Cia Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘we Blew Up Wtc7 On 9/11’

[X-Maverick]

There is a third possibility, he thinks he can win in their system? Many decent folks get caught up in that spiral.

Yeah, I think it happens. Though we can't really know how often, as many politicians look alike. But if one ever did succeed gaining the presidency, we know how that'll turn out. Let's just say such a person wouldn't be president for as long as Kennedy was. I'm sure though that they have measures in place to where it would never happen in the first place.

 

[rainerann]

Another example:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth bought ad space in Times Square 3yrs ago. How much of an effect it had on the average non-conspiracist is anyone's guess. On the otherhand, people aren't stupid. More are more inclined to disbelieve the official line given that time has revealed more holes in the story. According to the OP, its interesting there wasn't a revolution over this.

I think that the fact that they classify this information contributes to the problem. It is like the world becomes a jury that has to give a not guilty verdict because the evidence is hidden.

There have been groups trying to submit requests to declassify documents under the FOIA for years. In reality, there is nothing that jeopardizes our security by releasing documents regarding 9/11. There is no reason for the information to be classified, but their ability to classify information is how they are getting away with potential crimes.

According to the CIA website, there are six pages of the investigation that are declassified regarding 9/11. What this really says to me is that we should get rid of the CIA altogether. We don't need classified information, period. In order to be active citizens, we need to be able to access all the information that would help us better make decisions regarding our country.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/declassified-documents-related-911-attacks

Interesting fact that I learned from reading a James Bond novel a long time ago. In the first James Bond novel, the US CIA is mentioned as a resource for the British CIA. However, the US CIA had just come into existence. It seemed to weirdly promote the idea that the US CIA had such an important role considering it was a brand new organization at the time. I sort of wondered whether it was propaganda to give these organizations a heroic image of doing things like mortal superheros. I think many people do make a subconscious connection to the image of James Bond when they consider organizations like the CIA whether they realize it or not. Somehow, we have been indoctrinated to believe that when the CIA classifies information, it is for a good reason. Then, when they classify information regarding WTC 7, everyone thinks that there must be a good reason and there is someone like James Bond dealing with the bad guys.

Apparently, the international center for 9/11 studies says that there is a lot more than six pages that have been declassified. They were asking for help distributing information in 2010. With more information, there would need to be more people to make a case. What we should probably be doing is focusing on the reasons we don't need a CIA at all. That should really be the focus because that would prevent future events like this if there was no one with authority to classify crucial information that we deserve to know as Americans. They made decisions for us to go into combat zones without releasing all of the information regarding this investigation. We should have more access to this information if we are sending our family members into combat zones to die for reasons that remained classified to us.

http://911truthnews.com/foia-lawsuit-thousands-of-nist-911-photos-videos-released/

 

[DesertRose]

@rainerann thanks for your thoughts!

 

[rainerann]

@rainerann thanks for your thoughts!

That was impressive that he said that at the award show. It is interesting that he mentions the number of wars we have had in the last 30 years. I think there is a direct correlation to this and the creation of the CIA in 1947. I think this is the root of all these problems that we are having.

 

[Lady]

There are groups around that are gaining some momentum that are positioning themselves to self-govern. Although she has not aligned with any one entity to my knowledge, Cynthia McKinney is considered a valuable asset to these groups, as she has the background and moral courage to defy government corruption.

 

[grateful servant]

We should have more access to this information if we are sending our family members into combat zones to die for reasons that remained classified to us.

Well said Sister, well said.

 

[Aero]

The CIA really are like little lap dogs. That's the main reason why I find this story plausible. Nobody in the CIA really knows what the hell they are doing. And that's probably one of the reasons things remain classified. Because if we saw how badly they are wasting taxpayer dollars would collectively shit a giant brick.

The other reason is that they are targeting us! There is no legitimate reason for things to be classified. Anyone smart sitting a room with a computer can figure this shit out on their own. And it's been done many times over.

 

[Orwell's mentor]

Well said Sister, well said.

@rainerann

Do you think that would matter, though? I don’t want to sound like a pessimist but people don’t even boycott the products that profit from war when the information is available, much less understand the reasons it’s actually happening. Companies such as Coca-Cola and Haliburton/Kellog are two I know of off the top of my head and they have many subsidiary companies when researched.

As well, I remember on the previous forums someone by the name of Claire stated her brother was in the military and was told to shoot anything that was darker than a brown paper bag! This is the only type of information I guess their superiors (colonel, generals, captains, etc.) think soldiers need in order to fight the “good fight”.

Added to the fact that Bob Woodward has quoted Henry Kissinger (who’s a former member of the board of Revlon/Avon) stated, “Military men are ‘dumb, stupid animals to be used’ as pawns for foreign policy” (source) and private contractors from other foreign companies would fight US’s wars by proxy (source), making more money than they would in their native land, I can’t see classified information being disclosed because it doesn't benefit the war profiteers.

