Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
9/11 Conspiracy Theories
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Other Side" data-source="post: 1831310" data-attributes="member: 17969"><p>You couldnt start two wars that way Sober. </p><p></p><p>It had to involve airplanes only for the "physical" effect of the attacks. It wasnt about the attacks however, it was about the money. Larry Silverstein made billions on the attack and is still suing for billions more. His initial investment was near nothing compared to the insurance payoffs.</p><p></p><p>The project for the New American Century wanted these wars going back to 1997 but Bill Clinton would not authorize them. PNAC contained many of the bush cabinet including the vice president and defense secretary at the time and this haunting statement was memorialized in 1997 long before 9/11 when Pnac tried to explain how they could get the US population to support a larger military and larger military actions around the world. They knew at the time, that the American public would not support multiple wars, so, like the nazi's in WWII, they created a reason.</p><p></p><p>PNAC official statement</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong><span style="font-size: 22px">"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."</span></strong></p><p></p><p>Their dream of a catalyzing event could not have been better actualized than in the events of 9/11. This was their "new Pearl Harbor" and the country believed it.</p><p></p><p>Another coincedence?</p><p></p><p>TOS.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Other Side, post: 1831310, member: 17969"] You couldnt start two wars that way Sober. It had to involve airplanes only for the "physical" effect of the attacks. It wasnt about the attacks however, it was about the money. Larry Silverstein made billions on the attack and is still suing for billions more. His initial investment was near nothing compared to the insurance payoffs. The project for the New American Century wanted these wars going back to 1997 but Bill Clinton would not authorize them. PNAC contained many of the bush cabinet including the vice president and defense secretary at the time and this haunting statement was memorialized in 1997 long before 9/11 when Pnac tried to explain how they could get the US population to support a larger military and larger military actions around the world. They knew at the time, that the American public would not support multiple wars, so, like the nazi's in WWII, they created a reason. PNAC official statement [B][SIZE=6]"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."[/SIZE][/B] Their dream of a catalyzing event could not have been better actualized than in the events of 9/11. This was their "new Pearl Harbor" and the country believed it. Another coincedence? TOS. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Top