A Convoluted Conspiracy Theory

Dear ATS readers, Please consider the following with an open mind. It is not an infallible theory and there are probably things I have overlooked, but I feel the need for somebody who considers themselves to be relatively unbiased to share the theory because something is not right with the world. Please try your best to read the thread in full. It will be worth it.

If you do a large amount of research on world events in modern history and look at current world events taking place, you are likely to experience a kind of double Cognitive Dissonance where you are frequently justifying trying to re-contradict the acceptance of ideas that you had previously contradicted in the past already. The best way to demonstrate what I am trying to explain is to look at one of the most significant events in modern history: 9/11 and the Resulting War on Terror. I place this in General Conspiracies because this is not about the event of 9/11 itself, but rather putting what happened into context and its aftermath.

9/11 happened when I was 15 years old. I was of course a VERY different individual to what I am today. Besides not being mature enough to even understand what was going on behind what was being presented, I had not yet delved into the worlds of alternative topics, conspiracy theories and critical thinking. At the time of the attacks, I believed and accepted the official narrative of the events as reported by the MSM. I had no reason not to at the time.

If 9/11 was a complex false-flag event, as I DO still maintain it was, then there are some bizarre events that surround it. Firstly, I think most people would agree that in hindsight, the way in which 9/11 was presented to the West was that there was an unforeseen problem of Islamic terrorism that decided to attack the USA (a key symbol of Western civilisation at the time) in an unprovoked attack. This seemed like it was done in a way for the USA to convince its citizens and allies (other Western countries) to form a coalition to avenge the lives of those that died in 9/11 and to by extension go after other Islamic terrorists in the War on Terror.

I don't think many people can argue that this is, broadly speaking, the reality of how things looked from the Western perspective of what happened and at least how we were being encouraged to see things. (There were of course people who did indeed question what was being portrayed to them, but I am speaking of the vast majority). Most reasonable people who have researched 9/11 with an open mind can at the very least admit that there are serious problems with the official story and how it was presented to the public. Also, many people today have argued post-9/11, Islamic terrorism has been used as a sort of invisible boogie-man that can be used an an excuse to keep waging a never-ending war to benefit the military-industrial complex, an important sector of the USA.

I do not believe, correct me if I am wrong, that the prevalence of people feeling compelled to question the official story of 9/11 (NOT deny it or imply there was a conspiracy for certain) but simply question the accuracy of the event itself several years after it took place, is unprecedented. Even if you do take into account that the internet was relatively mainstream when the event took place, it still stands out. Ironically, George Bush (POTUS of the US at the time of the attacks) stated publicly not to entertain crazy conspiracy theories that may attempt to shift the blame from the “actual” perpetrators.

Here is the problem: 9/11 was done to justify an attack on Islamic terrorism, which at the time, most of the West had not had to deal with directly. Why focus on Islamic terrorism? In hindsight you can argue that Islamic terror, besides harming Muslim nations themselves, was only really an enemy of Israel. Logically, you could conclude that Israel would benefit greatly by having its most powerful ally (USA) on board to take on its enemies that threatened its survival.

There is of course evidence at the very least linking Israel to being aware that a large terrorist attack on the USA was to happen before it took place. Foreknowledge of an event does not prove complicity however. Even if you are 100% certain Israel was involved, it is close to impossible to conclude this event had only one major benefactor.

Back to Islamic terrorism. Many people in the West that support Islam today (Western/moderate Muslims and non-Muslims alike) are under the impression that while there were cases of Islamic terrorism before 9/11, whether you believe they were justified or not, 9/11 was really a catalyst that brought the issue of Islamic terrorism to the forefront of global attention. In other words, the number of terrorist attacks against Western countries (EXCEPT Israel) before 9/11 was not common — it happened every so often, but it was not seen as a potentially grave threat that we needed to deal with.

After 9/11 happened and the War On Terror commenced, George Bush stated that this was not a religious war and that Islam was a religion of peace. Perhaps this was done at the request of Muslim Americans (or Saudi Arabia) as they were on the receiving end of unjust hate attacks. Those that carried out the attacks were religious fundamentalists, not real Muslims. This seems like the most likely explanation, but when you consider the current climate of debate in regards to Islam itself, those comments by Bush seem truly bizarre in hindsight.

