Humint Events Online: September 11, 2001 ... 16 Years Later

Monday, September 11, 2017

September 11, 2001 ... 16 Years Later

The horror of the terror attacks of 9/11/2001 are starting to fade, as is the sanctity which we hold that day as a country, in part because people forget and millions of Americans were too young in 2001 or were not born yet. But also Americans just have bad collective memories, in part due to a notoriously short attention span.

As awful as that day was, there's no doubt the aftermath was far worse-- most particularly the start of 16 years of the "war on terror" which at its peak led to the destruction of the country of Iraq and the deaths of over a million people. The wars also squandered several TRILLION US dollars.

Also, it's important to remember that from 9/11 until the Iraq war, the George W. Bush administration blatantly lied about 9/11 being connected to Iraq and lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, in the most cynical, dishonest way possible.

From 2004-2010, I was obsessed with 9/11, particularly by the idea the attacks were an "inside job" by our government. This obsession was due in part because of the sheer mystery and intrigue into that strange day, and in part by the apparent wrong-doing by the Republican Bush administration that I loathed. Also, I had some thought that uncovering the truth about 9/11 would expose the deep evil forces in our government and bring an end to the terrible wars that were raging. Of course, I was naive on this, though I learned over time that exposing any truth to the public was not going to happen, for various complex reasons. I also learned of a deeper network of conspiracies that complicated and darkened our world. I also fell into the rabbit hole of online conspiracy theorizing, where there were many people, who seemed credible initially, put out ideas and stories that over time became exposed as completely unreliable and who may have been agents or under some sort of control (e.g. John Lear, Judy Wood, Alex Jones, Simon Shack). Then there were a whole bunch of more legitimate-seeming people who were in more of a gray zone, where there were doubts but it was just hard to hard to know if what they were saying was honest, and what their motives were, and if they were some sort of agents (e.g. Steven Jones, Morgan Reynolds, Nico Haupt, Ace Baker). Also, there were a whole bunch of people who may have been basically honest, but just very biased in their thinking-- a whole bunch of people who thought 9/11 was an inside job, but didn't believe in "no planes" or the nuking of the WTC. They were just stuck in thinking a certain way. There is another group of people who may have been basically honest, but were just sloppy and/or unrealistic in their ideas, and/or just made mistakes. The 9/11 conspiracy field also got populated with what could be called "crackpots" who apparently had some psychological issues (e.g. Judy Wood, Webfairy, Anonymous Physicist). What kept me going was the fascinating subject matter and still a good number of fairly honest people interested in the truth. What's always amazed me is how so many people can consider 9/11 to be clearly an inside job, but then have such different ideas about what exactly happened!

In the past 6 years or so, and after being removed from the influence of Anonymous Physicist, I have naturally gained more and more perspective on life and politics and on 9/11.

So honestly, it's harder to believe now in "no planes" and the nuking of the WTC than when I was actively researching 9/11. This is in part because they are such radical ideas and there is a natural tendency to disbelieve in apparently crazy things. Also, I have learned some new things that argue against such a deep conspiracy. But at the same time, I still do not discount those theories. I still think they are possible and may best explain the evidence we have. At the same time, I can't quite rule out the official story of the flights and the destruction of the towers as I used to.

I still think that based on the actual documentation, photos and videos publicly available, the "no planes" and the nuking of the WTC theory (NPNWT) fits the data best.

The problem is, and has always been for the wild mind-fuck of the NPNWT, that 1) we only have limited data available and thus there may be real evidence out there that disproves the theory, 2) it assumes a deep deep conspiracy of many layers that is able to completely control their official narrative to an extreme degree. 

These are problematic, however, if we break the NPNWT into the two components, no planes and WTC nukes, there are different issues and levels of confidence with each one.

The "no planes theory" (NPT) can explain how the attack was orchestrated and explains the physical evidence very well. But it has three major problems:
1) over 40 different 2nd hit videos had to have been faked
2) witnesses to the second hit seeing a plane
3) the issue of what happened to the official planes and passengers

Now of course one can hand-wave away all these problems, as I have done in the past. But still, this hand-waving assumes a vast and powerful conspiracy that can: 1) confiscate all "real" 2nd hit videos, 2) manufacture 40 fake videos with personas behind many of them, 3) create false witnesses to say they saw the 2nd plane, 4) create fake plane passengers and whole stories around them or divert huge planes and dispose of the passengers and crew without any knowing. Problems 2 and 3 are eased by a hypothesis of some hologram that mimicked a plane, but then we have to assume that this technology exists.  The mindfuck to the NPT is that clearly some of the 2nd hit videos are fake or manipulated. Still-- it's really hard to believe in the overall massive conspiracy that would have done this, even though operationally running a no-planes operation makes the whole false-flag attack so much easier in terms of the actual attack (though harder in the cover-up). So in summary, I'd put the NPT as 50-50 being likely.

The WTC nuke theory (WNT) can explain how the towers were destroyed and explains the physical evidence extremely well. The only real problem with the WNT is the nature of the bombs themselves-- did the PTB have very small nukes to demolish the WTC towers that could be used practically? I think given the state of technology and history of nukes in the US, this is a fairly easy hurdle to clear, and so overall, the WNT theory is still quite strong. I'd say it's extremely likely to be true. Now, the thing is, if the WNT *is* true, this actually helps the larger conspiracy and thus the NPT case. So overall, this is why I still hold onto the NPNWT.

The problem is, no one cares anymore, and there's really no way to pursue this case.

We've big enough problems with current politics right now.


Blogger Robert said...

Don't know if you've seen this yet, but this is a very interesting video on how the nukes were used:

5:52 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

I hadn't seen that-- thanks! Looks good.

1:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger