Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#116078 - 03/18/18 09:21 PM 9/11: No Planes?
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Caveat: Whether this topic has Satanic significance is questionable, except perhaps harking back to Anton's cheerful maxim that just about everything is bullshit.

I think that by now the "offic cal" story of the 9/11 events is disbelieved by everyone, the only question being who really orchestrated it.

Just about the only certainty remaining is that two planes hit the WTC in NYC. The other two "crashes" have long since been belied, the only question being what happened to those original flights?

So last night, looking for something boring on YouTube to fall asleep with, I bumped into this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw5SF4zJilc&list=PLLIRdtQZrFxfNz1jqzUt_lG71TEPxY7uf&index=5&t=13880s

Obviously a wacko. Everyone saw the two NYC planes hit and start things there, right?

Two hours later - this is a long movie - my jaw, which I never thought could drop any lower, hit the floor. Curious to see what 600Cers think of this.

He gets around to the nonexistent planes near the end. Before then a very interesting and meticulous sum up of all the official-version debunking to date.

One warning: The narrator has a clear head and a good speaking voice, so it's a good documentary. Unfortunately he's also a frustrated rock star, so every once in awhile you have to sit through one of his 9/11 songs. He's not an atrocious musician, but if you're concentrating on the documentary, just fast-forward until he fulfills himself and gets back to business.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#116087 - 03/19/18 04:24 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Zeno Offline
member


Registered: 03/15/15
Posts: 149
The only two facts I am interested in re: 9/11 is many people died, and the world was changed. I once could for example open a bank account with the minimum of identification, now it is more complex.

9/11 was the result of US foreign policy, and the public was treated to a lot of manipulative bullshit to achieve specific political ends. In addition, the public continue to be manipulated on a vast scale, example the misuse of personal information of tens of millions of Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica to achieve the end states of the Trump election and the UK Brexit outcomes.
_________________________
Greece, the Bankers bitch.

Top
#116089 - 03/19/18 08:12 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dark Magician Offline
member


Registered: 04/24/14
Posts: 154
There is an overwhelming abundance of imagery, which to my mind confirms the view that planes collided with the twin towers on 11 September. I am not so sure about the collision of a plane with the Pentagon.

I am almost 100% certain that those buildings were taken down by a carefully orchestrated controlled demolition.

Some of the arguments used to support the claim for controlled demolition may be thin and easily undermined, but there are still aspects of the tragedy which have not been adequately explained.

How could such enormous buildings come down at near free fall speed? How could so much steel, concrete and glass just plummet to the ground so quickly? How can story after story of building just give way with almost no resistance from the stories below?

And the buildings themselves were literally exploding into powder as they fell.

Further, the rescue crews were discovering pools and streams of molten metal buried beneath the rubble weeks later. How can this be possible? How could plane fuel fires/office fires create temperatures so hot that metal would melt and remain in a molten condition weeks later?

I remember what Jim Garrison and X discussed that day in Washington: who had the power to do something like that? Who would be in a position to set those buildings up to come down as they did?

The answer seems obvious to me and it had nothing to with the plans of terrorists in Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever.

Top
#116090 - 03/19/18 09:04 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Dark Magician]
ShadowLover Offline
member


Registered: 05/26/16
Posts: 351
Loc: Gold Coast, Australia
In the skit I saw, they weren't saying that there were no planes, but that there was one plane which was unmarked and not a commercial airplane. They said that it was a govt/military plane (grey with no markings) and probably remote controlled.

But I doubt a plane went anywhere near the Pentagon.
_________________________
Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.

Top
#116092 - 03/19/18 11:33 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: ShadowLover]
CanisMachina42 Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/10/13
Posts: 1673
Loc: Ca
Hmmmm, the retired Army officer is questioning his own government...

 Quote:
that by now the "offic cal" story of the 9/11 events is disbelieved by everyone, the only question being who really orchestrated it.


Did you watch Loose Change? I met the guy, or someone involved with that movie. He owned a medical cannibis dispensary in Pacific Beach. He ended my membership because i was a census taker (2010) and that was part of the FEMA camp prepping. But the registrations!

