Rumsfeld & 911

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I was waiting tables in KC and waited on an army officer who told me it was bin laden like 3 hours later..

Don’t know who he was per say..

a reply to: Golden Rule

It would still be more than enough justification for the 2 wars..if 2 wouldn’t be enough , then 3 would.. or 4..

ANYWAY you look at it, even doing ten daycares would be s pittance in cost and risk compared to 911 and the payouts remain the same..

So it is not 1 billion dollars in profit..

It is 1 billion minus the 500 million 911 cost and continued cover ups..

Or 1 billion minus 2 million for 10 day are bombings..

It you have to favor in expenses.. and in no way was 911 the cheapest option..

a reply to: intrptr

In that case don’t you do the most profitable thing??

Aka run as cheap a false flag as you can and still achieve the same goal...

Aka you don’t orcastrate 911..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr

In that case don’t you do the most profitable thing??

Aka run as cheap a false flag as you can and still achieve the same goal...

Aka you don’t orcastrate 911..

No no no, you don’t understand these Conspiratards.

Every time it’s shown just how impossible their claims are their reaction is NOT to rethink things through and change things up and keep it simple.

Their reaction is to attach another module onto their beliefs, add more conspirators, make the whole story more complex.

For they BELIEVE that they have to right conclusion about the events. They BELIEVE themselves to be educated cuz they’ve watched some YouTube videos.

After all the challenges to their beliefs on the events on 9/11, their egos are extremely fragile and must be protected at all costs, so assimilating new information and admitting that they’re wrong on even a minor detail becomes impossible.

The result is an ever growing conspiracy that eventually reaches the inflationary limit.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Aka run as cheap a false flag as you can and still achieve the same goal...

'911' was cheap compared to the profit they have made from the wars.

Halliburton, Cheney's company, has made a fortune, so did he.

He was in the basement situation room running it, remember?

a reply to: MrBig2430

Then why do the rest not fit that mold???

We have examples of military industrial complex propaganda to compare it to..

(Missunderstood the first paragraph and started typing lol)

I think it is all based around the universal and very human desire to know the inside scoop..

It is a very common sales tactic even. You tell the customer some behind the scenes info and it makes them feel like the salesman is on their team.

Instead of the buisness and employee being on one team and the customer on the other. Now the employee and customer are on the same team vs the company..

a reply to: intrptr

But was it the least expensive option???

If profit is the goal, and I am always down for a profit based conspiracy theory over a “mustache twirling villian “ conspiracy..


Aka one where the motivation is some intangible “they want to control you” or “because of Satan”..

However, with whatever false flag they pull off any expenses are a liability (credit really, accounting term) on that account.

So however profitable the aftermath of 911 was , you still have to subtract its cost. Plus any maintenance cost to keep it quiet.

Well 911 would be the MOST expensive option on the table, and the most risky, and the hardest to successfully pull off.


AND THE GROSS PROFIT DOESNT CHANGE , ONLY THE MARGINS.

with 911 the profit margin might be 200%, but with a cheaper , easier less risky false flag the profit margin would be 1000%+.. with only a pittance of the maintenance fees to keep it quiet..

The historical record proves the American people will be down for war if you blow up ONE naval vessel..


Just one..

Maybe if we were attacking a long term ally it would take more, but someone we are not big fans of in the first place?!?!

Hell they could likely say “Sadam kicked my dog”. Then show a picture of s cute puppy lol.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

But was it the least expensive option???

Absolutely. De facto airstrike on the financial and political heart of the US, on live TV?

Four airliners and some 'airtime'...

a reply to: intrptr

Not only 4 airliners..and you don’t need an attack on the financial center to have a war...

You need all the vast inferstructure to orcastrate the attack.. which would t be easy your dealing with 4 passanger filled planes, or housing fakes..







They could also poison a whole town’s water supply on the way out of a treatment plant.

Then blame it on osama..

That literally would only take one guy...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr

Not only 4 airliners..and you don’t need an attack on the financial center to have a war...

You need all the vast inferstructure to orcastrate the attack.. which would t be easy your dealing with 4 passanger filled planes, or housing fakes..

They could also poison a whole town’s water supply on the way out of a treatment plant.

Then blame it on osama..

That literally would only take one guy...

Poisoning isn't every spectacular though. What they chose ( spectacular double-tap crash and burn) was brilliant. Not that difficult from the white house basement situation room, total authority over civil and military infrastructure ,and some kamikaze pilots.

Cheney was down there with Hillary and some Pentagon types, monitoring it all. All they had to do was make sure any defensive response stood down, which they did. The two fighters they scrambled were sent to sea.

Everything else pretty much fell into place (pun intended).

a reply to: JoshuaCox

They could also poison a whole town’s water supply on the way out of a treatment plant.

Not quite as easy as you envision.
The quantity of poison you would need is in the thousands of gallons due to the dilution factor.
Plus access is not exposed for any old person to drive up to.