9/11 - The Perfect Set-Up

September 11, 2001 was no accident. September 11, 2001 was no foreign "terrorist" attack. September 11, 2001 was set to happen, because if it did not happen as planned by U.S. governmental, private and not-for-profit foundations, Americans would still be free. After September 11, 2001, Americans have, day in and day out, become more enslaved by the very people who are (suppose) to protect them.

The above-mentioned is supported by the following (a link may help the viewer, though I would prefer the viewer or reader of this thread to perform his or her own research).

ifpafletchercambridge.info...

The Council on Foreign Relations ("CFR") concern for homeland security pre-dated the events of September 11, 2001. In 1998, the Council, after receiving a grant award of $123,503 from the Smith Richardson Foundation to fund research by the Council's Stephen E. Flynn, who (then) was appointed director of the Council's Hart-Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security (1998-2001) aka U.S. Commission on National Security, in turn, by January 1, 2001, issued a report that stated, there will be (most probably) a terrorist attack on American soil unless certain measures are taken (Flynn is the Jeane Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security at the CFR; he is a retired U.S. Coast Guard commander and expert on homeland security and border control, transportation security, international crime and the drug trade; Flynn was Guest Scholar and Visiting Fellow of Brookings Institute (1991-1994).

Stephen E. Flynn was the key man who supplied the US Congress (and Bush's administration) before September 11, 2001 via the Hart-Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security with enough factual information that a 9/11 would occur on American soil.

On January 1, 2001, Americans were never let on to this report. Americans were left in the dark by those who were to protect them. This is the reason, that, right after 9/11, the government, quickly, had everything fall into place. The Homeland Security Act and the USA Patriot Act was just waiting in the wind, so to speak, to be dropped into place. After 9/11, the Bush administration and US Congress, conspiratorially, dropped their own bomb on the American people while the American people were in their utmost state of fear and hysteria to get things done (to prevent another 9/11 from happening)...when REALLY, the 9/11 should have never happened in the first place because of the factual information gathered by the U.S. Commission on National Security.

Americans were sitting ducks. With the flip of a switch*, Americans were completely, unknowingly, subjected to a freedomless America.

So, now knowing the 9/11 could have been prevented, any and all 9/11(s) that may occur or could occur, too, are shams. Americans were sucked into a set-up by governmental officials and the corporate elite (global-fascism), to reap the benefits from the Americans who were and (still) are too confused to realize the real terrorists in their midst. By now, I should not have to tell you who are the real terrorists. If you are still wondering, then maybe someone should place a pillow over your face and put you out of your misery (I hate to say this, but any person who knows the whole truth about the 9/11 situation, do think this...but not many will say it...I have).

So either wake up or stay asleep (forever).


*Flip of a Switch...just a thought: the government and the corporate elite (families) could make it very difficult for all of us if they truly wanted to by simply flipping the switch, or by cutting off all the electricity in the United States or around the world. Only thing is, when daylight arrives, all heck will break loose, there will be a drastic and physical revolution from every sector of America and around the world...so, thank goodness, we still have a herd mentality, in times such as this, it may surely help.

Thanks for your time, Edward

[edit on 8/29/2005 by 39 drops of solder]

[edit on 8/29/2005 by 39 drops of solder]

Alrighty, I see how it is. If we don't agree with you, we're "Alseep". Well thought out post, but shouldn't it be in conspiracies??

In conspiracies? Why should it be when it is a fact of life. This is United States Politics. Why, would you rather live in a republican versus democrat (sometime independent) dream world?

I see I need to fluff a pillow.

Originally posted by 39 drops of solder
Why, would you rather live in a republican versus democrat (sometime independent) dream world?

I see I need to fluff a pillow.

That has...nothing to do with my post. I was pointing out that what you're saying is a conspiracy theory.

From dictionary.com: Conspiracy: An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

Your theory would also have to go against all of the evidence already put forth by the investigators that determined it was who it was. It's a conspiracy theory.