We have a number of people today who do not identify as being Right, Left or even Alt-Right questioning whether Islam is a religion of peace and asking for an honest discussion about whether the West should be more welcoming or less receptive to Islam. The trouble is that EVERY TIME this happens, “Islamophobia” is used as an excuse to either dodge around the issue being discussed or to insinuate that Islamic holy scriptures, unlike every other religion, cannot be criticised.

It's the new “anti-semitism” card, but seemingly worse. Anti-semitism (despite the controversy of the word itself in how it's used in modern times) was originally meant to mean “an irrational hatred of Jews”. Eventually it became a convenient excuse to silence opponents if they merely criticised Israel or even suggested there are problems in Jewish culture (which like every other culture, does have problems that need to be addressed). What makes “Islamophobia” worse is that it comes at a time when we need to be able to criticise Islam to ensure our safety.

What most people do not realise is that acts of terror within Islam did exist among different sects. It is not unique for a religion, no matter how big or small, to have even heated disagreement between its streams/sects. What does make Islam an exception is that it is the only religion with such a massive number of overall adherents that still has people committing acts of terror against each other due to differing interpretations of holy scripture. In other words, adherents of Islam were killing each other in the past and are killing each other in the present due to criticism of whose interpretation of scripture is the truth. If I am wrong, please correct me. I do not want to spread untruths and promote them as facts when they are not.

[Continued]

Keeping all of this in mind, and besides suggesting that this is all just a series of random events that has resulted in the mess the world is currently in, I offer the following convoluted theory: Israel helped pull off 9/11 with the intention of ultimately destroying Islam (not Muslim people, but the religion of Islam). Israel was not hated by Palestinians and its neighbours because it is a Jewish nation. It was hated because of its treatment of the Palestinian people. The West was hated by non-Western Muslims because of terrible foreign policies that harmed countries with Muslim-majority populations. Israel knew it could not survive unless it destroyed the root of the problem behind its enemies' actions. Palestinians were just an expression of Islam and they would always be protected by others who followed Islam. If Palestinians were destroyed, the backlash from Islam would be too severe to withstand alone. Therefore, they needed the West's help.

For whatever reason, Israel did not expect the overall USA population to even want to question if 9/11 was suspicious. You could say they were counting on most of the population to support the official story and therefore go along with everything that followed as being justified. This became problematic because people began questioning why they ought to support what followed instead of following what happened automatically. It was important for Israel to go into damage control and deflect attention away from them because if most USA citizens were aware that Israel was involved in 9/11, Israel would face the same fate as if they destroyed the Palestinians, i.e. annihilation. Therefore more time had to be spent deflecting attention away from itself than warning the world about the dangers of Islamic extremism.

To put it as concisely as I can: Israel is very likely to have played a part in the events of 9/11 to force the West to destroy Islam. Their ultimate goal (the destruction of Islam) was not done solely for the survival of Israel itself, but to protect the world from being overtaken by Islam. It was a sort of an extreme version of “the ends justify the means” — it does not matter (from a moral sense) what you have to do to achieve the goal, as long as you do achieve it, then the outcome (Christian-Judeo as the dominant values that could not be threatened is far better than the alternative: Islamic values as the dominant values that cannot be overthrown). Let me make this clear: I do NOT support the use of the “end justifies the means” approach and do not excuse or condone such disgusting behaviour on Israel's part if what I have theorised is indeed true.

I am merely explaining things as I see them happening as an observer. It does not mean I support what is happening or that I am trying to justify one side's behaviour to excuse another side. Having different views and values is not a problem as long as one side does not interfere with the other. The problems we face today are a direct result of groups that differ in values/views meddling in the affairs of the other. That is the problem. Of course, this cannot be ruled out entirely otherwise the UN would not be able to try to prevent unjust mass murder or genocide. I think almost every reasonable person on Earth would agree that genocide is wrong in almost every context that we can conceive. (The ONLY exception being that if we were to permit genocide on a group whose destruction ensured genocide could never happen again. But is that even possible?)