Anyway I believe the lies, I guess. Mainly because one of the hijackers lived with one of my former roommate's friends in San Diego. They found out when the FBI kicked in their door on 9/11.

4 planes went down. 3 by rich Saudi trust fund kids, one pulled by an F16 pilot over rural Pennsylvania before it could hit the White House.

There is really no conspiracy.

Saudi's are America's wealthy Arab friends, whose implimentaion of Sharia Law is overlooked in favor of Oil. It was a case of, Your children fucked us! You're all leaving for your 'safety'.

Now, lack of planes.

Any NTSB investigator will laugh at this, especially with the pentagon. The plane travelling mach .7 hit a wall 15 feet thick. And still, they found distinguishable plane parts deep within the building itself... Like people are so fucking stupid they except a plane shaped hole in the wall...


There's also the real time ATC communication during.

https://youtu.be/DYBhgEm3j7A

Much of it is trying to figure out where the transponder disabled planes were, and then through a chain of military personell (asking if it was real world of war games) to authorize a scramble.

All in all, it was probably very easy to put together if you have money to do it. Get 20 Saudi's with student visas to assume non descript lives, go to flight school, and learn how to use the fucking rudder.

It was also a justifiable reason for Team America to pull a bunch of shit on the global stage... This, in the same manner Bradley Noell finally got all that alcohol he couldn't afford.

Is controlled demolition next?.. because I love playing government shill.
_________________________
Spiritual : Abstraction ::

D. Scientific : Quod erat demonstrandum

Top
#116095 - 03/19/18 05:30 PM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: CanisMachina42]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: CanisMachina42
Hmmmm, the retired Army officer is questioning his own government.[

Did you just fal offn the turnip truck? \:D

Everyone who's spent any time in government knows that most of it is lies and BS. If you're an Eagle Scout like me, all you can do is to push in the direction of ethics where and when you can, as in why I specialized in PSYOP as a better war alternative to shooting people and blowing up their stuff.

That's why I took this to the extent of writing and official distribution of MkndWar, and later FindFar. Not na´ve enough to expect a miraculous purification, but you have to fucking start somewhere! \:\)

In a specifically 600C context, I will also say again what I have many times previously, and in CoS, that one of the things I most admired in Anton LaVey was his personal integrity, which was one of the reasons he started the C/S as a reproach to all the BS elsewhere. He wasn't an Eagle Scout like me, but he was adamant about facing and taking responsibility for what he was and did.

I knew NTC WTC was controlled demolition the moment I saw it; I'm only surprised that it was so easy to sell the BS. Just proves how desperately Americans want to believe that their own government wouldn't kill thousands of them just so it could start some new wars. This has been going on for only a few thousand years in every country. It just became more essential after the Kellog-Briand Treaty, to which the USA is a signatory, outlawed starting wars for the fun of it any more. Now you have to be "attacked first", hence Lusotania, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin, etc. If you're lucky, you goad an opportunity ent like Japan to do something stupid like PH.

The above is "old news". What fascinated me about this video was the slickness of faking/pushing airplane-hit footage that became locked in myth so firmly that apparently even the main 9/11 BS expose sites don't want to touch it.

I'm fasinated by the faking techniques used, obviously carefully coordinated with media distribution of the result and sidelining of anything contradictory. This is classic PSYOP, which is not just an isolated lie or fake, but the whole campaign to promulgate it.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#116099 - 03/20/18 01:30 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 442
Good post and subject.

You are quite correct in that the above video is "old news". One way that I would think that it could be applied to Satanism today is as an example of Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies.

Not to say that 9/11 was the first example of false flag operations. The Reichstag fire certainly would come to mind.

From the day it happened, I went back to the Ninth Satanic Statement. You can really apply that one to any given situation and look at who or what the "Devil" is and why He is needed.

Go back several months earlier. Remember when people were really really debating whether or not George W Bush was actually elected? Then remember how the US Supreme Court stepped in and more or less selected him?