Any questions?

So supported documented facts are still conspiracy theories? What constitutes media reporting without all the facts but rather made up theories of their own with no solid proofs and lingering questions? Or how about botched investigations like what happened to the wtc? We have a government that is well organized, and a cia that can manufacture their proofs and documentations.. Sure it sounds sinister and very abnormal to say these things, but it's true. They do things all the time that we aren't aware of..

Very nice post, 39 Drops, and I agree with it for the most part (only unsure on some things I haven't researched fully) It really was a perfect plan - except I don't think they counted on people such as yourself to be so outspoken with your thoughts and views. Way to go.

I stand with you in speaking the truth. 9/11 was a government conspiracy. No theory about it any more. The 'official story' has become the theory, and unfortunately what most people still believe.

I sometimes wonder what it would take for people as a whole to come to see the truth. At this point, they don't seem to want to let go of the official story regardless of the information placed in front of them. I agree they are asleep.

What would it take for this government conspiracy to drop the 'theory' and become truth? Which reporter would have the reputation that the masses would believe? Which news show would have to carry it? If the government regulates the media (which it does) how will the people ever know?

Originally posted by TrueLies
So supported documented facts are still conspiracy theories? What constitutes media reporting without all the facts but rather made up theories of their own with no solid proofs and lingering questions? Or how about botched investigations like what happened to the wtc? We have a government that is well organized, and a cia that can manufacture their proofs and documentations.. Sure it sounds sinister and very abnormal to say these things, but it's true. They do things all the time that we aren't aware of..

Give me a story about 9/11, involving the government setting it up that doesn't have holes in it. And make that from a credible news source, please. Please tell me that you AT LEAST accept the fact that it was the airplanes that struck the WTC, and not a missile or something. I'm challenging you. Find me a story without any holes in it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I sometimes wonder what it would take for people as a whole to come to see the truth. At this point, they don't seem to want to let go of the official story regardless of the information placed in front of them. I agree they are asleep.

That's because there is no official story behind your theories. It's bits and peices of things that you line up to make it look like it was a conspiracy. I know the cold hard truth that people out there hate us is hard to swallow, but it's true. I think sometimes people get so wrapped up in conspiracy theories, that they want to believe them, and disregard the actual story.

TL, I know you make an effort to be open minded. I know that you're a very smart and well spoken individual, but I'm afraid that you've been caught up in the very thing you're against, partisan politics, and feel that you have to swing radically one way or the other. I know this is not what you intended to do, but I'm afraid you have. Perhaps the truth is completely on one side or the other, but most likely, it's somewhere in the middle.

Originally posted by Herman
Give me a story about 9/11, involving the government setting it up that doesn't have holes in it.

Give me an 'official story' that doesn't have holes in it!

Herman, we disagree and that's fine. We both know we're not going to change the other's mind. But tell me, who would have to report this conspiracy as truth for you to believe it? I'm actually curious about that.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Herman
Give me a story about 9/11, involving the government setting it up that doesn't have holes in it.

Give me an 'official story' that doesn't have holes in it!

Herman, we disagree and that's fine. We both know we're not going to change the other's mind.

But tell me, who would have to report this conspiracy as truth for you to believe it? I'm actually curious about that.

Who would have to report it... Hmm, that's tricky. It would have to be more than just one source, and credible ones at that. If FOX reported it, I'd definitely believe it because they have a right-wing slant, and for them to report anything in favor of the left usually means it's true. It would have to be more than one television news station. But see, I would need all the loose ends tied up. If they're going to say it wasn't a plane, then where did all those people go who were reportedly ON the plane when it crashed? Did they just never exist? Was it all a lie? If they were going to say Bush met with the terrorist organizations, and orchestrated the hi-jackings, then I'd have to see Bush tried and accused guilty. But see, there's just not enough evidence for that to happen. If there were, there would be liberals jumping on it left and right. I think the reason that people are believe this stuff is because it came AFTER the original story. A lot of people are eager for drama, and this is a ground-breaking story for them, so they choose to believe it over everything else. It seems plausible when you look at it as an alternative story, or an underground theory, but if it was really brought into the light, we'd see all kinds of flaws. See, for every one person who says "oh, we heard this" or "We heard that", there's about 100 people who didn't, and saw what was going on. "It sounded like a missile, not a plane!" Yeah, and a gas station attendant is someone's opinion to take into account when you're talking about the sonic signature of ballistic missile thrust. (I stole those last couple words from Maddox).

