posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:27 PM
My argument here is really going to be to remove the hard facts argument over what can or can not be proved according to the manner in which the
buildings collapse, footage is or is not available, etc. and to basically look at the potential philosophies behind it and obscure facts that make
what happened on September 11th, 2001 very unsettling to most Americans. Proving things like whether the buildings surroundingthe world trade center
collapsed by controlled demolition seems to be a difficult task, and opinions of professional engineers are varied. So im going to look at it from a
logical output hear and just see what people think.
No im not saying it disapperared, but it was known to be hijacked for at least a half an hour while we already knew we were under attack and instead
of being shot down we are to believe it crashed. First off if you know terrorists are hijacking planes and flying them into important national
landmarks you would assume the passengers lives are going to be taken one way or another, and in order to preserve the lives of more people you would
probably be best shooting the plane down. Flight 93 pulled a u-turn after it passed cleveland and crashed south of Pittsburgh. Thats about a half
hour of flying before the crash. The common excuse is national guard pilots were unprepared to deal with this, and couldn't prepare quickly enough.
The thing is Wright-Patterson airforce base is in Dayton ohio and would certainly have preofessional airforce pilots stationed there, i find it hard
to believe that in a national emergency the most advanced and professional military in the world would be uncapable of of getting a fighter jet to
shoot down a plane well under five hundred miles away that was seemingly headed towards the capitol. Not to mention the reports of Cheney giving
orders to stand down.
How did Bin Laden benefit?
Walter: "It's like Lennin said, you look for the person who will benefit and uhh...
Donny: "I am the walrus"
ok. I think we can all agree that whoever orchestrated the September 11th attacks put an incredible amount of time and preparation into it and in a
wide variety of aspects. Why would Osama Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda put such an incredible amount of work into something that would predictably start an
international witch hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Nothing that happened on 9-11 seems to have benefitted Bin Laden in any manner what so ever. And why
put so much time and effort into something just to prove a point? Sure many terrorist actions are irrational but why take such a risk if there's
nothing to be gained?
The Bin Laden-Bush Connection
There's no denying that 9-11 was caused by the United States Government, whether directly or indirectly. For the few that don't know this, Osama
Bin Laden and the Taliban were the lead resistance to soviet advances south into Afghanastan, and of course the United States government (which
started wars such as Vietnam to prevent the spread of Communism) didn't want the USSR to expand any further, so the CIA (headed by George Bush Sr.)
began funding Bin Laden and the taliban and essentially gave them the military capablitity and know how that they still have to this day. Now since
the 9-11 attacks occured under George Bush Jr. it seems a little odd that Bin Laden would be the one orchestrating them since he received funding from
his dad doesnt it? Not to mention the obvious oil connection. If anyone inside the US government was involved with the attacks, i believe they would
have gone through Bin Laden and basically used him as a scapegoat.
Now here is the important part, the philosophy, or potential philosophy rather, behind the US government orchestrating 9-11. The first point im going
to make very briefly, even though one could write a book on the subject. Modern philosophy is principly grounded on the works of Machiavelli and
Hobbes. Philosophies shape the way institutions and government are run (read the Federalist papers), as well as the nature of politics and even
social life. All Modern philosophy seems to revert back to forms about human nature and political life established as indisputable by these two
authors. Machiavelli came first and was of course more up front with hsi writings which is why he was persecuted and even tortured during his
lifetime, but he was no matyr of freedom, but the father of modern tyranny, Hobbes follows up as another landmark philosopher whom had an incredibly
pessimistic view of human nature, and viewed life as a war of "all against all" a notion that seems all too familiar in our times. Regardless i
could talk for days about how modern philosophy corrupts the nature of man, and leads us all into self inflicted oppression, and over self-indulgence.
The point i wish to make is based of a certain section of the Prince, a book which calls for a strong willed man of poor beginnings to rise to the
top of government and establish a reign of tyranny and terror (see Hitler and Stalin. Hitler was known to have a copy of The Prince at his side at
Looking at 9-11 from the perspective of the Romagna and Cesar Borgio
A Very important section of The Prince is where Machiavelli describes how to use fear tactics to destroy the will of citizens and get unquestioned
obedience from subjects whom are in the face of mortal danger. Cesar Borgio inheritted a section of land in Italy through his father and the Papacy.
He then murdered, raped and terrorized the citizens through a certain glorified thug, then once the terror had reached its peak, he had the
perpetrator killed and claimed himself as the savior, and although the people knew deep down that he was the colprut the people of the Romagna gave
complete and unquestioned allegiance to Borgio in the face of fear and/or death. Hitler And Stalin both had forms of this in the Purges and the
Holocaust. Those whom argue that America will or is becomming tyrannical must agree that this would have to be done much more subtly in a country
based on individual freedoms, however these modern philosophies are very present in our government and the idea of the American dream, and "anyone"
can become present is very true, very Machiavellian, and not a good thing. Not everyone should be able to become president some people aretoo
concerned with their self-preservation or simply not capable of such an important job. The point is that 9-11 could have been a subtle version of the
Romagna used to install fear in the American and encourage a shifting of values from individual freedoms to security, a trend whic is pretty obvious
right now, it would be hard for anyone to argue that we havent seen an unprecedented rise in security since 9-11.
Now there is certainly some evidence i have omitted that would refute any conspiracy however i think these principles are in need of attention and
that we need to consider the sociological and political aspect of the 9-11 phenomena. Anyways i dont think i have much left to ay right now other
than that this is all purely speculation, and that i would like to hear as many opinions and comments as possible, so fire away.