Go back just a little bit further from a purely political standpoint: Anyone remember Monicagate? Does anyone believe that the Democrats would have just ignored the blood in the water of the "election" of George W Bush?

Now, look at 9/11. All of the sudden people are terrorized. In their state of fear they latched on to the government. It was a moment when everyone wanted to believe that Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, JC and God were all real and that this was all some very bad dream. Further more, after it happened, ANYONE who dared to question the legitimacy of Bush's presidency was labeled a traitor, a crack pot, or in league with the Devil (the terrorists in this case). So, in this sense, 9/11 became the best friend that George W. Bush ever had. It kept him in office for two full terms. Lest we also forget the Bin Laden video "appearances" that just so happened to come right around the 2004 elections. By that time, no recount was necessary. The fearfully faithful came out in droves. A last note on this point, it would be interesting to see a show of hands of who believed that Saddam had WMD's during that time and who have sense seen the light of day that it was a hoax.

What was really surprising to me was the lack of Satanists who stood proudly and accepted the very true mantel that the United States was supposedly given: The Great Satan.

Here is something else that was lacking: useful propaganda. In this respect, and I would still say it today, the leaders of any of these groups don't believe a damned word of the Bullshit they spew. I will get to the reason in a moment. This is not to say that we don't have con artists such as this in America. Does anyone really believe for a second that Robertson, Falwell/(jr), etc believe all of the bullshit they lay down? But it keeps the money in circulation. This leads to the reason that I can prove that the leaders of these Islamic groups don't believe their mumbo jumbo wholeheartedly either: If they truly did, they wouldn't be alive to recruit followers. They would have strapped bombs to themselves a long time ago. Somehow I don't think that this kind of information was effectively disseminated against these groups...but then again, why would it be? Everyone needs to keep the faith to keep the rouse going. Doubt of any nature or on any side will cause it all to fall apart at the seems.

Basically, the concept that the public on all sides was sold is as old as time. It put the fear of God back into America (it was really waning at the end of the last century) and it became a concept of a Holy War of sorts. The public on all sides gladly ate it up.

As far as the rest goes whoever and however 9/11 was planned, this remains true, it was a success. The objective was to terrorize and it did just that.

All of this, of course, was before the internet is what it is today in terms of availability, social media, etc. People couldn't record the facts as easy. Likewise, terms such as "false flag operations" or "crisis actors" wasn't nearly as in vogue as it is today. In this respect, people were still in the dark.

But, yes, I would agree with you on the "old news" bit. Reality has always been able to be created, bought and sold. It is just a matter of who is controlling the money and how much your dollar is worth.
_________________________
my ebay sales

Top
#116100 - 03/20/18 02:25 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: LoneWolf78]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Old news is also safe news. If you expose criminal actions by officials still alive and in power, you're asking for "a hit and run car accident" etc. If I had published Extreme Prejudice while all the officials committing felonies still had their jobs, I have no dsoubt whatever that I would now be pushing daisies.

It was much the same with the Jack the Haircut gig. My good friend Col. Fletcher Prouty (USAF-Ret) blew that to me in the 1980s in a letter shortly before his own demise. I sat on it until 2012, when I quoted it in MindWar.

There are many much more exotic claims today, but I buy Fletch's because he was a gentleman of rock-solid integrity and also in a position to know. [He also advised Oliver Stone and was caricatured as "X" by Donald Sutherland, his boss "Y" being MG Edward Lansdale, USAF.]
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#116111 - 03/21/18 02:42 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3410
Don't be so daft.

What amounted to 9/11 had been mounting up for some time. The great elephant in the room (on global scale) was continious support for Isreal and their expansion, continious presence (and missions) in Saudi-Arabia AFTER the gulf-war whilst imposing restrictions, a variety of economical and functional sanctions against Iraq.

The Gulf war never ended for many in the region. A new faceless dictator was merely installed. Media and politics remained silent while something brewed and would lash out.

Those who claim there have been no planes involved clearly missed the life-footage and many reports that were made. Everything is documented in great detail.

