The Hyper-Manipulated Self

The War on Reason

by Brian C. Taylor

A philosophical examination of the intentional aspects of the events that occurred on Manhattan Island on September 11th, 2001 and some key sociological byproducts.

This is not an essay about 9/11 as a conspiracy theory, it is about the dichotomy of opinion that is created by the need for belief in either the official story or the various theories that are available. This is an essay about hypermanipulation.

This is an edited version of a chapter for my forthcoming book: Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper Manipulated Self due 2011.

Comments are welcome.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No matter how you reduce it, the events that took place on Manhattan Island, September 11, 2001 were a direct result of the intentions of the American government. How far you go into conspiracy theory is up to you. I've heard them all, but I'm not here to subscribe to any of them. You know me, you know our goals here. I'm going to go with what I have: things that we agree are indisputable facts and logic. It is in the interest of full disclosure that I present all these theories of what happened that day. It is a necessary part of my overall argument that the dichotomy of opinion be illustrated. I mean no disrespect to anyone, in fact, in this story, I see everyone as victim. It is not only their arguments we must think about, we must also recognize how it's all argument and what that means.

So, what can we say for certain about what happened that day? It's hard to imagine anyone thinking that “nothing” happened that day and I'm certainly unaware of any such theory coming forward. Everyone agrees that “something” happened that day. Other things we have to believe happened, but a few things are given. There used to be three more towers at the World Trade Center complex. Those towers are not there because they were destroyed on that day. Surprisingly, this is where what we actually know and can all agree on as happening, ends. No matter how you look at the rest of the story, you are going to be able to find more than one person who thinks differently. To some, this may be of no consequence. Those of us with paradigm paralysis cannot change our minds, those of us who won't even hear such nonsense, won't change our minds. You and I, however, understand something of how the mind works, how the self is shaped. You and I are beginning to understand how, at times, we can't even trust ourselves. We know what the difference between knowing and believing is. We can see the value in the big picture. We can decide for ourselves and, more importantly, we can not decide if we so choose. As I've stated, everyone is entitled to believe whatever nonsense they like. Some of us are also able to explain why we believe things without saying, “I just do.”

First, I will explain the official account of the day, as briefly as I can before I open a can of worms. As usual, we seek the who, what, where, when, how and why of the events that lead to the destruction that took place at the World Trade Center on September eleventh. (We will also discuss the other events of the day.) We all agree that, in the end, we had three towers reduced to dust, thousands of people dead and missing. How did the towers collapse and what was the cause? The official, accepted version is actually quite simple: Two large commercial airliners crashed, one each in each of the towers. The planes were laden with fuel and the subsequent explosion and fire weakened structural supports over the nearly two hours before the collapse. Finally, once the supports let go, the beams holding up the floor collapsed to the floor below, which was also weakened. Thus, the floor below collapsed, then the floor below, until such momentum and weight was achieved that the towers disintegrated in a “pancake” effect, floor to floor at nearly free fall speed. First one tower collapsed, then the other. Then, a few hours later, the third tower, the building known as WTC 7, collapsed. (We will discuss this event separately.)

The official explanation of how the aircraft were being used is also very clear cut. Members of Al Queda, controlled and funded by known terrorist kingpin Osama bin Laden, wished to wage a holy war against America. The hijackers used boxcutters and brute force to gain entry into the cockpits of these airplanes with the intention of crashing them into specific targets in the US. Which, for all but one of the four planes, they did. The fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Officials later stated they became aware of the boxcutter methodology via passenger cell phone calls to loved ones, the police, the FBI, etc. All of the men boarded the plane as ticketed passengers. All of them were Muslim. Some of the men were known to be training as pilots in the US. The highjackers, as they became known, were from different middle eastern countries. Pakistan, Sudan, most of them were from Saudi Arabia. Some of them, later identified, were known “muslim extremists.” The Pentagon was hit by the third highjacked airliner that came in at a ground level trajectory. There is no useable video footage of this event but there are still photos of the aftermath.


