Hey! Did Bush hijack my talking point?

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Hey! Did Bush hijack my talking point?

Postby IanEye » Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:26 am

Hello RI Board,<br>I read Jeff's latest entry "Secret Agent Man" regarding Bush's "slip" regarding explosives inside WTC in addition to planes hitting the towers with some unease, I felt as if a major 9/11 "talking point" of mine was being coopted by W himself.<br><br>I posted on this idea here:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm40.showMessage?topicID=252.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=252.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Oh, what the heck, I'll just cut and paste<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Whenever I'm in a group of people who start talking about 9/11 and the WTC Towers, the topic of Controlled Demo will come up eventually. The pro and cons of the theory get polarized very quickly. I always try to interject with the following statement, "If you accept as fact that in 1993 security was breached at the WTC and Islamic Fundamentalists were able to plant explosives inside the towers and detonate them, then that sets a precedent. Therefore to merely consider the idea that explosives were planted in 2001 isn't irrational".<br>This usually calms things down a bit because:<br>the pro CD people like the vaildation that they are not crazy<br><br>the anti CD people usually feel comfortable acknowledging terrorist acts in the "Age of Clinton"<br><br>Then, if people will oblige me I go a little further and talk about the primary goal of terrorism as a form of mind control.<br><br>When the PLO would have a bomber board a bus in Israel and blow it up, the primary goal wasn't the 13 people killed and the 28 wounded. The success of the mission was in how many hundreds [or thousands] of Isrealites were freaked out about riding the bus the next day.<br>BUT, I read an interview with Yasser Arafat [interviewer was Oriana Fallaci I believe] where he talked about one time they had three bombers on a bus, but the Isreali press kept saying it was just one lone female bomber. At first he was upset because this wasn't accurate, but then he realized the Isreali version was MORE terrifying and thus, even more of a success. The point being that the actual TRUTH of how the bus exploded was much less important than the Public's IMPRESSION of how the bus exploded.<br><br>It seems to me that the crux of 9/11 as an act of terrorist THEATER is the second plane crash. The one thousands [millions?] of people saw live on tv.<br>For those that argue that jet fuel alone brought down the first tower hit, I just let them make the argument and then concede that to them. Because every tenet of their argument stands in the way of why the second tower hit falls [and falls first].<br><br>The way I see it, the planners of 9/11 HAD to have that giant fireball of the second plane crash, that is what sears the event into the Public's imagination. But the giant fireball uses up a large amount of the fuel in the plane, thus the logic of their argument about the first tower [a full plane's worth of jet fuel can make a building fall] is not logically applicable to the second tower hit.<br><br>The primary goal is to have the Public believe that the relatively simple act of flying a plane into a skyscraper makes the skyscraper fall down. The modern accomplishments of Society are used against it, very Scary oooohhhh. As long as the public buys this, it doesn't matter to the Producer and the Director and the Stage Manager if they need to invest in further endevours to weaken the building's structure in order for the building to actually fall down.<br><br>In a way, it is kind of like the Loaves & Fishes story, the miracle occurs because everyone WANTS it to occur, thus they put their individual greed aside and don't take a big hunk of the bread so that by the time the bread and fish has been passed around there is still plenty left. The masses want to buy into the act of Theater.<br><br>The big fireball is impressive [ooh ahh] so an individual willingly ingores the fact that the plane has shot it's load at that point and doesn't have enough mojo left to bring the building down on it's own [and again, the second tower hit falls first, wow! magic!!].<br><br>Sorry to go on and on about this. I guess the point I am trying to make is that when in a group I simply say that there is a bona fide precedent for the security of the WTC being breached and to leave open the mere possibilty of CD is in no way crazy or irrational, in fact, as an act of theater, CD is a wise investment in bringing about a successful act of mind control.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br><br>I always like to view 9/11 as an act of Theatre, and put myself in the role of "Stage Manager". What does the Director want to convey to the audience, and how do I help him bring that impression about? <br><br>If he wants to have the audience think two planes made two giant buildings fall down but isn't sure two planes CAN make two giant buildings fall down, how do I help him "make" it happen as part of a successful piece of Theatre?<br><br>Anyway, my hope in conveying this concept to a listener was always that they would let their mind sift a few layers deeper than where the "Directors of Corporate Media" want them to go. But now I feel like if I go with this concept they might just unpack the New Improved Version of 9/11 that the Bush crowd is cooking up from their Media saturated memory banks and be satisfied with that. Oh well, back to the drawing board........<br><br><br>Thanks for reading,<br>Hombre Secreto!<br>IanEye <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
IanEye
 
Posts: 4856
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:33 pm
Blog: View Blog (29)

Re: Hey! Did Bush hijack my talking point?

Postby OnoI812 » Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:46 pm

Condi Rice let the B word slip this morning on the "Today show"<br>while she was doing an in studio interview with Matt Lauer.<br>Bombs and WTC in the same sentence, but she didn't clarify whether it was 1993 or 9/11.<br><br>I don't have the exact quote but she was talking about why torture was good, and how it has already yeilded valuable results that have already protected American citizens. She then listed some examples, one of which was information about BOMBS(not bomb) in the world trade center.<br><br>Is it just me or does this Administration have an awful lot of power, travelling back in time and all to torture folks? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=onoi812>OnoI812</A> at: 9/19/06 1:10 pm<br></i>
OnoI812
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

z

Postby orz » Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:02 pm

anything's possible... if they just just mention 'bombs' and 'wtc' enough times, then in ten years or so everyone will be laughing at those wacky internet conspiricies that the WTC was destroyed by planes and not, as everyone knows, by liquid dirty scalar demolition explosives smuggled into the buildings in 1991 by Islamoscientific Evolutiofascists George W Clinton and Osama Saddam Laden. <p></p><i></i>
orz
 
Posts: 4107
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:25 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Bush Family

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest