what was this flipping out really? J.P. Morgan once said, “There is the reason, and, then, there is the real reason. We almost never hear the real reason.” So, what is the real reason behind the President’s being beside himself? We have been told only “the reason:” collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Still hearing the echoes of woe since Trump won the election - and those echoes are creating new vibrations as the shockwave moves on from election day...

Although I do enjoy myself a nice logic trail of a conspiracy

We're seeming to forget the entire launch of the "War on Terror" and the Patriot Act and all the other infringements on our freedoms and other sovereign nations as a result of 9/11. How all the officials could instantly springboard off of a money laundering scheme and pull off regime change and civil unrest that leads to mass emigration and central banks taking over really beats me... If anything they could have been doing behind the scenes business and then were a part of the cog of the banksters...

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

More like you are obsessed with your version of the boogeyman.

Now if you want to talk about Onama's ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, and Ayers's girlfriend that blew herself up while making a bomb, that would be reality. Not innuendo based on lack of evidence.

Care to state a science based argument how the NIST reports are faulty. Then lay out a theory to supersede inward bowing and collapse at the WTC?

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Ya gotta play the logic trail game...


What would the logistical requirements be to achieve whatever conspiracy???

What is the motivation??

Is their an easier/cheaper way to achieve the same goal...



For example...

The illuminati runs the government and media , and are constantly pulling off convoluted tax schemes to steal tax payer dollars...

If you run the government and media couldn't you just print more money????

Wouldn't a convoluted tax scheme be harder and more expensive than just cranking up the printing press on an off day?!?!



Oh and ALWAYS listen to both sides...

Watch the conspiracy theory side , then watch something debunking it and see what makes more sense.

Imho MOST of the stuf spouted by truthers isn't actually the truth..

The buildings didn't fall at freefall speeds..

Tower 7 had a big chunk of building fall on it and half of the back was totall crushed before it fell. Their are pictures from the back side that show how damaged it actually was.. rather than the pic that was taken from the Undamaged side..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

How would hiiting the pentagon destroy all financial records of the military on a network in a building as large as 24 football fields? How would one jet impact destroy all the backed up files, all the financial records of other bases and facilities, audits conducted by other outside groups, the treasury records, banking records, and company and personal finance records.

Listen up people! It looks like we are going to have to take a walk down memory lane, not back to September 11, 2001, but back to late June, 2011 or so, this being about 10 weeks before the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

This is necessary because, oh, so many people are totally oblivious to things that go on right under their very noses, and, so, people are far less observant when things are missing or lacking as was the case at that time.

So, what am I getting at? What was missing at that time was news coverage. It was the virtually total news blackout of all things 9/11 and Osama bin Laden even though, up to that point, there had been a gradual buildup of such news coverage leading up to September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

Do you remember this? I didn’t think so.

Something not-so-coincidental happened that seems to have sparked that news blackout (which ended about two days before 9/11/2011 with the news media coming back out of their holes with powerful reporting and support of the government’s official 9/11 line).

I am in-the-know about that not-so-coincidental thing. I will let on to this much: it pointed a really big finger of suspicion at the existence of a highly culpable NYC faction... and, by the way, it put the administration at that time on very thin, very slippery slip-ice on which they really, really fouled up, but they managed to come out of the controversy pretty much unscathed thanks to the FAKE NEWS media.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Going to explain how and when the "New York faction" planted explosives at the WTC. Then list what brought down the towers and supporting evidence. Or just keep ranting innuendo? Going to provide examples based on science and evidence how NIST is wrong?

Interesting story, sorry I will not just accept that you "are in the know", and that certain unnamed factions did the deed.

You need to give that pesky little thing called evidence if you want people to believe you.

a reply to: neutronflux

There is a little more to that story...

There is a conspiracy that the pentagon has just said they were missing like 16 trillion dollars the day before 911..

I'm assuming that is what you are referencing.

The military wasn't missing 16 trillion...

They had just implemented new accounting standards and Rumsfeld was was basically saying that:

"Nothing we have done in the last 20 years meets these new standards"

The militaries budget is like .27 trillion a year.. so obviously that 16 trillion would be every nickle they have been given..ever. Lol

I'm sure the military and contractors steal money every day..

But the normal "Truther speil " isn't at all accurate..


Imho I can't imagaine a scenerio where faking 911 would be worth the risk.

Obviously the bush administration found a way to personally profit off of it, but could you ever be sure you wouldn't get caught???


They wouldn't have needed to pull off something that big to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq..

I figure bombing a handful of daycares across the country gets the same thing done with only a fraction of the risk and expense of 911.

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

That's because Osama had just released a statement saying if we didn't withdraw from Saudi Arabia he would attack.

I was waiting tables at the time and waited on an army officer who told me it was osama that morning before the news was pointing fingers at the ME.

Even if the news was pushing that narrative, would that make a false flag be the most logical conclusion???

There are a 1000 reasons for the taliban to make the papers no false flag required.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Interesting story, sorry I will not just accept that you "are in the know", and that certain unnamed factions did the deed.

You need to give that pesky little thing called evidence if you want people to believe you.

Actually, all that I want people to know is that there was, in fact, that weeks' long news blackout just prior to, of all things, the tenth anniversary of 9/11, and of those people, my primary target audience, by far and away, are people in the news media who, up' til now, may have been perplexed by that blackout.

Oooo, I hope that this has grabbed the attention of Rachel Maddow's research team!

a reply to: theworldisnotenough

One major flaw in your theory. I know it seems like a long time ago, but even then they had something called a disaster recovery plan. I wrote and implemented this type of program many times at many companies. Basically you have an off-site backup of all data updated on a daily basis. If a disaster occurs, and if the plan is written and implemented correctly, you can be back up and running in a matter of hours like nothing ever happened.

I'm sure the FBI has, and had, such a plan in place for data that was housed in World Trade Center 7.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

This is what is aggravating about the truth movement. A group that pushes their truth with false and sensational spin? If not right out false narratives? Very sad. But just enough people buy it hook, line, and sinker.