I'm just doing this to see what I might think, okay?
I have been discussing "conspiracy theories" with Edison_Carter in private messages, and I asked him if we could take the discussion into the public zones here. E_C kindly agreed, so I would like to initiate a thread which deals with unanswered questions regarding governmental involvement in crime, and, specifically, governmental involvement in the creation of terrorism.
I had made a comment on another thread to the effect that elements within the U.S. government assisted in the events of 911. That is a fairly bizzare statement, on the surface of it. I'll admit that it sounds far-fetched. Yet there are some anomalies involved in the government's story about what happened on 911. For instance, George W. Bush himself is recorded saying that he saw on a tv screen the first plane hit the first tower. At the time he said that, there was no known film of that first plane hitting the tower, and Bush now knows for a fact that he could not have seen that plane hit the tower as he said he did. We now know that after all, he *could* see it, but only if his "tv screen" was connected with a Secret Service command-and-control communications grid being operated that morning by Dick Cheney and his staff. Cheney, we learned recently, was in charge of five separate "wargames" drills on the morning of 911. We'll get into that later, but I mention it here simply to show that by Bush's own mouth, he has caught himself in a lie. Nobody out here in the civilian world saw the footage of the first flight hitting the first tower, not until much later. Bush's statement, which I repeat was recorded, is an anomaly.
There are quite a few very interesting questions, of which the above is one example. Another example is the official Pentagon photos shot immediately after the incident at the Pentagon. The government says a 757 hit the Pentagon. Yet in the photos issued by the Pentagon, there is no wreckage of a 757, and the structural damage which was apparent after the event suggests that there is no way a 757 could have impacted the Pentagon. More on that laters.
This topic is huge, and I would like to take the reader back in time, back in American history, prior to looking directly at the events of 911 and the government's explanations of those events. I would like to note for the reader that I am not "stating" anything as fact, but am instead simply asking questions which the media refuses to ask. I hope some of the readers here will join in. I think we could use this thread to organize a lot of presently-chaotic consciousness about who committed the acts of 911, and why, and who benefitted.
Before I bring up some questions asked of me by Edison_Carter, and attempt to answer them, please allow me to first set the stage for my personal perspective. Let's take a look at our mentality, just briefly, and then let's go way back in time....
~
Okay, I'm teaching to myself here, but I'm doing so by speaking with you, as I imagine that you are external to "me" and are therefore real. Given that you are you and I am me, I'll ask for your forgiveness right up front. I'm sorry I feel that I must use you to teach myself.
The mind is something, as I presume all possessed of one might agree. Whatever it is, our five carnal senses cannot apprehend it, and that is despite the belief that a mind owns a body which cannot prove that its owner, the mind, exists. Can't smell or hear a mind, nor feel it nor see it nor taste it. Can't take out a loan on it, trade it, rent it (well, maybe rent it..... ) weigh it, displace water with it, or any other useful commerce in which our bodily existence marks its days and ways
The mind is said to possess the potential for a "sixth sense", be that via inspiration, intuition, or a lifespan's experiential summation. That is what some people say. I enjoy using my mind as something other than a "sense", such as any "body" might possess. To call my mind a mere "sense", like the sense of hearing or tasting, would be to place the template of finite pronouncement upon what was intrinsically the infinite; in other words, it would be an attempt to define the infinite. Definition and infinition exist as poles of the same spectrum, do they not?
Personally, I think the mind is simply the sum of its contents, comprising itself of thoughts, psychegies, emotions, memory, imagery, and a sublime associative process which conceptualizes, as an example and among other manifest things, the root of figurative language.
To understand anything, to "know" anything, we rely upon our minds. But the "set" of the mind has much to do with our perception, and that is important as we try to unravel the contradictions we've been given in the government's explanations of 911. For instance, if I were to say to you that an organized, structured conspiracy to take over the U.S. Federal government has existed for a long time in this country, your pre-911 consciousness would tend to object to such a "conspiracy theory". I don't blame you, as I myself have long resisted succumbing to the tempting idea of a conspiracy.
