Why
is any of this relevant??? - part 1,
'Kick-off'
2001
Dragon symbols are not of course ubiquitous in modern culture, there
are no dragons decorating the White House or the logos of large
corporations. Yet the Sumerian model described in the previous
post lies at the root of the heirarchical societal model which has been
with us since
antiquity. That doesn't mean that those running the show
presently are aware of this history, nor that such a societal model
might not have developed without Sumer and its dragon-elite ... but it
did.
What follows will seem totally unrelated to Sumer and the dragon, but
to get a feel for how that might be relevant
to the
modern age some other ground has to be covered first - and I prefer not
to take short cuts.
This whole journey for me began after 9/11. Something about
it just didn't seem right, and the more I looked into it the more
suspicious I became. I won't go into all the details here, that
would take forever ... suffice to say that I
became convinced that 9/11 was an elaborate hoax.
I was not satisfied however with the prevailing wind that blew
through the early 'truth movement' that the Bush administration was
behind 9/11, obstensibly simply to start a war for an oil pipeline in
Afghanistan and another one for oil in Iraq. My hunch was based
on many things, one of them being the bizarre case of the "dancing
Israelis".
The dancing Israelis were five Mossad agents who were observed
celebrating while filming
the 9/11 event from several locations across the Hudson in New
Jersey. They conspicuously "high-fived" and danced as
the twin towers fell, almost as if they were trying to get arrested,
which they were. They immediately identified themselves to the
police as
being
Israeli, and it became clear later that some or all of them were or had
been members of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. This
led a lot of internet bloggers to
proclaim, "See?? It's a Zionist conspiracy, Israel was behind it!!!".
Hmmmm. Something doesn't seem right about it, they were too
overt. If these guys were with Mossad and had foreknowlege of the
event (and it seems they did, they had their camera set-up in the first
location beforehand), you would think they would keep quiet - why try to get arrested, why try to point the finger at
Israel? It makes no sense!
Actually, it does make sense, you just have to do some
mental
gymnastics and a lot of pondering (for a couple of years in my case
LoL) to figure it out. There are two themes at work here, I
believe.
Firstly, there would be no down side for the perpetrators to allow
Israel to be implicated in the attacks. Anyone accusing Israel of
(single-handedly) pulling off something
like 9/11, since that would entail Israeli operatives having
access to the towers, the planes, Pentagon defenses, NORAD, etc., would
be regarded as kooks. No one would take
such a charge seriously. Furthermore it would allow the
"anti-semite" card to be played against those who questioned the
official account. The second part of the equation
has to do with something a very smart gentleman from Ann Arbor,
Michigan termed, 'Open Complicity' (the title of a video he made).
The best way to explain 'open complicity' is to draw an analogy from
the Mafia. An underling trying to make his way into the inner
circle must perform certain tasks, maybe murder, which his superiors
observe. In this way the underling proves his loyalty, and his
superiors obtain "dirt" on the potential initiate. By the logic
of 'open complicity', Israel, via the dancing Israelis, stuck its @ss
out just a little bit - not enough to put the Mossad in any real
danger, but enough for the true conspirators to "get some dirt" on
Israel and document their involvement. There are several
other instances of flagrant incompetence, percieved stupidity or
profiteering related to
9/11 which can potentially be attributed to Open Complicity, the
"put-options" issue being one of the most obvious. The SEC and
FBI
investigated large volumes of put-option trades (bets that those stocks
would fall) placed on airline
and insurance companies adversely affected by and purchased during the
week preceding 9/11. No one was ever named. In
effect, those who
profited were allowed to stay unidentified, but were put on notice ...
keep your mouths shut. (To be precise, there were some
traders who never collected their profits.) Other examples
of "open complicity" might include Larry Silverstein's odd admission on
PBS regarding the collapse of WTC7 that he told the Fire Chief to
"pull-it", the fact that the Secret Service did not wisk president Bush out of an
elementary classroom once it became known that the country was under
attack (all on video tape), and the incredible case of the BBC
"cock-up".
About the time that I figured out that Mossad (Israel) was somehow
involved but only in a supporting role, the internet lit up like a
Christmas tree when
archival footage surfaced of the BBC reporting the collapse of World
Trade Center Building #7 ... 20 minutes
before it happened (!!!).
