Q about theory in "9/11 The Ultimate Truth"

[aragorn]

Hi,

I've just finished reading the first part of 9/11 The Ultimate Truth. This is actually the second time I'm reading the book - the first time being a e-book. Now I have the paper back, 2nd edition. The book is excellent - thank you very much!

I still haven't quite understood the theory presented in the book about flight 77 and the "insurance" with Barbara Olson etc.; I'm hoping that someone could explain it to me. Now, I understand that, according to the theory, flight 77 wasn't in the original plan of the 'Neo-Cons". So the Israeli forces surprised the Bush Cabal with hijacking this "new" plane 77 - thus creating a real panic amongst them...they didn't have full knowledge of what was going to happen. And with the "drone" not hitting the White House they created more confusion.

But what where/is the Isrealis "blackmailing" the US with? In the book it says that the Bush Cabal had been check mated - with what exactly? What is the message that Barbara delivers to her "masters"? I mean, the life of Barbra Olson could certainly not have ment anything to these people. Where they threatening to crash the flight 77 somewhere? Or is the "insurance" the possible testimony of B. Olson and here being alive? Wasn't the call by B. Olson the only "real" witness of flight 77 being hijacked - couldn't the Bush Cabal have just denied flight 77 ever been taken? Or was Ted Olson going public about the call before the pentagon was hit...?

Sorry, my neurons are obviously not firing as they should. It would be nice to understand this though ;)

 

[Joe]

The idea is that it is impossible to "prove" that Flight 77 hit the pentagon in the way that it can be proven that flights 11 and 175 hit the WTC. Why? Because everyone saw flights 11 and 175 hitting the WTC, but no one saw Flight 77 hit the pentagon, because it didn't. It is possible, or probable, that evidence does exist to show that it was not Flight 77 at the Pentagon, and this is the nature of the blackmail.

Babs Olsen was the messenger to the Bush cabal of the nature of Flight 77 and the Pentagon attack. She relayed the precise details and what they portended. Not only would the Bush gang use 9/11 to wage wars of conquest as they had planned, but they would wage those wars according to the agenda of the "Israeli contingent".

Consider the difference between Flight 77 really hitting the Pentagon and being propagandised in the same way as the planes at the WTC and Flight 93. Imagine the videos of the plane coming in, hitting not the side at low level but barreling in to the top and causing uncontrolled damage, and all this being played over and over again as at the WTC. Case closed, just like the WTC.

Then consider what actually happened. No video, a small hole that couldn't possibly have been caused by a 757. A 757 allegedly flying at 2 feet about the ground, a small punch out hole three rings in. No debris from a large airliner, several rescue officials saying this. Several people saying that they saw a small "jet", not a 757.

Right there the "Bush gang" have a problem. If the media are instructed to latch on to it, the Bush government could be easily exposed. But if the media are told to ignore it, then it can, more or less, be made to "go away". They were not so easily exposed on the WTC attacks because everyone saw planes fly into the buildings, so the main evidence for the government's claim about the attacks was in place there, but not at the Pentagon. So the "Bush gang" had a choice to make, get in line, or be exposed.

I'm not suggesting that the "Israel gang" would have exposed the entire scheme as being a fake attack, because they needed it as much as the Bush gang did, if not moreso. But they could have released video of a global hawk hitting the Pentagon, and allowed the media to create a scandal of how Osama bin laden got a hold of a US military drone. That would have been enough to oust Bush and Co.

 

[aragorn]

I'm not suggesting that the "Israel gang" would have exposed the entire scheme as being a fake attack, because they needed it as much as the Bush gang did, if not moreso. But they could have released video of a global hawk hitting the Pentagon, and allowed the media to create a scandal of how Osama bin laden got a hold of a US military drone. That would have been enough to oust Bush and Co.

Many thanks for your answer. I went back reading and found the passage on page 135: "[...] while two smaller light aircraft packing with explosives would be flown into the Pentagon and the White House creating a "cover" for the conspirators." Using a sophisticated drone maybe then wasn't in "the original plan" and exposing this could bust the Bush Cabal as you say. So in the plan, as far as the Bush gang knew, the picture was going to be a crazy Muslim suicide bomber flying into the Pentagon with a little plane?

And on page 136 (last sentence) they write: "Of course, the evidence that a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon and that Barbara Olson is still alive is firmly in the hands of the Israeli contingent: insurance". So, if necessary, the 'Israelis' would provide the details and persons involved (maybe some video footage of their own) of the Global Hawk operation. But I still don't understand why it was necessary to the 'Israelis' to hijack flight 77 in the first place? Or where they providing a way out to the Bush gang? It would make more sense, if the information about flight 77 being hijacked reached the media before the Pentagon being hit. Is this maybe suggested in the book somewhere, in that case I've missed it. But even this being the case, the option to claim flight 77 hitting the Pentagon wasn't the only option was it? It could have been flown god knows where. So as I understand this (at least for now), the option was used because there was little time and it provided the Bush Cabal a reasonably good cover. It was a bait, and they took it.