So yes, the world is in a mess. Western civilisation cannot criticise Islam, Judaism or the Social Justice Movement even though these entities all play some part in its destruction. That is not to say they all team up together, but rather that they all contribute negatively in some way to the survival of Western civilisation. We now have to decide which is the most potent threat to our survival and devise a way to deal with it. Call me whatever label you like, put me in whatever group you want, question my motives and assume I am writing this thread for some personal benefit. I accept you doing so, but to be fair ask in return that you consider the possibility that I might be making sense in the overall message I am presenting.

If you are willing to do so, you will probably ask next: ok let's assume I agree with your overall message and agree it's critical to identify a problem, but don't you need to suggest a solution to the problem to improve things? That is why I have posted this thread on ATS. I believe ATS has a good mix of very intelligent, critical-thinking, diversely opinionated and reasonable people who are one of the best groups to tackle a problem of such complexity. I am one person with limited capabilities and I cannot do it alone. It doesn't matter how hard I try, I cannot fix the complexity of the problems we face. I need your help. Humanity needs our help.

If you read though my thread and find something you wish to challenge, do it and provide reasoning. I do NOT want to promote lies/falsehoods/misinformation intentionally and if I have done so inadvertently, please call me out and explain the error of my ways. Whether we like it or not, you and I are in this together.

If you have read this all the way to the end, thank you for at least agreeing to hear me out in full, I really do appreciate it. I did not intend for this thread to be nearly as long as it turned out to be, but it is what it is. It was written over 3 days in an open office document and has now been posted. The reason I did not include sources and quotes is not because I am lazy or just expect you to take my word for it without questioning what I am saying. I did not do so because having such an already convoluted thread which was not easy to write in the first place would make it way more difficult to understand just for the sake of appeasing a minority which regards it as the most important aspect of the thread.

Credibility is important. Evidence is important. Proof is important. Reason is important. But they all mean nothing if truth is compromised in the process.

a reply to: Dark Ghost
Those who quash criticism are generally the ones pulling the strings.
Astute observations ... just hope the post doesn't 404

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Its a good theory but a little bit simplistic.

I find it unlikely that such a justification to promegate our culture into theres would call for the use of remote controled airplanes crashing into the leading economic beacons of New york.

Palestine has many faults agreed and the treatment by them of israeli's should be kept in the perspective of the local politics which is almost impossible to do when you garner it through the MSMs filter of the west.

But you've got a nice start.

originally posted by: FuggleHop
Its a good theory but a little bit simplistic.

I agree. The problem is that if one really delves into why the world is in its current state and further explores my various arguments to the degree they need to in order to be convinced, it would take a thread longer than the famous "All Roads Lead to Rome" thread to do so. That thread I am referencing is probably regarded as the single objectively greatest thread to ever appear on ATS. Even if you disagree with every single argument made and accuse the author of being delusional, you still cannot deny that the amount of research and the execution of the thread is nothing short of breathtaking. (I think it even has the most flags/star ratio but not certain on that front.) The point is I am not equipped now with the same talents that author of that thread had back when it was created, not even close, and yet there are still people who believe that even if I were and made this thread as good as that one, some people would still call me delusional and not worthy of being listened to, just as some people did for the author of that thread.

I find it unlikely that such a justification to promegate our culture into theres would call for the use of remote controled airplanes crashing into the leading economic beacons of New york.

Can you please clarify what you mean by this, I do not understand what you are saying.

Palestine has many faults agreed and the treatment by them of israeli's should be kept in the perspective of the local politics which is almost impossible to do when you garner it through the MSMs filter of the west.

I agree. Unfortunately, the Israel-Palestine conflict is extraordinarily more complex than the vast majority of issues we have examined throughout history. Anybody that says it is "simply a case of Side A vs. Side B and we should try find the root cause to determine who is wrong" is delusional. This isn't about who is right and who is wrong anymore, it is so far beyond that...

But you've got a nice start.

Thank you. We must not be afraid to speak honestly and openly and confront honest truths to avoid issues that have such potentially damaging consequences if we keep our heads in the sand.

As for the truth, it always eventually comes to light. There is no way to really force it concerning things of such magnitude. As for conflicts, that's up to the people involved to end those.