 

[rainerann]

@Orwell's mentor

Yes, I do think it would matter overall. However, we would also be left with traumatizing information and a stark realization that we were in the weaker position, but does being in the weaker position mean that something doesn't matter or does it mean that people would still be powerless in many ways to do anything about it? I don't think it does.

I think sometimes what happens too with companies like Coca Cola is that it does become very difficult to boycott everything that should be boycotted. I am grateful that so many people are endeavoring to make products and there are so many more brands to choose from now. I try to support them whenever I can. This makes things easier for me when I am showing because completely boycotting companies that exist almost like webs over so many things is very difficult. My boycott list is so long that I am at the point where I dread hearing something new that should cause me to add another thing to my boycott list.

Although, I'm not sure I am quite understanding what you are trying to say completely. You are saying that if the classified information was disclosed people wouldn't care and this information won't be disclosed because it doesn't benefit war profiteers? Still, why wouldn't they disclose it if people wouldn't care?

I think this is the way it would looked if we compared releasing classified information as a pie chart. So right now, lets just conservatively estimate that there are a good 20 percent that already know that the CIA is responsible and they are hiding information by referring to incriminating evidence as classified information. Then, you have another 20 percent who either lack the education or the motivation to do anything about the information if it were released making the whole objective almost pointless anyways. This would still leave about 60 percent of the population that remains undecided because of the absence of more convincing and substantial evidence. This group is the reason the information has to be classified because with the information classified, this group will identify themselves with the 20 percent with little education or motivation to do anything about these crimes.

Overall, there has to be some greater percentage of the population that would care that things like this were happening to justify creating the CIA as a way to hide this information.

 

[Orwell's mentor]

@Orwell's mentor

Yes, I do think it would matter overall. However, we would also be left with traumatizing information and a stark realization that we were in the weaker position, but does being in the weaker position mean that something doesn't matter or does it mean that people would still be powerless in many ways to do anything about it? I don't think it does.

I think sometimes what happens too with companies like Coca Cola is that it does become very difficult to boycott everything that should be boycotted. I am grateful that so many people are endeavoring to make products and there are so many more brands to choose from now. I try to support them whenever I can. This makes things easier for me when I am showing because completely boycotting companies that exist almost like webs over so many things is very difficult. My boycott list is so long that I am at the point where I dread hearing something new that should cause me to add another thing to my boycott list.

Although, I'm not sure I am quite understanding what you are trying to say completely. You are saying that if the classified information was disclosed people wouldn't care and this information won't be disclosed because it doesn't benefit war profiteers? Still, why wouldn't they disclose it if people wouldn't care?

I think this is the way it would looked if we compared releasing classified information as a pie chart. So right now, lets just conservatively estimate that there are a good 20 percent that already know that the CIA is responsible and they are hiding information by referring to incriminating evidence as classified information. Then, you have another 20 percent who either lack the education or the motivation to do anything about the information if it were released making the whole objective almost pointless anyways. This would still leave about 60 percent of the population that remains undecided because of the absence of more convincing and substantial evidence. This group is the reason the information has to be classified because with the information classified, this group will identify themselves with the 20 percent with little education or motivation to do anything about these crimes.

Overall, there has to be some greater percentage of the population that would care that things like this was happening to justify creating the CIA as a way to hide this information.

Thanks for the response, and I apologize for not being clear. What I'm trying to say is if information is already available to people regarding companies who are PROFITING from war and that's what they're doing, profiting from death, what type of classified information would need to be disclosed, for them not join the military/navy or be weary of joining them?

I hope that makes more sense.

 

[Aero]

You all are getting to the heart of the only strategy there is.

We have to view our own government like they view Iran. We have been under attack for a long time. So how can diplomacy be a serious option? I think it can be part of an action plan, but that's softball stuff. They aren't playing softball with any of us.

I'm talking about attacking their institutions. Taking down their idols and destroying the value of their shit. And it's really of a question of if we drop the whole house of cards or be surgical. My vote is surgery, for less collateral damage.

 

[rainerann]

Thanks for the response and apologize for not being clear. What I'm trying to say is if information is already available to people regarding companies who are PROFITING from war and that's what they're doing, profiting from death, what type of classified information would need to be disclosed, for them not join the military/navy or be weary of them?

I hope that makes more sense.

Oh, so you're suggesting that people are already aware that our government is complicit and choose not to be concerned about this.

I guess I would still consider it a possibility that people do not consider the government responsible for the actions of companies who take advantage of a situation like this. Therefore, they can still justify the core principle of being in a combat situation as just or necessary.

I think there is still quite a big difference between knowing that a greedy company is profiting off of a war and having proof that our government staged an event to legitimize going to war.

