The "neocon" agenda of America and its support for Zionism is well
known, but that doesn't mean that the American government was behind
In fact the truth of 9/11 could not be simpler. Osama bin Laden did it
and Bush and company were hoping he would do something of that nature to
give them a pretext to invade oil-rich Iraq, give regional support to
Israel, and try to start converting Islamic countries to puppet
capitalist democracies under America's control, thus extending the OWO's
power to regions of the world not yet fully under its heel.
The key to the whole controversy is the collapse of the Twin Towers and
Tower 7. The conspiracy theorists say that the hijacked planes couldn't
possibly have brought the towers down, therefore they must have been
expertly demolished. Therefore it was an inside job and therefore the
American government was responsible.
But the collapse of the towers is completely irrelevant. America would
have relied on the fact that four airplanes were hijacked and used in suicide
operations as sufficient pretext for their subsequent foreign policy
(military) response. Whether the twin towers fell down or not would not
have made the slightest difference and therefore could not have been
part of any conspiracy.
The collapse of the Twin Towers and Tower 7 is the biggest red herring
in history. The buildings collapsed for reasons that are now quite well
understood in engineering terms. No demolitions took place.
American policy would have to have been dependent
on the collapse
of the Twin Towers for a conspiracy theory to have any credibility i.e.
it is being asserted by the "Truth Movement" that America would not
have responded as it did if the Towers did not fall. Clearly, this is
entirely false - whether the Towers fell or not was neither here nor
there in terms of providing a pretext for a war. Hence there was no
American support for Israel is a disgrace, and the invasion of Iraq was a
disgrace, but that doesn't mean that the American government committed
9/11. The fact that 9/11 suited their agenda doesn't make them guilty.
All thinking people should analyze the facts rationally. Any intelligent
person should be able to detect a myriad of holes in the 9/11
9/11 was, in truth, an unsophisticated, low-tech attack by 19 Muslim
suicide bombers. Bin Laden wanted to strike back against America and he
succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Airplanes had never been used as
suicide weapons before, so America was taken by surprise. What's so hard
to grasp about that?
There are many videos and articles on the internet that debunk those who
claim that the American government carried out this act. The people who
hold the belief that the American government was responsible tend to be
libertarian fanatics (Ayn Rand's mad fan club) who hate the American government and wish it
nothing but harm. They are prepared to believe anything that points
towards the guilt of the American government, and to ignore anything
that does not. They are not "truth seekers", but merely people with a
political axe to grind and a burning hatred of the American government
and any interference by the state in their lives.
We are not in any way sympathetic towards the American government -
quite the reverse - but that does not mean we will support any theory
that is refuted by all available evidence. There is not one shred of
credible evidence that the American government carried out this act.
There is, however, a great deal of evidence that they knew something
like this was being planned, and they took no serious steps to prevent
it. But these are two very different positions.
However, it's no disaster that many Americans believe that their
government was capable of perpetrating 9/11. And this is exactly what Zeitgeist
plays on. The "game" is to bring as many people as possible to a point
where they no longer have any confidence in their government and no
faith in the system. Only then is real change possible.
The Zeitgeist 9/11 sequence is designed to provoke you and get you to
think. It has proved entirely successful. But anyone who, after some
reflection, really believes that these buildings were rigged for
demolition has lost the plot.
Here is a debate between a member of the Illuminati and an expert
conspiracy theorist. Judge for yourself who gets the better of the
Conspiracy Theorist (CT): There is NO WAY that the twin towers came down
as a result of the plane impacts. Preposterous. Jet fuel does not burn
hot enough to cut steel. Thermite does. It's the standard demolition
explosive and the collapses do indeed look like demolitions. You can see
the flashes of the thermite charges going off in sequence and there are
photos of the site afterwards showing thermite-cut steel girders among
the wreckage. Then there's the smoke; jet fuel burns with black smoke,
thermite with white. The black smoke dissipates, then the white smoke
goes off and the towers come down. And that's without any Conspiracy
Theory. That's just common sense.
That's the other reason I don't believe in terrorists; if they meant it,
they wouldn't concoct some wacky super-villain scheme involving four
simultaneous hijacked suicide planes. It's far too elaborate; why not
put three teams of four guys in vans, equipped with appropriate
explosives, to do a complete circuit of a city and cut every road,
bridge and rail line in a single night? Billions in economic damage, low
to zero loss of life, minimal logistics. For the effort and resources
that went into 9/11, they could do that to every city in England in one
night; War on Terror over and they won.