I don't know how you expect anyone to be able to help resolve those problems between a few people on ATS.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I wouldn't say your theory is convoluted at all. If anything I think you're tip toeing around a valid and logical point. Don't be afraid of the anti-Semitic label or anything of the sort bc your words aren't meant for those who are concerned with that nonsense.

Israel had much to gain from 9/11.

Five dancing Israeli's anyone?

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I wouldn't say your theory is convoluted at all. If anything I think you're tip toeing around a valid and logical point. Don't be afraid of the anti-Semitic label or anything of the sort bc your words aren't meant for those who are concerned with that nonsense.

Israel had much to gain from 9/11.

Five dancing Israeli's anyone?

Google "9/11 purim children" is all you need to know about 9/11.

But if it is not enough, consider this link:

www.facebook.com...

Someone please ask Dov Zakheim where did the TRILLION dollars GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if that's not enough this one will give you a massive migrane (Northern Guardian, LOL!):

www.youtube.com...

And who can forget this classic:

"Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes."

www.corbettreport.com...

Why might you ask, it's all been documented:

The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, also known as the Yinon Plan, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.

www.globalresearch.ca...

But as we all know, any criticism of Israeli means you are anti-Semitic. Oy vey!

a reply to: Dark Ghost

What about those Radical Muslims calling for the takeover of Europe?

Also what about Japan, who also have to deal with Radical Muslims?

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
I wouldn't say your theory is convoluted at all. If anything I think you're tip toeing around a valid and logical point. Don't be afraid of the anti-Semitic label or anything of the sort bc your words aren't meant for those who are concerned with that nonsense.

I think it is convoluted because it is asking most people who do happen to be very polarised on the issue to be as objective as they can because I have reason to show that their side is not blameless. I am not afraid of labels of any kind if those labels in themselves are not used to silence my freedom of speech and unjustly make negative implications about me without supporting strong evidence.

For example, if you call me anti-Semitic because I say "In the context of the conflict, Israel is currently doing far more harm to the chance of peace than the Palestinians." you are applying a term that carries heavy negative connotations to me without strong evidence before doing so. This is an attack on my credibility because you do not like where the conversation is going and you want me to stop talking about it. Most people then spend the remainder of their time defending the unjust allegation (something they should NOT need to do) and the original point of contention is forgotten or glossed over. I do not deny that credibility is important, but you cannot logically attack somebody's credibility without strong evidence.

Israel had much to gain from 9/11.

This cannot be denied. However, to suggest that Israel was the only major benefactor would be leaning towards being anti-Israel because with all evidence available, there was more than one major benefactor. For example, the USA military-industrial complex was a major benefactor: they now had justification to demand lots more money to support their goals which they did not have before 9/11. Another major benefactor was the George Bush Administration. The administration's approval rating sky-rocketed directly after 9/11 with no evidence of any other variable being responsible. With such overwhelming support, the Administration had more power and needed less restraint to achieve its goals. Which allowed them to implement the Patriot Act — something that would be close to impossible to implement if something like 9/11 didn't happen. Another major benefactor was certain corporations (e.g. those who secured contracts to set up their businesses in countries that were bombed using 9/11 as an excuse) that suddenly had the opportunity to make insane amounts of money because they were first to provide a service that had been destroyed by the bombings justified by 9/11.

There are probably other benefactors that I have failed to mention, but the above already shows that you cannot claim one nation was the only major benefactor of what happened without suppressing strong evidence. If you are willing to suppress strong evidence in order to focus on one aspect of something, you are likely being more biased for no good reason.

Five dancing Israeli's anyone?

This is a fantastic example of suppressing strong evidence. If you do basic research on 9/11, you cannot deny that several Israeli citizens were witnessed to be celebrating when the events of 9/11 happened. There is video of witnesses seeing people celebrating and calling authorities as a result. Authorities went to those celebrating and were met with answers such as "why are you angry? we are on your side" and "now America know's what we have to deal with all the time" (not exact quotes, but paraphrasing). After further examination, it was discovered by authorities that these several people were in fact Israelis. These facts I just mentioned were originally called fabrications and denounced by most as anti-Semitic libel attempting to blame Jews for what happened on 9/11. Eventually, even the anti-defamation league (one of the best examples of an organisation unjustly using a label to silence anybody that criticises their beliefs in any way) admitted that these events did happen. An organisation that goes out of its way to suppress any facts that might counter its own belief system then admitting facts which do counter its belief system is not a normal occurrence.

