Complete List of Motives/Benefits of 9/11 for the Neo-con

badly needed. I cannot find one in search. I am looking for every benefit to the PNAC, Neo-cons, corporations, etc. for orchestrating 9/11.

Also, I would like a list of "al Quaeda"'s motives/benefits.

Please help me with some links.

cheers.

Maybe we can get a list going here since other sites are so lacking.


For one, the US military and all of the corporations that produce for it (industrial complex) gained financially from the attack, because of sudden war-time demands. All of the money going to the wars we're fighting is really going to these corporations. It's just inconvenient for us to think of it that way.

The major bankers that make up the Federal Reserve have gained immensely due to the nature of banking today (loans, interest, money that's not backed by reserves -- banking families make killings off of our debt). Watching the Money Masters series on Google video will make this aspect clearer. The responsibility of major banks here can hardly be overstated. Same goes for most any military action anywhere in the world.

CitiBank gained by having sensitive documents destroyed with WTC7 that may have exposed the most serious ongoing scandal in the Western world today (relates to even deeper corruption in regards to the above on banks). All other important documents within WTC7 were also destroyed, obviously.

A huge budget Bush had just approved for the Pentagon was instantly justified. Also, some trillions of dollars that Rumsfeld had just announced as lost on the evening of 9/10 were instantly forgotten (by most, anyway).

Larry Silverstein gained financially from multi-billion dollar insurance policies he had just taken out on the complex. Whether or not he actually rebuilds the complex with that money is still in the air. As of right now, insurance companies are being stingy and not paying as much as they're legally responsible for, but there have already been reports that New Yorkers were allegedly wanting the property to become a national monument or some other public property, and not corporate, because of the attacks. Silverstein could easily walk away from all of this with those billions in his pocket if he doesn't rebuild later.

Controlled Demolitions Inc. benefitted at least during the clean-up, for which they were commissioned. It's interesting trivia that they were also commissioned to clean up after the OKC Bombing.

The so-called "War on Terror" that 9/11 spawned has benefited the military industrial complexes of every country that's become involved, Haliburton (contracted/commissioned no-bid for various things.. also Cheney benefits from Haliburton's stock), and may lead to a pipeline through Afghanistan that's been on elite agendas for a while.

Opium production in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since the US invasion, because the Taliban kept it down. Anyone familiar with CIA and other drug trafficking will see the advantages for US agencies (CIA) in this. This also relates to the CitiBank scandal mentioned above, as large amounts of money that shouldn't exist appear to be "washed" through drug trafficking, as a sort of proxy before being used in black budgets or whatever it's needed for (more info in this ebook and its successors, the "Project Hammer" ebooks, and again, the Money Masters series wouldn't hurt).

The government of Israel benefitted in that the US is now in a series of wars with neighboring Islamic nations ("War on Terror"). We would have no "War on Terror" without 9/11.

The guys that made the put options on the airliners gained, regardless of whether it was foreknowledge or a coincidental spike.

The PATRIOT Act was passed, albeit with the help of anthrax threats.

Yes, everyone in PNAC got their new Pearl Harbor, to justify the securing of US interests abroad (their way of saying it ).


A link for more: www.scoop.co.nz...

I'm undoubtedly leaving a lot of people out.




For al Qaeda:

They hate freedom.

"Al Qaeda" has allegedly been recruiting more easily because of 9/11, or at least that's what we've been told here in the West. I would translate that as meaning that there are more "terrorists" over there that want us out of their countries and are willing to shoot us for it.

There may been other alleged motivations, like getting the US to stop supporting Israel, but since just the opposite has occurred, I wouldn't consider this (or similar claims) as a real motivation. I doubt anyone would be so stupid as to think attacking US civilians like that would result is anything BUT more military action and support of Israel. Agreed?

Thanks BSBRAY... I will add more soon.

I want to make it really well organized like an outline.

Do you feel sick at nite,while trying to sleep?The motives for your "shill" are way more suspect than the BS you quote to be "fact"!Have you thought about the transparent motives,of the ones you follow like Moses!These "bennies" you love to quote are not dirrect results of anything you state!You lie about conclusions that do not exist!You throw out all the other parts of these "loquations"!Same old sad song!
Please read futher, there is soo much more on that long road to "TRUTH"!!!!!!

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

Duhh,

Your incessant Off-Topic and baiting posts STOP NOW!

Either post a constructive argument or make a contribution to the discussion.

Otherwise DO NOT POST!

If you can't find it within yourself to comply with the above then perhaps you need to find another forum to particpate in.

Thank you.



[edit: punctuation]

[edit on 7/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Neo-con benifits

1) Limit the production and export of oil, from the middle-east, there-by raising oil prices and oil profits, and creating financial pressure upon the homeland to develop new energy alternatives.