So we've covered everything but the "official" why."Which is the most difficult to cover and the point at which we have no choice but to accept someone's opinion. Even if we believe the tape of Osama bin Laden taking responsibility for the events and saying that he did so in retaliation for the US supporting Israel and occupying Muslim lands, it is still his version, which differs than the American version of “Muslim extremism hates everything about America, especially freedom.” Now, looking back on this statement, it seems almost farcical, yet we all heard it countless times.

Now, before we open that can of worms, peer inside and see what kind of weirdness is wriggling around, let's examine just a few more accepted truisms about the intentional background of the overall story. This will entail a little history. On December 24, 1979, Russia sent troops in to assist the government of Afghanistan in an ongoing civil war against the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen were, and are still, essentially Muslim freedom fighters. Afghanistan's government, The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was Communist and wished to advance the government, into a more modern, Eastern place. This type of coup was not at all a new thing for the area, even a cursory glance at Afghanistan's history will prove to you that it is, and always has been, an area of upheaval, perhaps become of it's central location in what we call the middle east. This time however, the government asked the Soviets for assistance and got it. Of course America didn't like this, particularly after the Shah they place in Iran was ousted and the American ambassador was kidnapped, then executed. (And let's not forget, the cold war is still in effect.) America, and some of her allies, via the CIA funnelled arms and supplies into Afghanistan, often through Pakistan, to support the Mujahideen in their “patriotic struggle.” This literally put bin Laden and his resources in the loop. He didn't need to “be on the payroll” but for all intents and purposes, he was. He was assisted in every way imaginable, short of putting American troops on the ground there, in any form other than training or advisory.

Then, in the spring of 1988, Russia, having spent billions of dollars and lost countless young men, she gave up and began removing her troops. Some people call the Russia Afghanistan conflict “Russia's Vietnam” because it was unpopular, seemingly unwinnable and promising little reward in the first place, (or so it seemed to the populace.) With Russia retreating, the Mujahideen claimed Afghanistan as victors, which I guess they were. The price they paid however, was continued chaos. Afghanistan has always been a tribal area or tribal people. (One little ten year war, in the grand scheme of eons of tradition of a proud people(s) is unlikely to change things for very long.) Until finally, the Taliban takes control of the government in 1996. The Taliban are aptly named, the word means “student,” and the Taliban, above all honours it's interpretation of the faith. What George Bush sees as Muslim extremism, to the Taliban, is the will of God. This is serious business and a great many people willingly take part in this seriousness.

The west used the Mujahideen for it's own goals and then abandoned them, albeit with fanfare and respect, to their own devices. Reagan recognized them as “freedom fighters” (which is a direct translation) as did James Bond and Rambo. While being applauded and immortalized in film nearing the end of the cold war, the CIA was quietly jotting down the names of the leaders, Liutenants and key players in the Mujahideen. These people, again, the more extreme, more violent members, became known as “the foundation” which translates into "Al Queda." (Foundation as in "base" a structure to be built upon.) Al Queda continues to fight for that which they consider holy.

Now that we have established, albeit curtly, the basic official story including the main relevant aspects, you may have noticed that it, in someways, is contradictory, or at least shows discrepancies. Before we look at arguments against the official story as I've relayed it, let's open the flood gates of conspiracy and see what comes pouring in. Remember that we have no interest in wantonly suppressing opinions, we don't even have to decide if these seem reasonable or not, at this point. Let's just hear some other peoples original ideas, then we'll talk about them. Because there are so many of them, I will list them in point form as briefly as possible, arranged in topics of my choosing:

-Airplane issues: There are several theories around the planes, some say they could fly as slow as they appear to be doing on film, some think they were remote controlled, some think they were not passenger aircraft at all, but were made up to look like they were, this is attached to the theory that there were no passengers, some think the airplanes had tanks attached to the underside for a larger explosion, some think there were no planes at all, they were drawn in, on the spot, in one of the largest, live, special effects ever to take place. (We will discuss this theory separately.) Finally, some argue that the cell phone calls people got couldn't have taken place as the technology wasn't on-board commercial airliners in 2001.