The attacks themselves are, as you said, the result of "America being the great devil".

No one ever said the devil knew who he was.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#116113 - 03/21/18 05:29 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 442
 Originally Posted By: Michael A Aquino
This has been going on for only a few thousand years in every country. It just became more essential after the Kellog-Briand Treaty, to which the USA is a signatory, outlawed starting wars for the fun of it any more. Now you have to be "attacked first", hence Lusotania, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin, etc. If you're lucky, you goad an opportunity ent like Japan to do something stupid like PH.


This brings up another interesting point. Does anyone here recall hearing about The Manning Memo also known as the Bush-Blair Memo?

 Originally Posted By: The Manning Memo
The Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq memo was a secret memo of a meeting between American President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that took place on January 31, 2003. It purportedly showed that the Bush administration had already decided on the US invasion of Iraq at that point.

It has become controversial for its content, which shows Bush floating the idea of painting a U-2 spyplane in UN colors and letting it fly low over Iraq to provoke the then-leader Saddam Hussein to shoot it down, providing a pretext for America and Britain's subsequent invasion. It also shows the two making a secret deal to carry out said invasion regardless of whether or not weapons of mass destruction were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction with statements Blair made to Parliament afterwards that Saddam would be given a final chance to disarm.

The memo was written by Blair's chief foreign adviser at the time, David Manning. In it, Bush is paraphrased as saying:

"The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."

Five pages long and classified as extremely sensitive, the existence of the memo was first alleged by Philippe Sands in his book Lawless World. It was then obtained by American newspaper The New York Times, who confirmed its authenticity.

UK Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said, on the memo: "If these allegations are accurate, the Prime Minister and President Bush were determined to go to war with or without a second UN resolution, and Britain was signed up to do so by the end of January 2003." It was also discussed on BBC World programme Dateline London by a panel of commentators in the early morning of February 6, 2006, the commentators seemed to agree that the memo just confirmed what they already believed to be the case.


Source

In this, we have (then) President Bush suggesting to paint a "U-2 spyplane" in UN colors low over Iraq to provoke Saddam Hussein.

A logical question would be that if Bush even remotely believed that Hussein possessed WMD's that were an "imminent" threat to the US why on earth would he want to provoke him? Then again what's a little war among friends?
_________________________
my ebay sales

Top
#116114 - 03/21/18 05:56 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Dimitri]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 442
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
What amounted to 9/11 had been mounting up for some time. The great elephant in the room (on global scale) was continious support for Isreal and their expansion, continious presence (and missions) in Saudi-Arabia AFTER the gulf-war whilst imposing restrictions, a variety of economical and functional sanctions against Iraq.


While I agree, in part, that you are seeing a hippo, might I suggest going back a bit further to see the elephant. Specifically go back to 25 July 1990. On that date a meeting took place between US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein. This was a sore point that Ross Perot brought up during the final 1992 presidential debates. The reason that it was a sore point was because during this meeting Glaspie told Hussein (who had been our previous ally against Iran making him an unlikely candidate to want to piss off his powerful US friends hence the meeting) that Kuwait was "not associated with America" and that "We (America) have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflict".

Hussein took that as a green light to invade Kuwait. We then went back on our word and the rest is history. Without that key meeting and the message that it conveyed to Hussein it would have been interesting to see how differently that the events that you speak of would have turned out.
_________________________
my ebay sales

Top
#116116 - 03/21/18 07:11 PM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Dimitri]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Don't be so daft ... Those who claim there have been no planes involved clearly missed the life-footage and many reports that were made. Everything is documented in great detail.

= What I assumed before seeing this video examination. I suggest you watch it and then decide if the planes are all so "documented in detail".