Thus we have evidence that several Israeli citizens were celebrating the events of 9/11 not too far from where the event was taking place. Eventually, these Israeli citizens were deported back to Israel and eventually appeared on an Israeli talk show where they stated "they were there to document the event". This implies foreknowledge of the event. If they had foreknowledge of the event, why did they not attempt to warn authorities? Why would they be celebrating planes flying into buildings not far from them? These raise serious questions that cannot be ignored unless you have an agenda to do exactly that.

There should have been a thorough investigation into these Israelis and they should not have been allowed to leave US soil before this was done. Was there a thorough investigation into their actions? They were investigated but not to the extent they needed to be to discover why they were there. Were they allowed to leave US soil before a thorough investigation took place? Yes they were. Was the story eventually suppressed by MSM? Yes it was. Why? Most likely because the fear of examining a story that might make Israel or their supporters uncomfortable or lead to anti-semintism was more important than allowing the public to see facts critical to properly understanding why 9/11 happened and who had foreknowledge of the attacks.

IxxI is not Hebraic anymore than your Latin law system is Chinese.

Funny how Rome never catches flack. The mother harlot of perverted belief systems and spiritual Impostors diddling children.


Why doesn't Rome catch flack?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
(I think it even has the most flags/star ratio but not certain on that front.)

According to the bible, the only book that honestly and accurately exposes the conspiracy that others have dubbed "the NWO" or "the illuminati conspiracy" and are constantly spreading misinformation and red herrings about (distractions), that is not a good sign.

Compare 2 Timothy 4:3, 4 with Matthew 7:13,14.

Here's the main topic you're being distracted from (not awake to):
"you can't use his name!"
The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1
Religion is a Snare and a Racket
Babylon the Great: Reasoning from the Scriptures
Babylon the Great: Insight, Volume 1
Identifying the Wild Beast and Its Mark
Beasts, Symbolic: Insight, Volume 1
Highlights From the Book of Revelation—II
Whatever Happened to World Unity?

Checkout the rest of the playlist for the background or an introduction. All spiritual roads still lead to Babylon no matter what other phrases are more popular to distract from that on ATS. My usage of that phrase is not to be taken too literal though, especially the word "all", just rephrasing the other phrase that is used in a misleading manner when it comes to discussions about the NWO or the illuminati (jesuits, freemasonry, 9/11, etc.). The spiritual roads from Rome lead to Babylon as well if you trace them back through history. From one of the earlier linked sources:

Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

Use of images: “[In Mesopotamian religion] the role of the image was central in the cult as well as in private worship, as the wide distribution of cheap replicas of such images shows. Fundamentally, the deity was considered present in its image if it showed certain specific features and paraphernalia and was cared for in the appropriate manner.”—Ancient Mesopotamia—Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago, 1964), A. L. Oppenheim, p. 184.

Belief regarding death: “Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought [in Babylon] ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 556.

Position of the priesthood: “The distinction between priest and layman is characteristic of this [Babylonian] religion.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1948), Vol. 2, p. 861.

Practice of astrology, divination, magic, and sorcery: Historian A. H. Sayce writes: “[In] the religion of ancient Babylonia . . . every object and force of nature was supposed to have its zi or spirit, who could be controlled by the magical exorcisms of the Shaman, or sorcerer-priest.” (The History of Nations, New York, 1928, Vol. I, p. 96) “The Chaldeans [Babylonians] made great progress in the study of astronomy through an effort to discover the future in the stars. This art we call ‘astrology.’”—The Dawn of Civilization and Life in the Ancient East (Chicago, 1938), R. M. Engberg, p. 230.

Note how David Icke hijacks some of the information above and changes it to distract from the really important things people should wake up to while throwing out the baby (the bible's reliable information that include refutations of all the false misleading religious philosophies/ideas, concepts and practices above and an exposure what the real source of these is and how to be sure of that) with the bathwater (Christendom's and other religion's hypocrisy and deceit) in the video below (the latter part is not well demonstrated in the video, he does that on other occasions):