-Pilot issues: As I mentioned, some of the terrorists that took control of these airplanes were taking courses at American flight schools. None of those that were had impressive skills. Some of the instructors we're quoted expressing their dismay that these men could fly at all, never mind the rather difficult flying it took to successfully hit three of four targets in first attempts at flying a jumbo jet. This is distinct enough to be listed separately from Airplane issues.

-Architectural issues: There is currently a very large and growing group called “Architects for truth” that claims it is and was scientifically impossible for a building to be destroyed as it was, by fire. Therefore, they argue, these buildings were a controlled demolition.

-Controlled Demolition argument: Simply put, the argument is “these buildings were pre-rigged to be destroyed. The airplanes were subterfuge that was necessary or it would be too obvious that this was a false flag event. (How could you secretly rig three giant buildings to be demolished?) Evidence to support this theory are the several large explosions before the planes hit, (testimonial of employees of WTC,) the damage to the WTC1 lobby, (testimonial of firefighters,) explosions visible from the exterior as the towers collapsed, (testimonial of firefighters and other eyewitnesses,) and finally, after the collapse it was discovered that the remaining beams, jutting out from the rubble were sheared in perfect diagonal lines, in exactly the fashion one would use in a controlled demolition.

-False Flag argument: Regardless of how it came to be, this argument claims that it happened because it was supposed to. Perhaps some faction of the American government participated in the act, perhaps they just let it happen. Either way, it was a “business decision to keep the American military industrial complex going.”

-American complicity argument: see final image. They knew it was coming.”

-American duplicity argument: “They wanted it all along.” The Project for a New American Century was a politically based think tank established in the 1980's by Neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. In 1997 they published a ninety page document entitled, “Rebuilding America's Defences.” I quote now from part five: “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.” This is a very famous sentence referring to the need for something to “call people to arms.” Their explicit goal in this document was to recommend war in the middle east to control oil reserves, continue to expand military dominance and keep the economy of war moving forward. Somehow, they got what they wanted.

-The Strange Coincidences argument: This truly is a strange and publicly documented series of events. On September 11th 2001, the US military, NORAD, the National Reconnaissance Office, private and public law enforcement and related organizations were taking part in exercises that simulated things like, Russian/Nato wargames in the arctic, bioterrorism attacks, hijacked planes being flown into buildings. The purpose of this exercise was to test the preparedness of the American defence system in case of a terrorist attack on US soil. If you are confused, I'll reiterate. The government agencies involved in dealing with a situation like the one that occurred on September 11th, were doing a drill on September 11th that exactly mirrored the actual events taking place, in real time. (This is not actually a conspiracy theory. This was actually taking place. It becomes a conspiracy theory only through the reasonable expectation that by this happening, fighter planes were out of the area, confusion was created, delays occurred. This argument gets even spookier when we later discover that the exact same exercises were being conducted in the exact same fashion by British counterparts on the day of their terrorist attacks in London on July 7th, 2007.

-Discrepancies and “faked evidence:” Here the argument is, “the logic of their explanations is flawed.” For instance, if the two largest towers collapsed to dust, by way of the “fire caused a pancake collapse” theory, why did tower seven collapse when it suffered relatively minor fire damage and had a completely different construction style? Furthermore, the owner of the entire World Trade Center complex Larry Silverstein is on record as saying, “after we saw the damage caused by the other two towers collapsing, we made the decision that the best thing to do (with tower 7) would be to pull it.” He later tried to renounce this statement, saying that he never intended “pull it” to mean bring the tower down with explosives, he meant “stop fighting the fire and let it go down,” as in “pull the firefighters out.” Still, when you watch the footage of this collapse, it is picture perfect. So, we are back to our "controlled demolition argument."


