A reasonable alternative motive for the demolition

All other news and developments related to 9/11
kybertech
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:01 am
Contact:

A reasonable alternative motive for the demolition

Unread post by kybertech »

Hello,

this is my first post, and you want an introduction from newcomers: I've come here because it seems impossible to discuss anything media related on ``9/11" on boards like ats and others and I always considered the TV programs to be fraudulent. I never published anything about explicit TV-fakery, but I also think there is no other reasonable explanation for the show.
My focus is more on the motive and possible other reason for the destruction of the wtc complex than the plain reason to air the TV-Program.

I realise there are some attempts to explain missing ``amateur" footage like electronics scrambling devices along with evidence which support this conclusion (defunct broadcasting and radio equipment)
IMO there exists the strong possibility that this is simply forged information as well. The existence of such technology and it's possible deployment are not the simplest explanation. You guys underestimate the fear factor involved in this propaganda show along with the likeliness of a wider conspiracy*.

*) Either fear induced by the propaganda on and after 9/11 or possible a prior unknown phenomena. This would involve a substantial amount of people (in the whole percent range)

If one considers this possibility there are some other explanations for the events:
1.) The news Media might have been the only perpetrator. The demolition went on as planned officially but all parties decided to go along once the program was on air.
2.) Considering a conspiracy due to an unknown phenomena (which were to cover up) the animations may have been done by non professionals instead of deliberate screw ups.
3.) Considering a wider conspiracy the timeline for the events may differ substantially from the TV-show. For ex. the WTC might have been demolished substantially prior or even after.

At last all these explanations are non exclusive, the could all be true considering the evidence which is reasonably reliable to all of us.
While 1.) may be highly probable the more interesting things are point 2. and 3. which I consider very likely but it is nearly impossible to proof by physical evidence. I will write down my suspicions after some feedback, a hint is the still unexplained and (deliberately) wrong interpretation of the "The Global Consciousness Project" data during that time-frame and activities of people in cyberspace in the weeks before.
fred
Banned
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Contact:

Unread post by fred »

Well, as much as they might like to, the media can't blow up an empty section of the Pentagon all by themselves.

They need some cooperation from the Military and the SECDEF for that.

In a sense, part of 9/11 was a big distraction operation to get a bunch of domestic issues under control. A bunch of people would have gone to prison for financial frauds and corruption, but that all got forgotten with the exciting new wars. 9/11 helped get ENRON and Worldcom out of the news.

Now Obama needs some help from the fake space aliens. According to the New York Post, UFO's have been menacing Chelsea.

Maybe Obama's unpopular enough to run with Ronald Regan's Space Invaders Bluebeam psyop. They've already done the crop circles, the swirling sky in Norway, the weird lights at the airport, and now they're testing the waters with aliens over Chelsea.

---
NY Post Says Hundreds See UFO In Chelsea and Call NYPD

UFO brings streets of New York to a standstill
Daily Mail - Daniel Bates - ‎53 minutes ago‎
A mysterious set of shiny objects sparked a UFO alert over Manhattan when they were spied drifting over the trendy Chelsea district. ...
Manhattan New York UFO ? Sightings with VIDEO Only Kent
UFO Spotted Flying High Over Streets Of NYC? Los Angeles Times
Mysterious Objects Flying Over Chelsea Spark UFO Frenzy DNAinfo
WFMY News 2 - Dots Period
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

kybertech @ Oct 14 2010, 03:44 PM wrote: Hello,

this is my first post, and you want an introduction from newcomers: I've come here because it seems impossible to discuss anything media related on ``9/11" on boards like ats and others and I always considered the TV programs to be fraudulent. I never published anything about explicit TV-fakery, but I also think there is no other reasonable explanation for the show.
Kybertech,

This is not an introduction of yourself. You are required to do so here:

http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shac ... wtopic=414

Let me say that your introductory post strikes me as incomprehensible and nonsensical. You will get a second chance to express yourself more clearly - but not a third if I see no coherent and fact-based outline in your reasoning.
http://www.septemberclues.org
idschmyd
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:33 pm
Contact:

Unread post by idschmyd »

I think he’s saying that The Media planned the destruction of the WTC to increase viewing figures and up advertising revenue, and once it went live on air governments decided to take advantage of the situation and spin it into a war opportunity. Meanwhile Joe Public was so scared of the bosses that he buried his orignial photos and produced lots of fakes to demonstrate his compliance and to win brownie points. It's way out there, but it just be might be...

nah.
kybertech
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:01 am
Contact:

Unread post by kybertech »

@simon

I have done that in the thread, already I thought a new post is the way at first. I hope my age and where I live are ok, there is just so much information which I am willing to post about myself on a message board.
If this is about the content of my thread, please be patient I did not anticipate such a quick response and I'll have to get my information together. I realize some of my thread started with specuation, the problem is if you only consider first hand evidence (what you saw on your TV screen, where the vicsim lists come from etc..) there is not much to work with on the actual demolitions and what happend IRL. I hope speculation will be tolerated to this extent.

@fred

You are right, of course the news-media cannot blow up a part of the pentagon.
However: The things the TV-program showed of the pentagon were all later on and the building must have been much more private. Your argument is certainly a strong one against my point 1.
But it does not rule out the possibility that the pentagon was either not damaged the way we were told or at all at least at the time they told us (requires wide conspiracy or compliance) or that it was also part of a official project (The building part may have been subject to restoration efforts)

Nevertheless point 1. might simply be false.

As for the demolition as the cover-up theory, simple corruption is certainly possible but IMO it does not give a particular strong motive. It seems that those in power are quite capable of covering things up without blowing things up ;)
I will post more on this and the little evidence I think there is on a follow-up post. (see my response to simon)
Post Reply