Is there any hope for me understanding this...

 

[Laura]

Keep in mind that what we are proposing is just theoretical, based on the available facts. We are talking about pathological deviants here, and it is difficult to think the way they think even under optimal conditions.

Basically, it looks like the plan for the Pentagon and White House was quite different than claiming a jetliner hit. However, it is also quite possible that they planned to piggy back the belief in the jetliner hitting the Pentagon on the fact that jetliners hit the WTC and were firmly convinced that they could do it. But it doesn't look that way based on the strange reports of Babs Olson via her hubby Ted, and the odd, confused behavior of Bush and Co at the time. Something was obviously amiss.

Flight 77 was "missing" and it had to be accounted for. That the fact that Flight 77 was involved did not hit the media before the Pentagon is crucial to understand that it was not part of the plan. What were they going to do?

Announce that Flight 77 had also been hijacked with the wife of a government official onboard?

If they did that, the public would focus on the fate of Babs Olson - human interest - and very little else would matter until the fate of Flight 77 was known.

How could they reveal the fate of Flight 77? They didn't have plans in place to go chasing an airliner all over the place nor a fake one to shoot down and say "see, here it is!"

From the evidence, it looks like the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon was a last minute adjustment to explain where it was, to give it closure even if it was obvious that the facts on the ground did not fit an airliner hitting the building. And so all the attention was diverted away from the Pentagon attack when, in fact, that should have been the most publicized - geeze, to have the command center of your military hit? And it's not played to the max?

All of these things (and more in the book) suggest a double cross "insurance" aspect to the Flight 77 debacle. And even if we cannot fully know all the details or the reasons because we do not have access to all the data, we can speculate.

Expecting us to be able to explain everything they were thinking and why is like expecting us to know where Flight 77 actually is today, and being able to prove it. Remember, we didn't commit the crime, we are just looking over the crime scene evidence and speculating based on what is evident. Without one of the criminals coming forward to tell us exactly what DID happen, it will always be only our best guess.

 

[aragorn]

Thank you Laura, I'm grateful that you could spend some time answering my questions. Knowing how brilliant you guys are I just wanted to understand your theory correctly. Understanding this is probably not the most important thing, but the problematic flight 77 has just been nagging my mind the last two days not leaving me alone

So after reading your post I read the pages under discussion once more; I suddenly noticed the mention of the remote controlled nuke (on p. 136). Hadn't paid attention to that earlier! Yes, that would be one more threat to the US gang. Maybe that's what was carried away under the blue plastic draper after the attack...

So now I understand, following the line of thinking in the book, that the 'Israelis' did have all the cards. But the question is, what exactly did they want, what did they demand? What would there be to negotiate about? As I've understood they could have said something like: "From now on be sure to follow our policies. And should you be under pressure you'll not tell about our involvment - Otherwise we'll destroy the Pentagon and expose flight 77 for what it really was and incriminating you." But if they (maybe) had a nuclear warhead ready to explode inside the Pentagon, surely the demands (reward) was something more substantial. Just hypothesizing: the 'US' would receive the codes to disarm the nuke in exchange for something. And the whole messy flight 77 business could just be 'playing around' and confusing things for the Bush gang (and for 9/11 truthers!) - making them more controllable.



Apropos, why don't they (US) make a fake video showing the 77 - that couldn't be too hard to do?

 

[Laura]

Apropos, why don't they (US) make a fake video showing the 77 - that couldn't be too hard to do?

That has exercised me to no end too. Obviously it COULD be done and settle the hash once and for all, right?

So why don't they do it?

Is it to keep the whole incident deliberately ambiguous? Sort of like Transmarginal Inhibition? Keep the uncertainty going, the speculations going, and so on?

Or is it because they are afraid that if they do produce such a video it could too easily be taken apart by experts?

Or are they afraid of the photos that were taken from the Space Station that were shown to Thierry Meyssan?

There is obviously a LOT we do not know that would make sense if some other pieces of the puzzle became known, or if someone "in the know" leaked a few more clues.

One thing of which I am still convinced is that the Pentagon Strike IS the weakest link in the whole affair.

Unfortunately, the criminals themselves conducted the "forensic investigation" and destroyed the evidence except for what little we can collect from photos and testimony and reports.