There were other strange things about this aspect of the story. For instance, some of the alleged highjackers were never onboard the plane. Some of them, upon hearing they were dead and how, called American press agencies to denounce the news, obviously very alive and having nothing to do with any of these events. Other things were introduced as evidence that seemed illogical or even impossible. There is the case of a terrorist's passport being found at ground zero, completely unharmed. (The plane was completely destroyed in a fire so hot that it brought down a skyscraper, which has never happened before, yet a paper passport survived to be found on the ground?) A few blocks away from the WTC complex a jet engine was found that was claimed to be from the aircraft used. It was the wrong type of engine and in pristine condition. Then there is the case of confiscated video footage being returned edited. There were approximately 175 video cameras recording what happened that day. Of course many of them belonged to television stations but a number of them were just caught by citizens of New York and tourists. Of these, the majority were confiscated by the FBI in what could be argued to be a reasonable search for evidence. However, some of these tapes came back with footage missing, or they were copies of the tapes, not the originals. So the camera might pan away or cut away at key points, to miss the face of a passer-by, or even the critical moment of impact. Finally, there is the official footage which also seems edited, such as the Pentagon video that was released with “missing frames” at the critical moment. The Pentagon says the video is unedited and the plane was moving too fast for the video to catch it. I don’t know enough about video or physics to answer this question myself. Other, official news agency footage also seems to “cut away” at critical moments. In this category, there is a lot of material to absorb, some of which ties into the...


No Airplane theory: this theory is most convincingly argued in a film called “September Clues.” Basically, this extremely complicated argument boils down to the following: There never were any planes, (we don't know what happened to the passengers.) The explosions were caused by missiles being fired from the ground or boats nearby. Then “black ops” specialists, cut into the feeds of the news agencies satellites, in a seven second delay, to superimpose pre-prepared “airplanes” into the pictures that then were “sent out” as live footage. The film makers go into great detail answering all the questions you're currently coming up with, as I said, this is probably the most complicated of the conspiracy theories. This theory may have stemmed from contradictory eyewitness accounts, some saw a small place, a silver plane, a white plane, a plane with no windows, a plane that looked like a missile, a missile and finally nothing, the building just exploded in the shape of a wingspan. The filmmakers also argue that the frame by frame analysis shows a perfectly shaped “nose” of the second plane exiting the other side and retracting. They argue that this was a mistake by the black op fakers.


Advanced Secret Weaponry theory: This argument states that, again, this event was a pre-planned, controlled demolition, but there is also evidence of Scalar weaponry being used and Thermite. Scalar weapons are a (so far,) theoretical “ray gun” like weapon that can do many magical things. It is said the use of scalar weaponry is evidenced by black helicopters circling the towers, emitting very bright lights and vehicles at ground zero being completely unharmed, other than they are upside down. (The list of things that it is said a scalar ray can do is long, but includes: anti-gravity, molecular disruption, super heat.) Thermite, a very real entity, it is an extremely hot chemical reaction used to cut, weld or otherwise melt metals. It is claimed it is visible pouring out of the still standing towers and then, after the collapses, rendering pools of remarkably hot molten metal that stayed hot for weeks. Firefighters, attempting to search for survivors were sometimes turned away from these pools, too hot to approach.

“Too weird for this world” theories: Some people think that the events that took place on September 11th were some kind of Illuminati, satanist, alien agenda human sacrifice. Probably most famously put forward by David Icke, the Bush family, descended from Nero (which is true,) is part of the same bloodline as Queen Elizabeth, (and all the Windsor's, also true,) but that they are actually shape-shifting reptilian aliens hellbent on enslaving mankind as a food source, (probably not true.) Although the Bush family is involved in some weirdness, in the shape of the controversial membership to organizations such as the Skull and Bones, or the Bilderbergers, or taking part in the secret meetings at Bohemian Grove, people can only speculate on what this actually means, if anything. One weird aspect that I find spooky because you can see it with your own eyes and although it's probably a coincidence, but what a coincidence, is the Cash Talisman theory. This is best explained in pictures, featured below. What is argued is that, by handling this money, day in day out, for years, we subconsciously, (cosmically?) made these events happen through our unconscious intentions. In the frames, by folding the American dollar bills of different denominations we can see a distinct series of events unfold on 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 dollar bills, viewed through the Washington arch near New York University, if folded "correctly"


