:sus-torment: .
Earlier hexbear post with Westley's full resume. In addition to working for the US Air Force and Boeing, he has expertise in computer graphics.
:sus-torment: .
Earlier hexbear post with Westley's full resume. In addition to working for the US Air Force and Boeing, he has expertise in computer graphics.
Or, thats a lot of people to trust to stay quiet. Thats the biggest flaw of any conspiracy theory, people talk. No matter how much you pay them. It was way easier to just look the other way when intelligence reports said an attack was imminent.
new theory: all of them were in on it but they ran them into the towers to keep em quiet :think-about-it:
lmao, well, I stand by the principal of K.I.S.S.(keep it simple, stupid). They knew something would happen, looked the other way, let it happen, and used it as an excuse to enact the Plan for A New American Century. Its just way easier and involves so few people to pull it off, many of which don't even have to know that they're part of something bigger. :shrug-outta-hecks:
Also it is very plausible that people hate the US enough to try blowing up something there
How does it involve fewer people? It's the same number of plotters, you just change who a few of them are working for.
That's how intelligence ops are done, on a strictly need-to-know basis.
Not if they're dead.
I'm not engaging until you answer the question from the mega. Did you really follow me over there to spam me with ppb because I lean towards the "let it happen" theory?
Sorry, comrade. I should log off for a while.
Ok, so my biggest problem with the "kill the passengers" idea is that, as uniquely evil as america is, you have to seriously dehumanize a group of people before you can get your own to murder them. I find it hard to believe that americas got people that ready to kill citizens all willy nilly. Not to mention, now you have to keep them quiet. Or kill them and then you have to keep that person quiet. Idk, to me its way easier to know something is gonna happen, and only a tiny tiny group of people in on it can influence others to move a few pieces around to ensure it happens. Its really hard to keep people quiet without killing them. Its easier if they don't know they're involved in a conspiracy. Like the Colonel ordering all the spices from different companies so nobody knew what they were.
That being said, I lean towards "let it happen" but I wouldn't be surprised either way. But america bungles everything lately, it does seem like a stretch that they'd be able to pull that off to me. That's probably why I lean "let it happen".
I've actually thought about this exact point very hard for a long time.
There is only one thing known for certain: a group of human beings murdered thousands of Americans in cold blood that day. Either it was 19+ Muslim hijackers, or US deep state agents, or some combination thereof.
Like you I also once considered it difficult to imagine Americans murdering their own people like that. I presumed that out of a reasonably sized group of conspirators that at least one of them would grow a guilty conscience and foil the plot. So I asked myself: why couldn't a Muslim plotter grow a guilty conscience in a similar way? Why was I so much more willing to believe that Muslims were the cold-blooded murderers? And I couldn't give myself an answer that didn't sound at least a little bit racist. I realized that part of my mental barrier was constructed from the decades of propaganda dehumanizing Muslims that all Westerners like myself are subject to.
I found an even more complete answer in the form of the shattered assumptions theory. It's a psychological model that says that one of our basic assumptions is that the world is benevolent, and that experiences which shatter that assumption are the root cause of trauma.
9/11 was a deeply traumatic event which shattered our worldviews. Before 9/11, most Americans would have had a hard time believing that any person---even Muslim people---could be capable of such evil, but we were forced to collectively accept that fact by the horror we witnessed with our own eyes. In that crucible of collective shock and grief, we forged a new worldview that included a terrifying new threat to our lives: radical Islamic terrorism. Accepting this fact repaired our views and allowed us to recover from the trauma. However, once trauma has been repaired in this way, any differing explanation threatens to shatter that worldview all over again and re-traumatize the individual.
In other words, fundamentally altering your understanding of a traumatic event creates cognitive dissonance. That is why I believe it is easier to accept the "they let it happen" explanation, because it leaves the initial threat model intact rather than replacing it. It's also more disturbing to accept that your own government hurt you, just like people are reluctant to accept that their parents were bad. It's worse when it comes from inside the house.
Intelligence operations are run in such a way that mission critical details are kept to the smallest group of individuals possible. People are only told what they need to do, not why.
Does it bungle shoveling money to the 1%? America has always been good at what it really cares about, i.e. enriching capitalists and sabotaging socialism. Remember how fast that Trump tax bill passed?
The psychopaths who work at the CIA really believe they're doing all of it for the greater good.
So, what do you think happened to Honjour and Attta? They were clearly real people and they haven't turned up in their home countries claiming their identities were stolen like a few of the others accused of doing it.
I ended up watching a few of Dan Hanlans videos last night about the uninterruptible autopilot system. The most plausible theory by far though he refuses to actually make any claims, just that: it exists, we know it works, and it could have been installed on planes at the time and it explains the flight profile of the pentagon plane. Kevin Westley's resume and being there is now the strangest part of all this--evidence that they could have been remote piloted with at least some foreknowledge of the events. I'll admit, it's super strange. Even though I maintain that keeping people quiet it next to impossible to guarantee without killing them. It's why I've said, the fewer that know the better, so why is he out there still, now working in the public sector, free to share this video. Its weird. Even people who fully believe in what they're doing, talk about what they're doing. Hell, maybe this is him trying to talk about it? Idk.
If some of these hijackers existed, like Honjour and Atta, and were working for the cia\fbi with or without knowing it, couldn't they have been given the tools to hack the UAP system themselves? Is it not possible that the planes were real, whomever took "control" used the UAP to accomplish it? Could that not help explain why 93 crashed? They failed to hack the UAP and they didn't actually know how to fly? 93 has always been the harder one to explain if the Northwoods theory is correct. No black boxes were found anywhere else but at 93s crash site iirc. That part of the plan appears to have failed.
The "let it happen" works even with the prohibited airspace above DC. They "let" the plane circle and descend, no matter how it was controlled.
I'm not trying to be a debater, I hate that shit lol. It's just been awhile since I thought about this stuff because, whether they did it or let it happen (with varying amounts of "help") essentially amounts to the same thing--they killed americans to enact their plans(specifically PNAC). My idea has always been, no matter how it happened, it was to justify the PNAC.
I don't have all the answers, sorry. But you're asking the right questions, comrade.
One time a CIA asset named Jack Ruby murdered another asset named Lee Oswald to keep him quiet about a murder. And then the CIA murdered Jack Ruby to keep him quiet...