2) Plant our troops in Afganistan and Iraq with a pre-emptive invasion upon Iraq (the worlds 4th largest known oil reserves), and surround Iran (The worlds 3rd largest known oil reserves) before China gets smart enough to do it first.

3) Direct muslim anger towards isreal, there-by creating the potential for WWWIII, bringing about the ful-fillment of biblical prophecy.

4) Indoctrinate young american males, from broken homes, into the predominently male hierachy of the military, thereby instilling traditional elitist values and beliefs upon them while they are still impressionable. Thereby allowing the american elitist establishment a foundation upon which to control the american population.

5) Train the american military in urban combat, using Iraq as a training ground, just in case a military coup is needed to regain control in a disintigrating american society.

Al-queda benifits to 9/11

1) Piss off the United States which will predictibly invade Afganistan (One of the worlds poorest countries) and supply enough money to build a modern civilized infrastructure from nothing.

2) Cause the US to predictibly invade some middle eastern country (Probably Iraq thier old arch nemisis) and create a destabilizing situation will lead to a muslim civil war and spark a holy war against Isreal, bringing about WWWIII and fulfilling Koranian prophecy.

3) Create suspicion between the two different frames of thought in America, sparking a civil war with the United States.

4) Cause america to invade the middle east in an attempt to stabilize the regions oil supply, giving the other muslim countries a reason to gouge the world by raising oil prices.

For one, the US military and all of the corporations that produce for it (industrial complex) gained financially from the attack, because of sudden war-time demands. All of the money going to the wars we're fighting is really going to these corporations. It's just inconvenient for us to think of it that way.

I don't see how the US military benefits at all, they lost a lot of people fighting wars, how could they benefit from this?

A huge budget Bush had just approved for the Pentagon was instantly justified. Also, some trillions of dollars that Rumsfeld had just announced as lost on the evening of 9/10 were instantly forgotten (by most, anyway).

From what I know it the accounting deptatment was a mess, he didn't say the money had disappeared, it was unaccounted for. Was this ever followed up by anyone?

Larry Silverstein gained financially from multi-billion dollar insurance policies he had just taken out on the complex. Whether or not he actually rebuilds the complex with that money is still in the air. As of right now, insurance companies are being stingy and not paying as much as they're legally responsible for, but there have already been reports that New Yorkers were allegedly wanting the property to become a national monument or some other public property, and not corporate, because of the attacks. Silverstein could easily walk away from all of this with those billions in his pocket if he doesn't rebuild later.

This is the stupidest part, not only did he not make money, he lost millions, maybe even billions. he still has to pay rent on the lease he owns, and the contract requires him to pay for the reconstruction.

Controlled Demolitions Inc. benefitted at least during the clean-up, for which they were commissioned. It's interesting trivia that they were also commissioned to clean up after the OKC Bombing.

They are widely considered the best, would you want the 2nd best to handle it?

es, everyone in PNAC got their new Pearl Harbor, to justify the securing of US interests abroad (their way of saying it

).

They got exactly what the didn't want, a ground war against a low tech people, they wanted defense against high tech weapons.

This list is completely useless anyway, just because comeone benefits, doesn't mean they had anything to do with it. Slap Nuts wanted the benefits for Neocons anyway, do you have proof that all these people are?

Originally posted by Mr_pointy

I don't see how the US military benefits at all, they lost a lot of people fighting wars, how could they benefit from this?

It gave them a chance to re-organize and re-tool from a military which was geared up to fight another world power, like the soviet union, in a tradiional warfare envirnment to a military which is geared towards fighting small insurgent groups who use gurilla and terrorist tactics.

You try and convince a lifetime senior military officer that aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, ICBM's and state of the art main battle tanks are almost obsolete in todays world.



[edit on 23-7-2006 by In nothing we trust]

It helps them by organizing them to fight in the wars we wouldn't have to fight if it wasn't for 9/11? They will always be worried about the next war with a major power, the small countries that use those tactics are not likely to ever be a serious threat to america.

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
It helps them by organizing them to fight in the wars we wouldn't have to fight if it wasn't for 9/11? They will always be worried about the next war with a major power, the small countries that use those tactics are not likely to ever be a serious threat to america.

We've outsourced the war, off of american soil, to other regions of the world. Poor people will always have a war to fight in, thereby keeping the establishment in place and directing anger outwards.

By destabilizing the middle east you also create constant warfare and the potential for genocide, thereby bringing down an entire region of the world which has the potential to become a very aggressive civilization, before they ever have the chance to aquire nuclear or other WMD's.

A civil war in Iraq will spead to Iran, giving the US a chance to topple the Iranian government.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by In nothing we trust]

The constant warfare you speak of is WHY they want nukes and other WMDs. Why would they risk our main source of oil to bring down that area, if it can interfere with our oil supply? Doing what you're claiming would increase the chances of them getting WMDs and potentially disrupt the oil supply.

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Why would they risk our main source of oil to bring down that area, if it can interfere with our oil supply?