OUR COMMENT (OC): Imagine the planning committee for the 9/11 conspiracy
(Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc)…
"Right, guys, we're going to use 20 Muslim fanatics to hijack four
planes using, er, box cutters. Then we're going to have the twin towers
rigged to blow. Those rag heads had better do a good job or our
demolition squad will look a bit dumb! We'll also have the Pentagon
rigged for explosion, and the White House and Capitol Hill too (glad no
one noticed while the demolition squad were setting up their stuff).
Right, we'll also take out Tower 7 because we have some dodgy Enron
records there. Might as well get rid of Tower 5 while we're at it. In
fact, let's clear the whole site. We took out insurance, guys, didn't
we? How many deaths do we want? - er, anything over 100 will be fine, but
thousands would be much better. Better make sure all of the important
guys are out of the Pentagon, and - obviously - the White House - don't
want to be hoist with our own petard, huh? Then we can launch a
full-scale attack on those Muslim bastards in Afghanistan and Iraq and
grab their oil, and anything else they've got. We'll be helping our
Zionist buddies, of course. It's the ultimate win-win situation. A few
of our people will have to be sacrificed, but big deal."
Doesn't this sound a bit far-fetched? No sophisticated conspiracy plan
would ever involve something as primitive as box cutters, yet we know
these were the weapons used (together with fake bombs). This was no
grand, well-oiled, massively funded operation. It was a bunch of
near-amateurs using whatever they could smuggle past airport security.
If there had been a genuine conspiracy they would have been allowed to take guns and
real bombs on board.
And the twentieth hijacker never even made it, having been previously
arrested by the authorities. (Strange how the American conspirators
sabotaged their own conspiracy by arresting this man.) He's in jail now -
having confessed to the whole thing. If his case had been properly
handled, 9/11 would never have happened:
"Had that happened, the Report opined, the U.S. might conceivably have
disrupted or derailed the September 11 attacks altogether."
The fact that George W Bush was visibly astonished when he heard the
9/11 news demonstrates that he was fully in on the plan and gave it his
personal authorization, doesn't it? Er, doh!
The Muslims had previously targeted the Twin Towers - the failed
truck-bomb attack of 1993. Was that part of the conspiracy too?
CT: For me, the War on Terror stands or falls on 9/11. If the official
story is true then everything that's happened since, massively
profitable as it has been for the supposedly aggrieved party, the US,
and much as it has cost us in 'Civil Liberties', which used to be called
'Rights', is totally reasonable.
If it were true, then OF COURSE we'd embark on the current course.
Except that line of thinking leads pretty quickly to the idea that a
good deal of modern history is actually wrong, governments don't lie to
people, the only wars we've ever fought are just wars and Johnny
Foreigner has it coming for one reason or another; in this case, "They
hate our freedom."
OC: Your entire stance seems to be predicated on the necessity of false
flag attacks in order for governments to justify their actions. Are you
actually willing to accept that Western nations can ever be attacked by
non-Westerners? Don't you think plenty of people have plenty of reasons
for wanting to attack America and the West? The West doesn't need
to perform any false flag attacks, frankly.
CT: What we're being told is that Osama and Omar were sitting in their
cave one day, having a bit of a break from oppressing women and
worshipping Allah, when they conceived a grand scheme to destroy the
OC: It was a propaganda stunt for the TV cameras and to rally and
inspire the Islamic holy warriors all over the world. Slamming hijacked
planes into prestigious buildings isn't a "grand scheme". It's a crude
extension of the pro-Palestinian plane hijackings of the 1970s and 80s.
CT: Perhaps they were smoking opium, I don't know, but they're these two
guys who just happen to be ex-mercenaries each in command of a gang of
fanatical followers, and they start kicking this idea around for blowing
up the World Trade Center. And all the basic questions get answered;
fanatical suicide commandos: CHECK; network of agents already in place
in US to ease infiltration: CHECK; insider with a commercial airline to
get intel and flying lessons: CHECK; budget for all this: CHECK; and
they're ready to go just like that; America is doomed. Until Omar says
to Osama, "Hey, after the WTC goes down what then?" Osama replies, "Why
then, all praise to Allah!"
