reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
If you looked at the number of stars your first post got versus the number your first opponent got a few posts down you would see that you are losing
this battle in these parts.
Let me tell you a story about 9/11:
I think al Qaeda started off like Operation
Gladio in Italy as revealed by Prime Minister of Italy Giulio Andreotti.
Giulio Andreott (member of the Christian Democracy, DC)
publicly recognized the existence of Gladio on October 24, 1990. Andreotti spoke of a "structure of information, response and safeguard", with arms
caches and reserve officers. He gave to the Commissione Stragi, the parliamentary commission led by senator Giovanni Pellegrino in charge of
investigations on bombings committed during the Years Of Lead in Italy, a list of 622 civilians who according to him were part of Gladio.
Al Qaeda was a stay behind army we created in Afghanistan to ensure the Russians could not make any more incursions there and to grow opium there for
certain rogue individuals connected to U.S. intelligence agencies.
Osama Bin Laden was initially one of our highest contacts in the group and quite possibly the leader of the cell being the son of a wealthy and
powerful Saudi Arabian family. He was not a grunt on the front line but rather a high level leader connected to rogue U.S. intelligence agents.
As with the stay behind army in Operation Gladio, Al Qaeda engaged in terrorist attacks to achieve political ends for U.S. intelligence agencies, to
give politicians an excuse to enact policies that they have always wanted to but were unable to. It is likely the low level operatives in the cell in
Italy as well as the cell Al Qaeda in Afghanistan knew nothing of their leaders connections to rogue U.S. intelligence agents.
Have you seen Aaron Russo's interview about Nick Rockefeller with Alex Jones?
In it Aaron tells
the audience that around 1999-2000 while friends with Nick, Nick told him that Aaron would see an event happen and out of this event we would go into
Afghanistan to start looting their natural resources, into Iraq to overthrow Saddam and get the oil flowing, and we would overthrow Hugo Chavez in
The thing is, something Aaron and Alex did not pick up on, how could Nick Rockefeller be sure we would go into Afghanistan?
- I can see Iraq, we fought a war with them before and getting people to support another war there wouldn't be as hard as it should.
- I can see Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the U.S. has a decent success rate for coups and Hugo Chavez just did unilaterally renegotiate contracts with
Exxonmobile formerly Rockefeller owned Standard Oil before it was broken up into Exxon and Mobile due to anti-trust actions and then more recently
merged (no doubt the Rockefellers who owned massive shares through various endowments, funds, "charities", etc decided to get the band back together
as it were).
- We had no recent conflicts with Afghanistan and they were not a topic of debate at all, they were not on the radar. If terrorists linked to OBL
who was in Afghanistan hadn't attacked us then how the heck would an invasion of Afghanistan ever be sold to the public?
Nick Rockefeller knew this event would happen that would be linked to OBL and Afghanistan because he was a part of the committee or he had family on
the committee that gave the Al Qaeda stay behind army their marching orders for a new mission to fly planes into the WTC.
Some of the people behind the PNAC policy are also likely connected to the committee that gave the Al Qaeda stay behind army their marching orders.
They all but begged for a new Pearl Harbor that could be used by them to enact policies that they have wanted to get through for some time but had
been unable to, like invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
I get the feeling from OBL's statements after 9/11 that he might not have been a part of 9/11, that the rogue U.S. intelligence agents connected to
the Al Qaeda stay behind army cut him out of the loop or that he quit. Shortly after 9/11 OBL said to look at the government within the government of
the U.S. if you want to know who was behind 9/11.
In December of 2001 a new "OBL tape" "appeared" that had a darker skinned, pudgy faced, right-handed OBL writing with his right-hand (OBL is
left-handed) discussing being behind the terrorist attacks with an old associate Khaled al-Harbi who supposedly was no longer active in Al Qaeda.