As an old PSYOP dog, I generally don't buy smake oil or bridges even if the price is enticing. But I confess I took the NYC WTC planes as undeniable fact. Indeed as this video notes, even most of the big "9/11 Truth" sites don't question that or even allow it to be questioned. So this video took a big bite, and I was curious to see if it could chew it. Much to my surprise, I think it did. \:\)

Just be prepared to fast-forward every time the narrator starts singing!
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#116117 - 03/21/18 07:28 PM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: LoneWolf78]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2721
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: LoneWolf78
Does anyone here recall hearing about The Manning Memo

There are several convincing backstories to the 2001 invasion that have zip to do with 9/11, Osama, etc. One of the most interesting ones is that Saddam was going to change his oil transactions from US$ to the Euro, I think, and this would have undercut the control of the USA banking system. I'd have to go re-look up the details. But if we know nothjing else about modern wars, they're money-driven. I suppose one could argue this for most wars, with the exception of the Trojan War which was fought for pussy.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#116118 - 03/22/18 01:45 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
LoneWolf78 Offline
member


Registered: 05/21/14
Posts: 442
 Originally Posted By: Michael A. Aquino
One of the most interesting ones is that Saddam was going to change his oil transactions from US$ to the Euro, I think, and this would have undercut the control of the USA banking system. I'd have to go re-look up the details.


This would indeed be interesting. I would certainly like to examine it. If my memory serves me correctly this would have also been right around the time that the US economy was beginning to tank and if I am correct in my memory of that time the Euro's worth far exceeded the USD.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A. Aquino
But if we know nothjing else about modern wars, they're money-driven. I suppose one could argue this for most wars, with the exception of the Trojan War which was fought for pussy.


Hahaha good point. \:D

Also I caught myself in a mistake that I posted earlier on. To kind of swing back to the Satanic side to this discussion, in reality there were two "Devil" figures that came to be after 9/11 the first one being Osama Bin Laden the second being Saddam Hussein (never mind the fact that those two camps really didn't see eye to eye at all...but I digress) so to re-paraphrase my earlier modified Satanic Statement: Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were the best friends that George W. Bush ever had. They kept him in office for two full terms. \:D

Moving to another point that has been discussed, you are correct in the slickness involved on a multitude of fronts. First, the desperation of the people at that point to believe anything that they were told instead of wanting to think ill of the government. But then, the old switch-a-roo from Osama to Saddam...no...not even the switch within itself...but how that people didn't even bat an eyelash to question it until it was too late.

On that side of it, the only thing that I have really been able to come up with in all of these years is indeed the Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies.

Quite honestly, if you look at numbers alone, the body count of 9/11 in and of itself wasn't really that impressive when you consider the population at the time (which hasn't stopped growing). No less, it was enough to get the masses back into church (belief in the government) as they say. Plus who really has the time to go to each of the individual graves and count the bodies? I have even tried to find pictures. Granted technology then wasn't what it is now, but I figured someone must have snapped a few shots of someone splattered. While I have found some videos of supposed 9/11 victims in this state when you do the research you discover that it is from another country or another situation and the one's that you can't verify one way or the other look extremely staged (perhaps the first crisis actors of the new century).

On a different note Vincent Bugliosi of Manson fame got in on the act with his book The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder:

Here

He then offered this testimony before a Judiciary:

Here

Something else I have been thinking for a while, I think that everyone is waiting for the next 9/11, which is ultimately a distraction. Instead, I keep my eye on all of the "little tragedies" that gets everyone emotional. Couple that with the threat of N. Korea and the new red scare/cold war among every other sexual scandal and you have to wonder what one is covering what for who.

Manson may have passed and we got to see his body one last time but it's ok folks OJ Simpson is stepping into his new role as the national bogey man/counter cultural folk hero just fine....you know, the stuff that really matters.








Edited by LoneWolf78 (03/22/18 01:50 AM)
Edit Reason: video links initially didn't work
_________________________
my ebay sales

Top
#116205 - 04/11/18 12:54 AM Re: 9/11: No Planes? [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3410
Your experience in the field does not exclude you from mistakes nor falling for a fad.

People have died. Their records can be traced and point to similar fates.

You're losing it. That's for sure.


Edited by Dimitri (04/11/18 12:55 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.26 seconds of which 0.091 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.