OC: That's pretty much how it went down! Except this had been planned
for years. Ever heard of sleeper cells? How expensive is it to send
twenty Muslims to America? Bin Laden's millions would certainly have
covered it. Suicide bombers? There are thousands of them queuing up to
martyr themselves! Have you not been watching the news for the last ten
They did it for the same reason that Palestinian suicide bombers go to
Israel and achieve counterproductive outcomes - pure desperation. Also,
news flash - these people really believe in martyrdom and in getting on
the fast-track to Allah for their allocation of virgins! Winning isn't
the point - it's showing Allah that you have faith that is the most important
thing. Christians worship a Jewish carpenter who was hung on a cross -
great plan, that one. Shia Muslims idolise a guy who was surrounded
and slaughtered by his enemies. The Serbians revere Kosova - a battle
they lost, the British the Somme, the Scots Flodden and Culloden etc.
Look at the Charge of the Light Brigade, the Little Big Horn, Pickett's
charge at Gettysburg, the Irish Easter uprising etc. Glorious defeat is
inspirational and can often trigger real and meaningful change in the
long term. It's better than getting shafted forever.
The charge that the American government perpetrated 9/11 could not be
more serious. It is high treason demanding the death penalty and the
overthrow of the whole American system of government. Why would anyone
buy into the most disturbing conclusion imaginable if the evidence is
weak? The official story doesn't seem wacky - the idea of the American
government deliberately killing its own innocent citizens certainly does.
CT: I don't think that 9/11 was a grand conspiracy concocted by Bush et
al, so much as that the origins of it were in Washington and that the
CIA had a hand in it all; otherwise I don't see how these Afghani
troglodytes could possibly have pulled it off. and I don't think putting
thermite in the building would have been a big deal; Navy SEALS dressed
as workmen? Special Forces guys would not talk. But I'm speculating as
to how; I just see those explosives going off inside the windows and I
see how the buildings fell, and I know that jet fuel cannot bring down a
skyscraper. Were they piloting the plane? Different question, obviously
someone was, and he must have been suicidal. It would just be so much
easier to get him in there and teach him to fly if the CIA helped.
OC: The Taliban didn't do anything apart from provide training camps to
Bin Laden, and give him a guarantee of protection. Bin Laden sent a
small group of his suicide fanatics (like the Islamic Assassins of
history) to the States to carry out a low-tech attack using a brand new
weapon sure to take the enemy by complete surprise - suicide hijacking.
There's no mystery, no puzzle, no false flag component. Bin Laden had
both the capability (the money, the resources, the suicide hijackers),
and the motive - he was already one of America's most wanted enemies
before 9/11. Bill Clinton had tried to assassinate him. He was behind
the bombings of the American embassies in Africa. This guy's
fingerprints were all over 9/11 in an irrefutable way. You could argue,
in Conspiracy Theory world, that he was actually a CIA operative,
ordered by Bush to carry out this attack against America. Then again,
you can argue anything you like in CT world.
CT: And then, next question, how? By hijacking four planes...
desperate and daft.
OC: Desperate, yes. Daft? How so? It worked brilliantly. It is still
hailed by Muslims everywhere as a great blow against the Satanic West.
And are you implying that the hijackings had nothing to do with the
American government's conspiracy? After all, why would they make a
dangerous and daft act the sine qua non of the conspiracy? But haven't you
just shot yourself in the foot?
CT: These guys are desert fighters, they fight in the desert; crossing
half the world in an elaborate plot worthy of Sax Rohmer to strike a
purely symbolic blow against the Great Satan... it's like something
cooked up by Fu Manchu, the opener to a grand scheme involving the
heroine trade and the bold forces of Interpol, backed up by our Yankee
allies, the CIA, off to shoulder the 'White Man's Burden'.
OC: The hijackers were middle-class, westernised Saudi Arabians. The
Palestinians hijacked loads of planes. Aren't they Arabs like the Saudi
Arabians? The only new ingredient was the suicide angle. Bin Laden would
have been delighted with this plan, and with its outcome. He's not Fu
CT: There are some who think it was a huge media scam, the towers were
hit by missiles or nuked from the basement, and that the planes were put
in by CGI on the news. Now that's a Conspiracy. I have a friend who
thinks they were demolished afterwards, that the smoke and so-on was
literally a smokescreen. I've tried to convince him otherwise.
OC: This is exactly what happens when CTers are let loose.
CT: Israel IS allied to the Great Satan and much nearer, besides being
smaller and hated in its own right by 99% of the Muslim world. Why
didn't they attack Israel?
OC: They've been trying to get Israel since 1948!!!!! The time had come
when they decided that it was better to attack the paymaster - the USA.
CT: And if Bush, Cheney et al are callous enough to spin a big fat
dollar out of the War on Terror, simply using 9/11 as an excuse handed
to them by happy chance, then they're more than nasty enough to engineer
the plot in the first place.
OC: That's hardly an airtight argument!