I may have missed certain theories and I've certainly not gone into any great detail on any of them. Before we start examining these theories, let's take a moment to review what were the results of the events that took place on September 11th. I'm sure that everyone can agree on this: America and it's allies moved into Afghanistan and Iraq, yet not Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia. We were told, adamantly that there were “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq that needed to be found and that Iraq was harbouring terrorists. In fact, we should now be able to quite easily recognize the obvious social engineering of the news footage of politicians at the time, WMD and the need to engage was repeated, ad nauseum, until we found ourselves convinced. Plus, let's not forget, at this point in time, America is still reeling in sadness and anger. America wanted revenge, it didn't take much to convince the public that revenge was what was right.

However, what do we really have here, in this situation. We have one side, a designed subscribing to Islamic extremism and the teachings of a Philosopher named Sayyid Qutb which is excellently described in the BBC documentary series, The Power of Nightmares. On the other side we have a designed subscribing to Christian extremism and the teachings of a Philosopher named Leo Strauss. Perhaps you are thinking to yourself, “Yes, but we didn't kill thousands of innocent Muslims in a terrorist attack.” If you are thinking this, please put your head down and take a nap, you are way too ignorant to continue this conversation. We have, historically and easily, out ranked the killing by a margin of one hundred to one. One cannot make the argument that “this type of killing” is okay and “that type of killing” is not. One cannot say, “We are right and they are wrong,” with any kind of accuracy. The terrorist's don't have a trillion dollar budget, they can only fight their war as they can. We have a ridiculous advantage over them, technologically, militarily and monetarily. We have no advantage over them morally, despite what we believe. This is a perfectly fair fight, because war isn't supposed to be fair. The difference we should note is, although we say we are fighting a just war for freedom, or to spread democracy, they are fighting a war to spread the right to live as they please, (is that not freedom?) They are not trying to spread anything, they would rather we left them alone. I'm not siding with terrorist's, I'm also not siding with anyone, I’m a philosopher. These latter points all but fall away when I tell you that we are only here to consider whether or not what I’ve stated is true, not whether it is right or wrong. We seek social engineering, we have it as “designed subscribing.”

Let's now look at reasonable problems we can find, both in the official version of events and the varied conspiracy theories. As we established at the beginning of this chapter, we actually know only two things: those building are gone and something happened that made them “go away.” So what should we think about the details? Who should we agree with? What should we believe? Firstly and probably most importantly, let's realize that the existence of this question, in and of itself, is the problem. Why should we have to believe anybody? How come we can't know what happened that day? The answer is, of course, that the pieces of the puzzle don't all fit together. As time moves forward, the one side, let's call them Conspiracy Theorists, pull further and further away from the other side, let's call them “Official Believers.” A puzzle with missing or incorrect pieces doesn't make a pretty picture, in fact, in makes nothing. So, let's start again in simple question and answer form, the answers will come from me, reasonably and honestly. These are my opinions on the matter.


Q: Did airplanes crash into the towers?

A: Yes, I think so. All those passengers are still missing. I think it's reasonable to expect that if it was part of “the charade,” at least one of them would turn up and say, “I'm still alive!” in much the same way that the terrorists who weren't involved did.

Q: Did the airplanes cause the towers' collapse?

