I have read many times before references to the doctrine of 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis' used by manipulators of public sentiment, I can't remember where it all traces back but the logic of using sensational fear-inducing staged events to stimulate movement in the desired direction always seemed reasonable. I'd never actually seen a certifiably document evidence before.
"Since it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention in Cuba a cover and deception plan, to include requisite ..."
This is a little snip from page 10. I can't be bothered trying to digitise any further of it since one can just click the link of the title to see the page, the document goes on and on in this sort of vein in very formal language basically outlining the 'need' to find or create a political justification for an attack on cuba. This document relates to the time around 1962 but this was going on then and nothing has changed and the same philosophy still is in operation, which follows this basic pattern:
- Define a desired military goal which is at odds with the interests of the people.
- Stage a public spectacle which blame for it is claimed to originate from the desired group against which the military goal is to be executed.
- Feed the media disinformation mercilessly until people are used to the idea that it was not staged and that the alleged perpetrators should be hunted down and killed, no matter how many citizens must perish in the process, nor how many people who question the official story are slandered and dismissed as 'crackpots' and 'conspiracy theorists'.
I point to
this video (from youtube) as an example of a media snippet that you never see on the mainstream news channels as an example of the media manipulation. Anyone can see (and there has been
analysis done on the physics of this collapse also available on youtube) that this is a controlled demolition.
While I was in the mood to watch some more videos I decided to watch the collapse videos of the main towers and when the first one came down there was a distinct pattern resembling what would occur if the firing sequence of the explosives was triggered top down starting not far below the impact site, the building just seeming to lose integrity just below the impact site.
Normally demolition explosions are done bottom up and the explosion pattern is designed to create a vacuum at the base which pulls the whole building down neatly in a tiny footprint. It would be much messier to do it the other way around but then doing that would make it look more 'natural' because spontaneous building collapses do not look like demolitions.
However, there is some big problems with engineering a 'natural' collapse. If it were purely natural the top section of the building would have collapsed sideways like a seed column on a piece of grass being burned in the centre, it would have fallen down sideways.
But the collapse was not natural, it was to reinforce the 'spectacular' nature of the event, theatrical rather than actual.
The demolition of wtc7 doesn't make any sense though, it would seem likely their planning of the spectacle was supposed to include something falling down on it and triggering the demolition would have been spectacular synchronised with some other building falling on it, like it was just 'crushed'.
It all bears the hallmarks of a compromised planning process which there was a struggle between the theatrical and practical constraints of executing this spectacular display and the engineers did it slightly safer than would have been required to make it look natural.
The uniformity of the descending dust cloud as the first tower collapsed does not look like the 'structural instability' asserted to be the true cause of the collapse.
First of all the heat is above the flames, anyone trained in junior science knows the heat of flames is at the top, just above the tip of the flame front where you see the carbon monoxide burning (it's pale blue), which means the collapse, if it was natural, should start
above the impact site, since flames move upwards and the greatest heat would be above the impact site.
Secondly, buildings of that scale are designed over-engineered, there is no way that it would have been allowed to be built if its structural integrity was so poor that the coldest part of the flames could initiate a pancake flattening like what happened. Most other large tall buildings before 9/11 that have caught fire have not collapsed like this even when 50% of the structure has collapsed and it looks like a rotting skeleton.
The videos speak for themselves if you ask me. It is no problem at all for government 'experts' to fabricate stories to explain the clearly anomalous events, and being experts the media trumpets their stories as the truth. In this case the town planning and engineers of the buildings were blamed for making a faulty building which had stood for somewhere near 30 years already just fine and not collapsed. A building so flimsy it can collapse from a fire in such a clearly photogenic way could not have stood for that long.
The public is gradually shifting to the view that 9/11 was staged by the american government to justify a second invasion of iraq. When I was watching it as it occurred that was my instant thoughts about it: 'this is an inside job done by americans and organised by the american government to create a public sentiment to support anti-arab military action'.
The fact that the purported leader of the fictional organisation 'al quada' is the son of a family that has a history of being very close to the Bush family adds more fuel to this 'inside job' hypothesis. It'd be rather convenient to have an enemy you can place in any military target you want to attack as being responsible for a staged spectacular event, and other events reinforcing the link so that people instantly switch off their critical faculties when the magic words 'al queda' and 'bin laden' and 'terrorist' and 'suicide bomber' are slung around and go into this hypnotic trance that makes them support the military stance.
And it is a little known fact that the current american flag is actually the war-time flag, and has been in place only during times of mobilisation for war. The USA has been on wartime mobilisation since the 1920s. Apart from Japan and Germany and world war 2, none of the military action seen done by the USA or its allies has actually been in the interests of any kind of security and merely a progression towards the building of a massive global military empire and chronic state of war.
To round off my little sermon, I would like to sum up relating back to the title - the purpose of all this warmongering is to keep the world's population in debt. Wars are fostered by the influx of funds into economies used to pay for the extortionate costs of military action. There is no better way to impose debt and force repayment than to loan the money to a government who can always raise taxes (and their co-conspirators, the reserve banks to raise interest rates to squeeze people if they don't kow-tow to the war-mongering, and other top level industries like the energy industry can be major players too, as happened in the 70s with the oil shock) to cover the debt.
The real goal is to promote war, because war makes people weak to resist manipulation by playing on their fear. When people are in fear, they pay up to those who claim they will protect them. The real evil ones in this world are the ones who benefit from loaning out 'money' to nations to war against other nations or groups. This is what it all comes down to and these people are psychopaths, metaphorical vampires on human souls, doling out debt so they can increase their little piles of gold while everyone else suffers.