I believe our recent election demonstrates this because people didn't choose to not vote for Hillary because of her policies. People chose to not vote for Hillary because of things like Benghazi and the dirty politics that she has been linked with. If we look at the primary reasons people didn't vote for Hillary, which often had nothing to do with what she had to say during her campaign, I think there is a good reason to hope that releasing classified documents would be the final straw for many people. It almost feels like we are on the edge of cliff sometimes because of it. Like we are right there and we just need something to give us a final push over the edge.

 

[Thunderian]

Oh, so you're suggesting that people are already aware that our government is complicit and choose not to be concerned about this.

I think people know there is something very wrong going on, but there is no unified message as to who is responsible or what is to be done, and it's pretty much impossible for the average citizen to separate the truth from all the garbage.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, things like this fake article do not help. They just make every one of us look like liars.

After 9/11, when so much stuff started coming out -- legitimate shenanigans and shady activities like PNAC and Northwoods -- no one wanted to listen because for every actual conspiracy and documented event, there were a hundred that were just completely made up. It's impossible to get actual truth across when you're constantly having to explain that you don't believe every idiotic conspiracy that comes down the pike. But to those who have no idea, they are all the same.

You don't think the elite know this confusion and swarm of bs benefits them? Who do you think promotes and produces half of it?

And then to come here and see it posted with zero critical thought? How can people not see this hurts the cause of truth? Does anyone even care?

 

[DesertRose]

@Thunderian the article is prefaced with a disclaimer at the top of the page:
"Note - Please read the comments below, which indicate that the author of this article has a dubious history of "False News"
Most of the discussion since, has not been centered on the article.
Moreover, you already piped up once about this and it has been duly noted.

 

[rainerann]

I think people know there is something very wrong going on, but there is no unified message as to who is responsible or what is to be done, and it's pretty much impossible for the average citizen to separate the truth from all the garbage.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, things like this fake article do not help. They just make every one of us look like liars.

After 9/11, when so much stuff started coming out -- legitimate shenanigans and shady activities like PNAC and Northwoods -- no one wanted to listen because for every actual conspiracy and documented event, there were a hundred that were just completely made up. It's impossible to get actual truth across when you're constantly having to explain that you don't believe every idiotic conspiracy that comes down the pike. But to those who have no idea, they are all the same.

You don't think the elite know this confusion and swarm of bs benefits them? Who do you think promotes and produces half of it?

And then to come here and see it posted with zero critical thought? How can people not see this hurts the cause of truth? Does anyone even

I think you make a good point.

However, I wasn't referring to the original article because I was already well aware of the discussion regarding how weird it is that the 3rd collapsed, and the CIA is responsible for classifying the information that would clear up all this confusion.

If anything the article only further proves the point that there is something they are trying to hide if something like is being fabricated to create confusion. In that link about YourNewsWire you shared on the first page of the thread, it says the creator has connections to David Icke. That says all I needed to know right there. If there was nothing to hide, there would be no David Icke's running around and no CIA classifying information.

I think that further proves a point that without classified information and David Icke, people would care if something like this were true just like you are saying. If we could create a clear picture, people would care, or a lot more people would. They would care very much and the opposition knows this very well or there wouldn't be so much in invested in concealing this information and creating confusion.

 

[DesertRose]

Cynthia McKinney On The Truth About Donald Trump & Being Moved To Tears By David Icke!

 

[Thunderian]

@Thunderian the article is prefaced with a disclaimer at the top of the page:
"Note - Please read the comments below, which indicate that the author of this article has a dubious history of "False News"
Most of the discussion since, has not been centered on the article.
Moreover, you already piped up once about this and it has been duly noted.

So why post something false in the first place? Doesn't that just add to the problem? If we're going to have a discussion on building 7, is this really the only way to start it? How many people are going to come along and see this is an article from Your News Wire and ignore everything else afterwards?

 

[DesertRose]

So why post something false in the first place? Doesn't that just add to the problem? If we're going to have a discussion on building 7, is this really the only way to start it? How many people are going to come along and see this is an article from Your News Wire and ignore everything else afterwards?

I posted it because it may or may not be true, not that I have to explain myself to you
liars can have truthful deathbed confessions, it is plausible.

 

[Aero]

I noticed "Snopes" is already on the case to debunk this story. And they did it with a cool 3 short paragraphs. Saying basically, WTC 7 was brought down by simple fires. That's right, one of the only buildings in history to collapse into itself because of fire.

Hey Snopes if you are reading this I suggest you take a look at some pictures of the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire. Here is just one I found within about a second.

Yes fire can bring down a building. Thanks a lot Snopes. P.S Fuck you.

 

[Kung Fu]

Let's not forget the dancing and celebrating Israelis on top of a roof looking on as the towers went down.