posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:28 AM
One thing is certainly shared by both the skeptics and the trusters, that 9/11, whether carried out by al Qaeda or the Intelligence Departments, was a
diabolical plan. As it stands, the idea of hijacking four U.S. airplanes was a seemingly impossible task, coupled with the drive to sacrifice one's
life for their oppressive religion makes for great Hollywood theatrics such as the series 24. If it was an "inside job", the trusters assure us that
the cover up would be too great, the conspiracy would be too massive. And yet, regardless of how you look at it, the more recent terrorist attacks
have been utter failures.
With the exception of Fort Hood which did bring casualties, the rest are pathetic, examples of extreme stupidity. The underwear bomber is an
embarrassment to Bin Laden and Chertoff. How would anyone be proud of someone who fails to blow up their own crotch? And how could the Intelligence
Departments be proud of an operation that ends with an eye-witness going on national media and tells the world he saw a sharp dressed man guide the
bomber onto the plane, only to be later admitted by the government that they gave him a pass for being an exchange student, and didn't have to show
ID. Perhaps it was a good plan to begin with, but they were once again CIA-Caught In the Act, and ontop of that, another
passenger wrestled the drugged out Abdulmutallab to the ground, which isn't surprising since the same thing happened to the shoe bomber. Did they not
want casualties or did something go wrong? If this was just al Qaeda then it's just an embarassing show of stupidity not to mention Abdul being
drugged up before he does his service to Allah. But more realistically, if it was the Intelligence Departments, they have to juggle between the
possibility of a foiled plan to make the establishment look good, vs. a real attack that brings about war fever. Then there was the Time's
Square/Broadway Bomber, who had ISI intelligence on how to build a bomb, made a dud, left his apartment keys in the ignition, and pleaded guilty to
not being able to blow his own car up. This operation was just a dud to begin with. I think their lackey was so incredibly dumb he couldn't shill
well enough to make any sense to anybody.
A possible theory for all this nonsense is that the war on terrorism ended, the fever for it, at least. Obama stopped using the phrase "war on
terrorism," the Taliban has been reduced to the laughable number of 100 troops (not that it's large or small but that it's just a benign number,
small for them, but just big enough so they can still matter in the war on terrorism). There was a surge in Afghanistan but the real threat is in
Pakistan, not Afghanistan. There is no plan or organized movement whatsoever when it comes to Afghanistan.
I believe, that the war on terrorism is failing, big time. They can't pull off a successful terrorist attack and the steam of the war on terrorism
paranoia is not strong enough to convince the public they need naked body scanners at airports while the terrorists are let onto the planes. This is
why, when Bush was tanking hardcore, and the neocon darling McCain was falling apart at the seams, they changed tactics, and moved onto the economy.
Suddenly the war on terrorism was no more, even though the remnants are still clogging the media every now and then, reminding us of just how stupid
and inept these so called muslim extremists are. Which brings me to my point, is that a lot of people say that war is a distraction for the economy.
That when the economy gets real bad, they go to war as a distraction and way to make money. My idea is the opposite:
The economy is a distraction for war.
When the war fever is over (i.e. the public uncovers the false flag event), the war fever becomes a minority rather than a majority. The average
public supports war if they are not involved, but as soon as they are they usually change their mind. The hardcore that believe in the propaganda is
the system's only hope. When this too falters, they have to switch tactics to the economy. The economy crisis happened in 2008, on Bush's watch, in
which he delivered the first set of billions to the bankers. The reason was to bail out AIG and other zombie banks, but perhaps another reason was
because the war funding was dwindling to only a few trillion dollars a year, and they thirsted for more, plus they feared the funding would be
dwindled even further. So they pleaded the government to just give them money so they could cover their losses from the deflating war on terrorism in
general. Their bet was not just if someone would pay their house loan, they bet on whether or not 9/11 would get pulled off. And it did, for the most
part. But now it's a losing card, and they had to bail, a while ago, which is why Obama wants to focus on the economy and not the war. They have had
it with the war spirit fading out of existence, they need a distraction. The economy also focuses domestically to rebuild what the war economy may
have shattered. Maybe a few million for the veterans and a few billion for the politicians, that kind of thing. No doubt, when the economy starts to
falter, another war will come, so the phrase works both ways:
War bails out the economy, the economy bails out war.
So the basic method is
1. False Flag
3. Increased military funding
4. Switch to economy when plan collapses
Then when the economy collapses you start over again on 1.