Shortly after the tape was released Khaled al-Harbi went into "hiding" supposedly near the Iranian/Afghanistan border. I think he was living in a
cushy apartment or palace or villa somewhere, maybe in Saudi Arabia, as I think the whole tape was staged by the rogue U.S. intelligence agents or
For al-Harbi's participation in the staged video, Al-Harbi surrendered himself to the Saudi Arabian embassy in Iran on July 13, 2004. His surrender
was part of a one-month amnesty offer by the Saudi government on June 23, 2004, so he got away scot-free.
You asked for 100% proof, what exactly does that entail?
- A signed confession from a co-conspirator in the plot? Someone who had smuggled explosives into the WTC in the weeks before 9/11 when the building
had been evacuated multiple times and the weekend before 9/11 when power was shut off in parts of the south tower for a cabling upgrade? The person
could be lying.
- A black box that reveals the useful idiot terrorists who hijacked the plane talking about no longer having control over the plane as if it was on
auto-pilot moments before the crash (so the rogue U.S. intelligence agents could be sure the planes hit the buildings)? The recording could be
- Detonators, explosives, or other material evidence that could prove a controlled demolition took down the WTC? All the evidence of the largest
crime scene in American history was hauled away post-haste before it could all be gone over with a fine tooth comb by forensic investigators.
- Countless actual recreations of the event using identical buildings and planes (admittedly expensive but doable)? The details of the crash might
still not be exact.
Be specific, what kind of proof are you actually looking for? Saying you want 100% proof doesn't mean anything.
Many people just don't believe that the U.S. government would kill its own people and their beliefs on 9/11 are based on that belief.
The U.S. government has waged 2 wars based on lies in recent history that have resulted in the murder of approximately 4 million people:
Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin lie, which Robert McNamara knew to be a lie, that murdered 2 million Vietnamese, 1 million Cambodians, and about
25,000 American servicemen.
Iraq with the Iraqi WMD lie, which U.S. intelligence agencies and politicians knew to be a lie thanks to the testimony of Hussein Kamal, Saddam's
son-in-law who defected to us, told us the amounts and types of WMD they created and destroyed, and who returned to Iraq after Saddam said all was
forgiven only to have Saddam then execute him; that murdered about 1 million Iraqis and about 5000 American servicemen.
Our government is already guilty of murdering Americans, more Americans than were murdered on 9/11.
Lastly the U.S. government is not a single entity, it is composed of countless individuals with their own individual motivations. All it takes are a
group of rogue U.S. intelligence agents who have no oversight by anyone and thanks to the secrecy and SAPs within the CIA, NSA, DoD, it is more than
possible to pull off the tale I just wove.
This information isn't even hard to find. All it takes is spending some time reading on the internet, something more and more young people are doing
everyday rather than watching the elite owned mass media designed to propagandize the public.
I think this is the biggest reason politicians have been coming out of the woodwork to try and pass bills (internet cutoff legislation, the ACTA
treaty, cybersecurity legislation, talk of taking down Wikileaks, and even net neutrality to get their foot in the door) restricting the free flow of
communications between individuals over the internet. The elite are losing control of their monopoly on the distribution of information, something
that they have had for thousands of years for the simple fact that it use to cost a lot of money, while now it costs next to none.
One last thing, I am an agnostic, I've seen no proof God exists, he has never spoken to me (if for nothing else I would have a next to impossible time
believing it was really him and not an imposter). Lucifer who you speak so fondly of does not share power, he wants it all for himself and if he has
the opportunity he will take it. You try to state that Lucifer supports humankind in whatever they want to do, a fan of man, your speech on it
reminded me of Al Pacino in the Devil's Advocate where Al Pacino played the devil.
Lucifer wants everyone to do whatever they want while trying to tempt men to do evil to one another.
I want "your body, your property, your choice", everyone gets to do whatever they want with their own body and property while not violating other
people's unalienable right to do whatever they want with their own body and property.
Can you see the difference?
Wow that was a long post.
Don't get me started on the elite and their view that most of humankind are useless eaters, cattle... most of the elite themselves are useless eaters.
They do not create anything, they do not add to the world, rather they get a free ride off of the scientists, engineers, and artists they surround
themselves with because of their money and power.
edit on 22-9-2010 by Bobbox1980 because: (no reason given)