 

[aragorn]

I'm sure Poirot could solve this mystery for us in no time

Maybe the answer is simple: they are just too lazy, arrogant and busy to tie these loose ends. And I believe they certainly enjoy following all the speculations - as long as they don't feel threatened (maybe psychopaths never do?). Keep the people busy, busy, busy...chasing ghosts.

 

[vinny]

Apropos, why don't they (US) make a fake video showing the 77 - that couldn't be too hard to do?

That has exercised me to no end too. Obviously it COULD be done and settle the hash once and for all, right?

So why don't they do it?

I think that it is possibly just to keep everyone 'stewing'. Almost like it creates a kind of psychological dependence - like a fixation that causes an energy drain - it's this huge psychological wound to the American people that is deliberately kept festering, and the PTB don't wanna put a sticking plaster on it.

It's this thing that is permanently unresolved in so many peoples minds, including I think a lot who subconsciously can't accept it but have consciously denied it, (and there are a lot of weird and wonderful theories and frantic justifications to try to plug the gap.)

Then when they take all this huge amount of warmongering and totalitarian-state action since, totally using 9-11 as the reason, then it is like they are saying "see, we can mess with your minds. we're giving you a reason that you don't even believe, and you STILL have to take it"

So, it's possible they'd do that anyway, even without all the double-cross possibilities going on behind the scenes to complicate things.

 

[Pierre]

Apropos, why don't they (US) make a fake video showing the 77 - that couldn't be too hard to do?

That has exercised me to no end too. Obviously it COULD be done and settle the hash once and for all, right?

So why don't they do it?

I think that it is possibly just to keep everyone 'stewing'. Almost like it creates a kind of psychological dependence - like a fixation that causes an energy drain - it's this huge psychological wound to the American people that is deliberately kept festering, and the PTB don't wanna put a sticking plaster on it.

Yes it's a bit like when a family member disappears. The ones who remain suffer endlessly, they just want to know the truth even it means that the missing one is dead. Thus they would finally be able to grieve.

So this lasting doubt is a kind of torture.

If we hypothesize that :
* 4D STS rule the game,
* Mossad and similar organizations are at the apex of 3D STS and some kind of relay between 4D SDS entities and humanity
* 4D STS feed on our negative emotions.

then maintaining doubts around a major collective trauma like 9/11 is a perfect way to provide a massive and lasting source of food.

 

[Nienna]

Yes it's a bit like when a family member disappears. The ones who remain suffer endlessly, they just want to know the truth even it means that the missing one is dead. Thus they would finally be able to grieve.

So this lasting doubt is a kind of torture.

If we hypothesize that :
* 4D STS rule the game,
* Mossad and similar organizations are at the apex of 3D STS and some kind of relay between 4D SDS entities and humanity
* 4D STS feed on our negative emotions.

then maintaining doubts around a major collective trauma like 9/11 is a perfect way to provide a massive and lasting source of food.

This is a possibility, but with all of the different wars going on worldwide, I would think that these are creating a terrific amount of suffering and despair, maiming and death for food consumption for the 4dSTS. Enough even to store some for later use.

Just my 2 cents

Edit: Okay, I will add that, as with everything else, there's always room for more so this could just be more food for the glutenous.

 

[aragorn]

The light detox program I'm on must be doing some good!

While sitting in the sauna I finally got my neurons firing properly regarding this trivial topic of mine. The key (for me) to understand WHY the unexpected highjacking of flight 77 was so problematic to the "neocons" where the relatives, friends and family members of those who died/got murdered on that plane.

As stated earlier, the neocons hadn't prepared a staged event for the flight 77, because it wasn't in the original plan. So when the plane was suddenly taken the concern was: how to explain what happened to it and especially to those mourning the dead ? If the plane was e.g. flown somewhere never to be found, the corpses couldn't be moved and the crime scene couldn't be "fixed". So if it would come out that flight 77 was hijacked and disappeared (this would come out anyway because the family members would be wondering what happened to their loved ones) there would be demands to sort it out. And in case the "interest of the public" would die out the "Israelis" could always let the public know of Barb Olson being alive.

This could all have been probably understood from the excellent book...it just took me a while

No I can sleep more restfully...

 

[liltroofer]

Because everyone saw flights 11 and 175 hitting the WTC

That's not quite true.

From my witness to 9/11, the first tower merely exploded with nothing hitting it.

The second tower was hit by something, but he could not identify what it was. Many reports say a "small" plane.

Are we ignoring those reports?

 

[anart]

So, you have one witness who said nothing hit the tower and that has caused you to buy into it? One witness? Was he simultaneously on all sides of the tower to see? What about the thousands of witnesses who saw both planes. Enough is enough, liltroofer - time to take your agenda elsewhere.