For those unfamiliar with this event, WTC7 (also known as the Salomon
Brothers building),
which hadn't been hit by a
plane, stood a hundred yards from the twin towers and inexplicably
collapsed into rubble at about 5:20 in the afternoon of 9/11.
(Admittedly, some fires had broken out on a few floors of the building,
but they were minor, as is evidenced in photos - and how did those
fires get started?)
If
you haven't seen the footage of the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7
(before it
happened), here's a link -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
 |
Note that WTC7 stands mockingly behind BBC correspondent Jane Stanley's
shoulder in the distance as she and her London associate discuss the
collapse (past tense) of the same building. The BBC
responded to hundreds of queries about this footage by stating
simply
that it was a "cock-up". A mistake.
Huhh!?? - Maybe, if the building hadn't actually collapsed at
free-fall speed into its own
foot-print a couple of minutes after the live feed from Ms. Stanley to
London suddenly went dead, someone might buy that it was just a
"cock-up". The problem is, BBC, you were right. WTC7, which
hadn't been hit by a plane, did collapse, just as you said it
did-would.
Add to all that, the fact that Britain has rallied hand-in-hand with
the US in incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq (while other countries
have been far less enthusiastic), and that Israel is a benificiary of
these aggressions against Arab nations, it didn't escape my notice that
the US, Britain and Israel were in bed together regarding the current
"war on terror" for which 9/11 was the seed.
So if elements within the governments or intelligence agencies of not
only the
US, but of Israel and Britain were somehow complicit in the attacks of
9/11 then we have to accept that
there are also powerful people behind the scenes with enough
connections to organize such a clandistine team effort and keep it
covered it up. When you factor in the willingness of mass
media to both act as cheerleaders in the war on terror and marginalize
anyone questioning what really happend on 9/11, then it becomes obvious
we are dealing with something few people are equipped to wrap
their heads around.
Some notes on
the above before moving on ... first, apart from the BBC
"cock-up" there is no indication that Britain played any role in the
events of 9/11. However the 7/7 subway bombings in London show
all the tell-tale signs of a false-flag event. (It was
reported that a bomb blast blew the train floor upward, not down,
indicating the bomb having been under the train not in it. There
are other anomolies, for instance an anti-terrorism exercise involving
the same train stations that were hit was being carried out by the
police that day, much like America's air defenses were busy conducting
numerous war-games and exercises on 9/11, confusing people at NORAD and
the FAA.)
Secondly, who sent the BBC desk news of the collapse of WTC7 too
early? Why
would someone do that? Could such a slip-up really be attributed
to
incompetence? Or, was this another case of 'open complicity',
whereby
the BBC was put on notice ... "you're @ss is exposed now, so tow the
line." ?
Finally it should be noted that stating that the mainstream media
assisted in covering up the truth about the 9/11 attacks does not
infer in any way that every program director, executive or news anchor
working for the major networks knows the truth - they all bought the
cover story hook-line-and-sinker just like everyone else.
It must be the case however that memos got passed down from somewhere,
drawing lines in the sand as to how certain stories were to be spun or
what topics were simply taboo - the proof in the pudding is the fact
that not a peep was ever heard from any of the mainstream media outlets
about bomshell stories such as the BBC's reporting of the collapse of
WTC7 20 minutes before the fact, the discovery of an incendiary
(nano-thermite), both signature residue and unexploded flakes in
samples of WTC
dust by a team of scientists which was published in a peer reviewed
paper, or the analysis of the AA77 Flight Data
Recorder by a team of aviation professionals. (The AA77 FDR
analysis was done by members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, the data they
scoured over with a fine tooth comb for months is official and was
released by the NTSB under a Freedom of Information Act request and are
in direct conflict with the assertion
that American flight 77 hit the Pentagon ... in short, the 'black-box'
says unequivocally that the plane was too high to have hit the Pentagon
and was on a course incompatible with the damage to both the Pentagon
and the surrounding downed light poles. The data also shows that
the cabin door was never opened once the engines had been started for
the duration of the flight.)