And you're right, I know I most likely will never change your opinion, but keep your mind open just in case .

Originally posted by Herman
But see, there's just not enough evidence for that to happen. If there were, there would be liberals jumping on it left and right. I think the reason that people are believe this stuff is because it came AFTER the original story.

You know there are lots of people filing a lawsuit against Bush, the media just doesn't cover it.

Originally posted by Herman
It seems plausible when you look at it as an alternative story, or an underground theory, but if it was really brought into the light, we'd see all kinds of flaws. See, for every one person who says "oh, we heard this" or "We heard that", there's about 100 people who didn't, and saw what was going on. "It sounded like a missile, not a plane!" Yeah, and a gas station attendant is someone's opinion to take into account when you're talking about the sonic signature of ballistic missile thrust. (I stole those last couple words from Maddox).

Well if you know there's an airport right next to the pentagon he just might know what a plane sounds like.
It's ofcourse easy to question someone's intelligence to make him look bad, and I think we've sort of agreed not to rely on eye witnesses anymore
Besides I think we have a bit more to go on then hear-say.

The proof of how effective 9/11 was is plain.
I, for one, was in politics in what I considered a politically active campus in Canada. Before 9/11 (ie. the first 6 days of the semester or something), people were swearing and making jokes about George Bush. Saying he should be impeached.

That he can't spell, that he will make America look dumb.

And then, 9/11. Nothing but praise for the US for the rest of the year.

No one suspected that the US wanted to go to Afghanistan before 9/11, no one saw an ulterior motive whatsoever! And that was when I lost faith in politics, because we had the equivalent of the killing of Caesar, and these 'political science students' could not even see the bigger picture of what affect 9/11 would have on the world,
including being used to justify the type of invasions, bombings,and attacks, that intelligent people were criticizing the US for, long before 9/11.

Things like, I don't know, Panama? The US' involvement in the Iraq/Iran war, maybe? Or, how about, what role did the US play in the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Did they maybe, just maybe build a certain Torah Borah cave network?

Originally posted by Herman
If FOX reported it, I'd definitely believe it because they have a right-wing slant...

Ah, A Right Wing Slant some how has become indicative of honesty eh?

Now there's a good example of why discussion forums are really a complete waste of time. Arguing incessantly with people who after all the evidence and facts you can throw at them still come off with this dribble, why do it? Why waste your time trying to prove something to somebody who can't even see what you are talking about. There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE.
So why do we do it?
Because, in all honesty Herman, we feel sorry for your spellbound partisan ignorance. I sometimes find my participation here on ATS to be an act of compassion.

Originally posted by twitchy

Ah, A Right Wing Slant some how has become indicative of honesty eh?

Now there's a good example of why discussion forums are really a complete waste of time. Arguing incessantly with people who after all the evidence and facts you can throw at them still come off with this dribble, why do it? Why waste your time trying to prove something to somebody who can't even see what you are talking about. There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE.
So why do we do it?
Because, in all honesty Herman, we feel sorry for your spellbound partisan ignorance. I sometimes find my participation here on ATS to be an act of compassion.

And I find your self-rightous arrogant attitude hilarious, and even more so when it's based on closing your mind and believing ridiculous conspiracy theories to feed your pseudo-intellectual cravings! See, I can make broad sweeping generalizations too.

