An Op within an Op within an Op

Per request, I am expanding my thoughts on the previous post.   I am not a “9-11 truther.”  Of course, it goes without saying that their case is exponentially stronger than the non-arguments given by the court prophets government media.  I think to say that 9-11 was an “inside job” is a bit much.  Was the government aware of it?  Probably.   Did it further the State’s agenda in the middle east?  Certainly*

But there is one major flaw in this argument:  The Federal Government is the most incompetent bureaucratic apparatus in the world.    9-11 was an intricate plan.  Could the government have pulled that off?  I doubt it.  Israel’s Mossad certainly could have, and the Talmud’s nihilistic teaching makes plain its clear hatred of humanity, but I don’t think Israel did it, either.

So what do I mean by an “op within an op within an op?”  I am fleshing out something Farrell said.  I am only offering conclusions, nor do I think this is necessarily correct.  It explains a lot of data and explains it better than other alternatives.

Point 1:  It is true that a bunch of Muslims flew airplanes into the buildings.

Point 2:  I think the US was aware of their intentions and implicitly furthered it so the US could have an excuse to invade the Middle East.  However, and here is where I differ with the “truthers,” I don’t think the US expected the towers to fall, and with good reason.   One of the strengths that of the “truther” case is that the govt story defies physics laws.   But the towers did fall.

Point 3:  There was another group at play, and this group had access to weapons representing an advanced physics technology that brought the towers down.   While speculation, it addresses a problem with the truther argument:  do you realize how much C-4 you would have to pack into the buildings to pull this off?  Wouldn’t someone have noticed?

Farrell suggests that this group represents one of the ancient groups that have been at war since long ago.   We’ll call them The Nazi International for short.  (again, I am just advancing speculative conclusions at the moment).  This group would have been opposed to the equally evil Anglo-American banking cabal.  Therefore, this attack on the twin towers was not only an attack on the Anglo-American economy, it was an attack on the religion and symbolism behind it:  occultic freemasony.  (Again, we must stress that the true evil is that many innocents died as a result).

Conclusion

Far-fetched?  Yes, but consider: it has the strengths of all the theories that reject the discredited government account.  It avoids the pit-falls of the “truther” movement.   It takes into account the occultic symbolism at play.  It also takes into account the compounding advancement of technology and physics in the last fifty years.

The only problem, or at least unanswered question I see, is that the Nazi movement, too, drew off the same occultic roots as the Anglo movement, with some exceptions (the Anglos went more to freemasonry and the Nazis to the Thule and Illuminati ala Joseph Weishaupt).  Therefore, it seems that attacking the occultic symbolism behind the towers might have been counter-productive in the long run.

*9-11 was a wet dream for neocons and neolibs around the world.   The existence of the Soviet Union gave the US a justifiable excuse to have a large military in other parts of the world.  With the fall of the USSR, the US no longer had an excuse.  You can imagine what 9-11 and the “war on terror” did.

Advertisements

6 comments on “An Op within an Op within an Op

  1. Bobby Grow says:

    Interesting Jacob. So while not owning one kind of conspiracy theory, you seem prone to another, eh? Yet I realize you’re not committing yourself to what you’ve said, just offering it as a plausible possibility to explain what happened.

    I’m willing to remain naive, and by the prima faciae story (what “I” saw happen on 9/11 with my own eyes . . . at least with the towers).

    • Chetnik1945 says:

      Let’s think about what is being said and what isn’t.

      Everyone believes in conspiracy of some sort. I mean, even the court prophets’ story is a conspiracy: a bunch of Arabs conspired to blow up the towers. Most of the changes in human history have happened by conspiracy: the meeting on Jekyll Island to establish the Federal Reserve, the Bolshevik Revolution; David Rockefeller has specifically said he is part of a conspiracy to end national sovereignty. and on and on. Those who deny this just aren’t strong in epistemology.

      Secondly, I am not denying what you claim you saw on TV. I specifically said airplanes flew into the towers. I am just denying that the airplanes themselves brought down the towers in a way that looked like an implosion/vaporization. That’s not how crashing airplanes destroy things! Airplanes do not vaporize buildings.

  2. Bobby Grow says:

    *buy the prima . . .

  3. Canadian says:

    And WTC 7 collapsing from a campfire stinks to high heaven of something sinister.

Comments are closed.