I posted this in a discussion on the massive 9/11 Truth group on Myspace, but I thought I'd also post it here since I don't see any threads for 9/11
Motives yet. I've been researching these heavily the past few weeks, and based on "The New Pearl Harbor", "The Project for the New American
Century", and many hours of research, I've outlined what I believe are the major motives for government complicity in the attacks. Not all possible
motives are covered, only the ones I feel have the most evidence and logic behind them. If I forgot anything, feel free to let me know.
There are many motives for allowing the attacks to take place, involving politics and economics for both private companies and the country itself.
First of all, War is big business as it was even 100 years ago, and the defense, petroleum, and construction industries made billions off the attacks.
The 5 major oil companies from 2002-2003, and the 5 major defense companies from 2001 to 2003 made about $44 billion collectively for example. Just
like companies had the influence to get Woodrow Wilson to sign the Federal Reserve Act many years ago in the interests of business (which he lamented
had destroyed the entire country), they have enormous influence and leverage today because they are the sources of our country's weapons and energy.
We've even got a history of wars for the profits of companies, described by the legendary General Smedley referring to the wars of the early 1900's.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside
group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City
Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of
racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican
Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000
was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got
that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few...Who provides the profits – these
nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation.
For the US itself, the war gave us the needed funding for defense projects to meet the goals outlined in "The Project for the New American Century".
Read section "iv" and "VI" in paticular just to feel the urgency in getting increased defense funding for things such as the missile defense.
Basically, we need money for the "revolution in military affairs" to take place. The report goes in depth about the 1990's being a time of "peace
dividends", where Clinton reduced the defense budget dramatically. It is dire then, the report reads, that the US shifts its spending and finances to
defense projects. This has already happened, and the defense budget has risen from about $297 Billion in 2001 to $439 Billion currently. The missile
defense systems are getting around $10 billion more of funding. It's been shown quite clearly that attacks like those on 9/11 are immune to this
defense, but the real worry is an attack from an up and coming superpower, China or Japan in particular. Central Asia, deemed "unstable" by Rumsfeld
is of concern to US security.
Oil is of course a major concern, especially a pipeline across Afghanistan. A stable government would ensure that US companies such as Unocal would
build the pipeline, although more recent issues about the pipeline pushed them out of the deal in 2002. There's a difference between what was
intended and what actually happened though, and at the time, the pipeline was seen as a very real possibility. Just because the pipeline wasn't
constructed doesn't mean that it wasn't an initial motive for war. We also have a long history of interest in a trans-Afghan pipeline:
Long before the war, the Taliban were favorable to a pipeline being built by the company Unocal when they took over kabul in 1996. The US even gave
them money funnelled through the ISI (inter-services intelligence), as did Unocal. Unocal, happy at the prospect of stability said it was ready to
move ahead with the pipeline.
Later that year however, they grew concerned with the taliban's inability to keep the country stable, and Unocal pulled out again. Clinton's 1998
bombing of suspected terrorist camps solidified Unocal's stance. It was from this point on that the US became hostile to Afghanistan. Niaz Niak, a
pakistani representative at a meeting with the US quoted US representative Tom Simons as saying 'either the Taliban behave as they ought to, or
Pakistan convinces them to do so, or we will use a military option". However, the US still had hope for the Taliban and recommended forming a joint
government with them in July 2001 to create stabilization. That never worked out, but this and the above illustrates that we had a history of interest
in the pipeline, even up to the summer of 2001.
Iraq is very important to the US because its oil can yield enormous profits. Existing mostly on the surface, it costs only $1 per barrel to get
extract, but can sell for around $60-70 a barrel. Of course other costs like security will eat into that $1 figure, but the profits can still be
absurdly high. China and India have had massive increases in their energy consumption lately, and they're both going through a crisis. It's in the
interest of the US to control the region, or at least have a major part to play to get them dependant on our oil. In addition, if OPEC were to start
raising prices, the USA could dump Iraq oil on the global market to force prices down and break the OPEC cartel. Exxon could keep Iraq oil off the
market to some degree to optimally push prices and profits of their entire operation higher. If the rivalry with Russia or Europe were to reach a
boil, the USA could cut off Iraq oil to those rivals. If the USA put Saudi Arabia out of commission as it often threatens to do, that would leave the
rivals without access to the number 1 and 2 sources of oil.
The revival of opium production in afghanistan might be another motive. As Mike Ruppert has written in numerous articles and books, most notably in
his video "the truth and lies of 9-11", the US and particularly the CIA is involved in drug money laundering and trafficking. This brings in about
$600 Billion per year from the total $1.1 Trillion in laundered money that passes through the World Bank. A few examles of the CIA connection to the
drug trade are in the next paragraph.
Two C130's ordered by the Pentagon to be used in forest fires turned up in Peru, Angola, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and Mexico smuggling coke. $1 billion
for example was found in one of the C130's in Mexico. The Forest Service that was granted the planes was of course blamed, and since lower ranked CIA
employees (considered "non-employees") cannot be investigated by law, no one was held accountable. Before the US helped Bin Laden fight Russia, 0
percent of drugs from the region entered the US, but 40 percent came after the war. Roberto Hernandez of the bank Bonnamex, also a well documented
drug money laundering bank was immediately taken up by CitiBank to be in the board of directors. It also purchased the bank for $12 billion and
laundered $300-400 million for the brother of the former Mexican President. In 1999, Stock Exchange Chief Dick Grasso went to Colombia and took a ride
in an armored limosine into the foothills occupied by the FARC guerillas. He was asked about managing drug profits, and offered to do that through
Wall Street. More relevantly, before the war with Afghanistan, the Taliban almost ceased opium production, cutting it to 185 tons by early 2001 from
3276 tons in 2000. The Northern Alliance was of course busy replanting the opium after the US invasion, and production went right up again.
So what about this $2 trillion bill for 2015? Won't this put us in debt? Well, the biggest contributor to the war is the good old American citizen,
currently paying $1600 per person for the war, and $3415 in the next 3 years. That's over $1 Trillion right there taking the number of people to be
297 million. This $1 Trillion figure is half of the projected bill, and in only 3 years time. The profits we get from oil, and the political gains,
not to mention the increase in defense spending will greatly outweigh the costs, and these are the major motives for complicity in 9/11 and going to
We have the motives, but do we have a history of allowing or creating attacks to achieve political goals? In 1941, we allowed Japan to attack Pearl
Harbor as outlined in the McCollum Memo, declassified in 1994. In 1962, fake attack plans were drawn up by Lemnitzer and approved by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff in a project called Operation Northwoods. It involved, among other things the shooting and bombing of innocent Americans, and destruction of
a drone plane with fake "college students" as passengers over Cuban waters to blame on the Cubans. Mock funerals were also planned to hit the public
at an emotional level. Another plan involved sinking a US battleship, which also referred to the sinking of the USS Maine as a good example. It's
even suggested that the 1964 Vietnamese attack on 2 Destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin incident was the fulfillment of the original Northwoods Plan.
More speculative examples include the mysterious sinking of the USS Maine in Havana (the majority of Cubans say the US destroyed its own ship) to
incite the Spanish American war in 1898, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the WTC bombing in 1993.
[edit on 4-4-2006 by zhangmaster]