The first two of these news items got a fair amount of coverage on
alternate news sites and blogs on the internet, the BBC clip going
viral. Yet the
major outlets simply would not touch these news items ... asssumedly
because they constitute proof that 9/11 wasn't what they told us.
|
Which all leads to the $64,000 question ... Why??? If it was an
"inside job", why was 9/11 carried out?
No one really knows of
course except the people who cooked it up, but
anyone can make a
guess. Here's mine:
To start a global war against Islam. (You can't say that,
it has to be called a global war on terror.)
Which begs the second question, how does war against the Islamic world
serve the global power-brokers?
* Resources. That's where they are - not just in the Middle East,
the Caspian Sea is surrounded by oil and gas reserves, possibly
rivaling those of the Middle East.
Some of these reserves are now trickling out of Central Asia westward
to
European markets, but where Big Oil really wants to export
this oil and gas is eastward, to the energy starved markets of India,
China, Japan and south-east Asia. Afghanistan (which is still
unstable) and the Islamic Republic of Iran block this export route.
* Banking. Islamic rules against usury generally prevent banks in
the
Muslim world from charging interest. Banks in places like Iran
and Sudan make their money from transaction fees, not interest.
These rules against usury make it nearly impossible for the fiat-based
western banking model to gain a foothold in the Muslim world.
* Tightening the screws on freedom. The war on terror has
provided
the excuse to tighten security everywhere, spy on citizens, suppress
free speech and justify
an increasingly overbearing police presence. The Patriot
Act alone gutted half of the bill of rights.
Then there is the fact that "rogue" states targeted in the war on
terror happen(ed) to be enemies of Israel. I would agree
with the assessment that the destruction of Islamic regimes in Israel's
neighborhood has played a role in the reasoning behind the war on
terror ... but ... I don't know for sure if Israel
itself isn't a means to an end, a wedge which was driven into the heart
of the
Muslim world so many decades ago. ... For what reason, to create
a homeland for the Jews? But how does that rational stand up when
one considers that the top Jewish bankers of Europe and their American
allies helped fund Hitler's war machine in the 30's? That the
holocaust (to whatever degree the reported history is accurate) was
permitted (or worse) by those same people in order to encourage
European Jewish migration to Palestine, which had been paltry prior to
WWII?
These are tough questions, which I don't know the answers to. But
the fact that the Hun, Viking, Frank and Israelite branches on the
dragon tree all split off
from the trunk in the pagan Ba'al worshipping northern Levant (northern
Israel/modern Lebanon/Syria), I'm not so sure that the "Jewish
homeland" meme wasn't just a cover story from the beginning.
That's pretty controversial stuff, but very important "stuff".
Clarity on the issue is in fact one of my quests, and subsequent posts
on this site will hopefully lend insight into what the real truth
is.
On a final note, the possible (actually, I would say probable) reasons
I submitted above
for executing 9/11 to kick off a war on terror all serve a
deeper purpose, that is, that the westernization of the Islamic world
and
the
near-tyranical controls on freedom of speech and movement we are
beginning to see in the western world are not so much the end goals
themselves, but rather in preparation for something else.
People hear the alarm bells of an elite plan for "One-World-Government"
all the time these days and many surely think
'oh-gawd, another "conspiracy
theory". But global governance has long been a goal of the
people who really run things ... Aaron Russo talks about this in
several
interviews made before his death, relaying
what he learned from his friend Nicholas Rockefeller; and Federal
Reserve architect Paul Warburg's son, James Paul Warburg, stated in
front of the
the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in February, 1950:
"We shall have
world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only
whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
No joke, that's a quote from the congressional record.
These people, those who already own and control so much (you can
find many of them at yearly Bilderberg Group meetings), are pushing
toward that goal
in earnest now - 9/11 was the
kick-off. The financial crisis is a part of it, and we are
already seeing a move toward a new international currency.
Whether it takes them another 10, 20 or 30 years, by the time this is
all over everything will be digitized, there will
be no national currencies or national sovereignty to speak of. We
may even
all have chips in our arms to carry our data.
One big
"global village" of orderly sheep. ("Behave, or we'll turn off your chip.")
I hate to be negative, but presently that's the course we are on. |
|
|