Doing what you're claiming would increase the chances of them getting WMDs and potentially disrupt the oil supply.

See neo-con benifit number 1

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Neo-con benifits

1) Limit the production and export of oil, from the middle-east, there-by raising oil prices and oil profits, and creating financial pressure upon the homeland to develop new energy alternatives.

And neo-con benifit number 3

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
3) Direct muslim anger towards isreal, there-by creating the potential for WWWIII, bringing about the ful-fillment of biblical prophecy.

[edit on 23-7-2006 by In nothing we trust]

1) Limit the production and export of oil, from the middle-east, there-by raising oil prices and oil profits, and creating financial pressure upon the homeland to develop new energy alternatives.

I thought the neocons were the ones who weren't conserned about the enviorment and made money off of oil sales, and WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU BELIEVE THEY WANT TO DO THIS? If they are in power this would seriously weaken their public support, preventing them from getting into power for a long time.

3) Direct muslim anger towards isreal, there-by creating the potential for WWWIII, bringing about the ful-fillment of biblical prophecy.

I'm sorry, this point is completely retarded, I see no reason to believe that:
1) That would in anyway start WWIII
2)They want to fulfill biblical prophecies

I'm out of this thread, who benefits doesn't prove anything, and the only other debater here thinks there's some retarded conspiracy to destroy large parts of the world with another world war, and fulfill biblical prophecy by pissing of muslims.

You have to understand that when I say military industrial complex, I'm not talking about the foot soldiers on the ground.

I would wager that you don't shed tears over those guys yourself. Imagine that you also make millions of dollars from the wars they're fighting and dying in. Especially if you were raised into a rich, elitist family, common morality suddenly doesn't bother you so much. These are the people that are benefitting.

I also find it disturbing that so many feign to care about "our" guys dying, when the Afghani and Iraqi civilian casualties are incomprehensibly high. I see men and women as men and women. If they were born here, you'd see them as one of "us". They were born there, so you hardly care for them at all. And that's about the extent of it, because the sociocultural differences are pretty much dependent upon where and not who.

It's disgusting, but it's reflected in all of us. It's not a large step to allow death for financial profit. What do you think cigarette companies are doing, or all of those corporations that dump toxic materials into your drinking water? It's the same thing. That we rarely shed a tear is a good indicator of how perfectly human this behavior is.

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
They got exactly what the didn't want, a ground war against a low tech people, they wanted defense against high tech weapons.

WRONG... they wanted both ans they need both to achieve their ultimat goal.

They got a chance to establish foreward operating bases in resource rich countries where they would recieve little resistance.

The Art of War says to take out your weakest enemies and use thier positioning and resources to take out your stronger ones.

The PNAC believes that you need FOBs to establish "full spectrum dominance".

It is not just or even mostly about the oil. It is about the establishment of FOBs so that we can reah out and touch anywhere in the world at any time.

We now move with impunity any resources we want in and out of Iraq/Afghanistan... So we have full military ability in countries neighbouring our most feard or real enemies.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Neo-con benifits

2) Plant our troops in Afganistan and Iraq with a pre-emptive invasion upon Iraq (the worlds 4th largest known oil reserves), and surround Iran (The worlds 3rd largest known oil reserves) before China gets smart enough to do it first.

Afghanistan, maybe. But Iraq, no. Bush wouldn't be able to get into the war with Iraq because of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. People seem to think that we just went to war there for no apparent reason. Suddam Hussein declined the weapon inspectors to do there job. If Bush planned 9/11 so he could go to war with Iraq, he would have to have Suddam Hussein's cooperation which would have been impossible to do.

Originally posted by rd123

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Neo-con benifits

2) Plant our troops in Afganistan and Iraq with a pre-emptive invasion upon Iraq (the worlds 4th largest known oil reserves), and surround Iran (The worlds 3rd largest known oil reserves) before China gets smart enough to do it first.

Afghanistan, maybe. But Iraq, no. Bush wouldn't be able to get into the war with Iraq because of 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. People seem to think that we just went to war there for no apparent reason. Suddam Hussein declined the weapon inspectors to do there job. If Bush planned 9/11 so he could go to war with Iraq, he would have to have Suddam Hussein's cooperation which would have been impossible to do.

Regardless of the minutea... Iraq was a WEAK enemey, easily taken out to establish a FOB. The admin tried desperately after 9/11 to tie Iraq w/ WMD (yellow cake, etc. ) LIES! They connected them with Al Qaeda MANY times and INFERRED that they were part of 9/11.

The American public would not have supported the establishment of this FOB without 9/11 and a PILE OF FAKE INTELLIGENCE fabricated by this administration.

I suggest you watch this PBS FRONTLINE SPECIAL regarding this topic of administrations LIES and SUBVERSION to use 9/11 and FAKE intelligence to get into Iraq.
www.pbs.org...