The terrorists don't have armies, yet we send forth our armies to conquer them. Pray, how can an army shoot, blow up, gas or bomb a hatred which exists in the minds of the targeted people? Why do we not consider approaching the war on terror from a platform of intelligence, (and here I do not mean CIA-type "intelligence", but genuine intelligence unmotivated by greed or quest), a platform featuring that plank which states: hatred is an invisible enemy which must be approached through the correct use of the mind instead of by the arraying of tanks and bombs and military police tactics upon innocent people.
But we can't *afford* to think that way, not up on the Hill in DC or over at the Pentagon or down at Langley; not even on Wall Street, which itself now is dependant upon the others' combined functions and operations. I'm guessing that when Colin Powell leaves or is disposed of in the coming Presidential cycle, he shall have a view from the top of the U.S. State Department stored neatly inside his mind, and I'll guess further that after a respectable lapse of months or maybe even a few years Colin Powell shall issue commentary relative to my statement, that we can't *afford* to cease with the military and its umbilically outsourced dependents, the Defense Contractors. You know that I mean here the coat-and-tie crowd, the important cats who make the bombs and the stuff that goes boom in the night, and the anthrax and unspeakable bio/chem wmds and the domestic police "research and development", and worse like DARPA contractors and "policy think tanks" and NGOs and etc and etc.
Cut all that money-flow out of the Wall Street charts and the banks will go bust overnight and we all know it. It is a mechanism with momentum, and that momentum is achieving quantum acceleration as we speak.
Yet we know that the mechanism was built with deliberation, that it was planned, charted, graphed, projected, implemented, deployed, managed, even guarded every step of the way since dating back from the American Revolution and the birth of this sovereign nation-state.
And we know that if the mechanism requires its own unique and primary infrastructure for the strongest extension of its enforceable authority, that infrastructure itself has to be managed.
Question: Who are the managers who planned Western policy while they were being thrown out of this country by George Washington's troops not so long ago? Who called Thomas Jefferson's inaugural speech "radical usurpation"? Who had the ties with British banking and commerce whilst establishing this nation's collegiate community? Who resisted the Revolution and remained loyal to the British crown? And who ran the Clipper ship fleets for England's opium trade into China?
There were many Loyalists within the ranks of the Tory Party at the founding of this nation. Some of them did not take well to defeat by a rag-tag band of rebellious misfits who, as thought by the loyalists and Tories, should have gotten along with the King's law, the King's economy, the King's taxes, the King's security forces. Either love the Colonies or leave 'em. Rebelling against the law of the land, the order of the day, the very throne which sustained the immigrations into America, was treasonous, wickedly evil, and totally unnecessary. Besides, it could greatly harm the profitability of long-established business connections back in England. So let's have none of this revolution talk!
I note that mood simply to indicate that the Tory Party of the early 1800s had a conscious logic as their mindset, and that logic was a loyalty to the King, who buttered their bread. Such businesses as held fast to British ties even after the Revolution included the Russell Company of Boston, prime jewel of the Russell family, themselves New England Tories.
Questions: Could the elite of the New England Tory families, families such as the Lows, Pierponts, Edwards, Delanos, all of them, have, in defeat but not resignation, gone "underground" by using their British wealth to found the American university system? Could they from there have moved their sons and fellow Loyalists into seats of State and Federal governance? Could their wealth be applied to enterprising American banking? Could their wealth have found leverage on Wall Street? Could they have set in motion a gradual, incremental assault upon George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's America -- from *within*? Could that assault be poised now, a mere two centuries later, to announce its ownership of the United States Government?
Question: Could an infrastructure of banking, finance, trade, industry, and business present the potential of influence through lobbying the Federal Government? And if these social institutions and others unmentioned can be shown to be inter-related through family interaction and relationships for two centuries, while lobbying the Federal Government, can we not correctly state that it is "possible" that within the legacy of American history exists, to this day, the plot of the Tory Loyalists of New England to re-take what Washington's and Jefferson's Revolution had ripped in violence from the throne of England?
Question: If so, does there not at least exist the *possibility*, however remote or seemingly unlikely, of a conspiracy?
~
Okay. This is a place where anyone is welcome to voice one's ideas on "conspiracy theories". I'll get my tinfoil hat out and dust it off and will try to keep the thread contained to conspiracies which may have affected "terrorism" in general. Let's have some fun here, before the guys with the white coats come to take me away....
Elias