CT: Bush needn't even have known; we could be looking at a modern
Thomas Beckett scenario; an unguarded remark by Bush to the wrong CIA
agent (and he has dropped some clangers), and all those Black Ops guys
swing into action.
OC: There was no accident about Beckett's death!!! And no one would take
a decision like 9/11 without the highest possible authority, signed in
triplicate. There are no rogue units doing ludicrous things on that
scale. It would mean the death penalty and perpetual infamy for you if you
got it wrong and were caught. What's your excuse going to be? - "Oh, I thought the
President had given me an order by winking at me!" Yeah, right.
CT: I don't see how these Afghani troglodytes could possibly have pulled
OC: They didn't. It was middle class, well-educated Saudi Arabian
CT: And I don't think putting thermite in the building would have
been a big deal; Navy SEALS dressed as workmen?
CT: I simply don't believe the official story on 9/11; skyscrapers don't
collapse from fire. Everything else is detail, the basic fact is it
would be a freakish miracle, on top of the attacks happening at all, for
the towers to collapse.
OC: So, now we have it. The entire basis of your case is that you are a
self-proclaimed expert on civil engineering and materials science. If a
jet were flown into any tower on earth, the tower wouldn't collapse, you
say. You know that for a fact. So, all of the recognized civil
engineers and material scientists who support the official version are
liars and are part of the conspiracy. I think I'd be more inclined to
support the experts than the speculators.
Because you don't believe in skyscrapers collapsing after being hit at
high speed by jets with full fuel-loads, you are prepared to believe
that America hired Bin Laden to get a group of suicidal hijackers
together to attack America - to destroy the Twin Towers, the White
House/Capitol Hill and the Pentagon? (Oh, and the Navy Seals had to be
inside the Twin Towers soon afterwards with thermite to bring the
buildings down. Er, why exactly? The false flag attack had already
worked. Why bring the towers down? Gilding the lily, surely? American
reaction would have been exactly the same regardless of whether the
towers came down so deliberately bringing the towers down is, frankly,
absurd, pointless and incredibly risky. Which great American strategist
said, months in advance of 9/11, "Oh once our guy Bin Laden's done his
stuff, let's bring the frigging towers down. That 'ill show 'em.") I
think I'll go with the skyscrapers falling down on their own scenario.
Your whole case is that it was somehow necessary for the Twin Towers to
be brought down. As if anyone cares. It wouldn't have made ANY
DIFFERENCE AT ALL to me whether the towers came down, and nor to the
American people. It was the hijacked suicide planes crashing into the
towers that 9/11 was all about. Your whole conspiracy theory is based on
a meaningless technical curiosity that the twin towers collapsed in the
manner of a controlled demolition. So what? Are you telling me that the
American reaction was based on the collapse of the Twin Towers and not
on the fact that they were struck by suicidal Islamic hijackers? That's
what I call a crazy theory. Since the American reaction was not
predicated on the fall of the towers - everything would have proceeded
in precisely the same way had they not collapsed - the authorities
plainly weren't involved. Same goes for Tower 7. You've been chasing the
Just to reiterate. Your case is based on a disbelief that steel acts as
if cut when subjected to a massive impact, a huge explosion, an intense
jet-fuel fire, and the weight of a hundred floors of incredibly heavy
concrete. But, as I've said, the collapse of the towers is irrelevant,
and clearly would have formed no part of any false flag operation. So,
there is no reason to disbelieve the official story, is there? You don't
disagree that the planes that slammed into the twin towers were viable
killing machines that slaughtered hundreds on their own account. So,
were the hijackers fake Islamic terrorists bravely giving their lives
for the great CIA? What planet do CTers inhabit? Whatever happened to
CT: The Towers were built to resist an airplane crash and fires.
OC: CTers have a touchingly high regard for the infallibility of
engineers and scientists, except of course when they contradict the
CTers, at which point they become part of the conspiracy. Impact tests
and fire predictions are based on many assumptions and computer
simulations. The more data that goes into the models the better. Next
time, the models will be much more accurate since they have all that
9/11 data now.
As everyone knows, a structure is only as strong as its weakest link.
What's wrong with the official version?...
"The report concluded that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel
infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and
that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained
standing. This was confirmed by an independent study by Purdue
University. W. Gene Corley, the director of the original investigation,
commented that 'the towers really did amazingly well. The terrorist
aircraft didn't bring the buildings down; it was the fire which
followed. It was proven that you could take out two thirds of the
columns in a tower and the building would still stand.' The fires
weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The
sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where
exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the
buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing
them to collapse.