But off course! If somebody doesn't agree with you, they're blind! What a perfect way to get a leg-up in a debate! Oh of course, you're allowed to completely ignore all of the facts that prove it was Bin Laden, and you're "enlightened", not ignorant. Please, show me a credible news source that actually maps out how this could have happened. And preferably, one without and holes in it that you conveniently over-look to serve your own view-point. And you accuse me of partisan politics? Perhaps you've never read my other threads. I've spoken out against getting into Left VS. Right debates and partisan mud-slinging. But since I don't think 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush, I guess I'm partisan.

Ah, A Right Wing Slant some how has become indicative of honesty eh?

Maybe you're not following my line of logic here. I'm almost agreeing with you, (I'll assume you can't stand fox news). Fox news has a right-wing bias, correct? They want to make Bush look good. If they say something negative about Bush, and saying he orchestrated one of the biggest civilian attacks in our history being the mother of negative things, wouldn't you say it would have some truth to it?

Originally posted by Herman
Fox news has a right-wing bias, correct? They want to make Bush look good. If they say something negative about Bush, and saying he orchestrated one of the biggest civilian attacks in our history being the mother of negative things, wouldn't you say it would have some truth to it?

Quick question: Would you only believe Hitler was bad if the SS told you so? I guess the Jews were biased then and can't be trusted. Damn those partisan Jews!

Sorry to pull the Nazi card, but it makes the point, I feel.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Give me an 'official story' that doesn't have holes in it!

Actually, to be honest, I'm partially ignorant to your line of logic. What kind of holes do you see in the official story that can't be explained?

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Herman
Fox news has a right-wing bias, correct? They want to make Bush look good. If they say something negative about Bush, and saying he orchestrated one of the biggest civilian attacks in our history being the mother of negative things, wouldn't you say it would have some truth to it?

Quick question: Would you only believe Hitler was bad if the SS told you so? I guess the Jews were biased then and can't be trusted. Damn those partisan Jews!

Sorry to pull the Nazi card, but it makes the point, I feel.

Well I know for sure that Hitler was bad. It goes way beyond bias...

why is it so hard to believe there are people out there with enough hate in their hearts and money and brains to hurt us ?

is it fear, if we allow that we can be attacked, we lose our invicibility ?
is it racism, arabs aren't smart enough to do it on thier own ?

just curious

Originally posted by Herman

Give me a story about 9/11, involving the government setting it up that doesn't have holes in it. And make that from a credible news source, please. Please tell me that you AT LEAST accept the fact that it was the airplanes that struck the WTC, and not a missile or something. I'm challenging you. Find me a story without any holes in it.

Go read 'Cross ing the Rubicon'

If you still think the US had no part in 9/11 then there is nothing that will convince you apart from a live confession by Dick Cheney on TV (which if you read Crossing the Rubicon you will understand will NEVER HAPPEN).

So there, i FOUND you a story. Now it's up to you but be warned, it's 696 pages and has around 50 pages of sources, scanned documents and footnotes.

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by Herman

Give me a story about 9/11, involving the government setting it up that doesn't have holes in it. And make that from a credible news source, please. Please tell me that you AT LEAST accept the fact that it was the airplanes that struck the WTC, and not a missile or something. I'm challenging you. Find me a story without any holes in it.

Go read 'Cross ing the Rubicon'

If you still think the US had no part in 9/11 then there is nothing that will convince you apart from a live confession by Dick Cheney on TV (which if you read Crossing the Rubicon you will understand will NEVER HAPPEN).

So there, i FOUND you a story. Now it's up to you but be warned, it's 696 pages and has around 50 pages of sources, scanned documents and footnotes.

Originally posted by Herman

Give me a story about 9/11, involving the government setting it up that doesn't have holes in it. And make that from a credible news source, please. Please tell me that you AT LEAST accept the fact that it was the airplanes that struck the WTC, and not a missile or something. I'm challenging you. Find me a story without any holes in it.

Try again. Books are people's opinions. There's books that say it Bin Laden. What makes your book better?