A: I can't answer that, but I seriously doubt it. I'm convinced that there was at least a secondary method to cause the collapse as we know it happened. Whether it was traditional explosives, scalar weapons or thermite, whether it was Al Queda or American “black ops” I don't know. However, I side with the hundreds (is it thousands by now?) of architects who claim the collapse that happened that day was unprecedented at the least and impossible at the most. I'm also of the opinion that the collapse of building 7, along with Larry Silversteens instruction to “pull it,” is highly suspect. Building 7 is a smoking gun. There was no reason to expect it to collapse. If they “pulled it” it had to be rigged. If it was rigged, it was done weeks in advance. If it was done weeks in advance, it is, by definition, a conspiracy. Pools of thermite were present, this is documented. Thermite does not occur naturally. Somebody put it there. Thermite is a smoking gun. If someone put thermite there, it is, by definition, a conspiracy. I also think we should call into question the numerous eyewitness (and earwitness, if I may,) reports of “explosions” happening before, during and after the buildings smouldered, but hadn't yet collapsed. Also, the apparent explosions visible as the buildings collapsed. Structural explosions are strategic explosions, if they were happening, it is, by definition a conspiracy.


Q: How could they rig three huge buildings to be demolished, secretly?

A: I don't know. I do know that these buildings were very busy places and it wouldn't be uncommon for “construction workers” to be working there. Also, some WTC employees stated that there was “a lot of commotion, banging and screeching” heard from various floors, known to be vacant, in the weeks leading up to September 11th. All I know is this, steel framed buildings can burn and burn and burn, for weeks, without collapsing. Steel framed buildings do not collapse accidentally. If this type of building was going to do anything from the plane hitting it, (which, by the way, it was designed to withstand,) it would have a section that “fell over.” This is best illustrated when we watch the footage of the towers collapsing in slow motion. When the collapse begins, you can see how the top section, above the impact zone, starts to fall over sideways. Then, for some reason, dissolves upward in the same fashion as the rest of the building dissolves downward. This defies all logic and cannot be explained, by anyone, to my satisfaction. How is this even possible?

Q: Are you saying that America killed thousands of it's own people so they could advance an agenda?

A: No. I'm saying someone killed thousands of people in a way that isn't being fully or truthfully explained to us and it advanced a stated American political agenda. Moreover, I feel the results speak for themselves. I think it certainly would be easier for America to achieve what happened that day, than say, Al Queda. I'm of the opinion that there is a rogue element in the corridors of power in Washington. Even if Americans did this, it doesn't mean “America” did it. Unfortunately, for everyone, the world does not make this distinction. Obviously, we don’t wish to lump anything into generality.

Q: Complicity or Duplicity?

A: Probably both. We know Dick Cheney continuously refused requests to scramble fighter jets. We know George Bush was reading “My pet goat.” We know there were exercises taking place that mimicked the actual events and this caused confusion. We know that reports of imminent attacks were ignored. If all of these things are just the byproducts of the rampant ineptitude of modernity, (which isn't too much of a stretch,) it was the hallmark of all imperfect timing. However, things like the Project for a New American Century's report “Rebuilding America's Defences,” are a little too perfect a coincidence for my taste. Let's not forget, history is rife with false flags that various governments now admit to. Will someone, someday admit to this?

Q: Do you think Bush is a reptilian shape-shifter that wants to enslave the human race as a food source?

A: No. In my opinion, there are only two motivators for these very human people, money and power.

Q: Are there things that we can find out for certain?

A: Yes. We should be able to determine several things, if we are allowed to. It should be fairly easy to prove that these buildings were demolished by examining the left-over steel from the towers. (That was removed immediately and destroyed or recycled, or so we’re told.) Nevertheless, we should be able to do model experiments to test the “structural fire leads to collapse” hypothesis. We should be able to find out if the phone calls that took place onboard the flights were even possible at the time. We should be able to answer the question of whether or not the planes were capable of doing the flying as depicted in the films. I’m sure there are many other things I’m not thinking of.

Finally, what does it mean? We know where we are now, nearly ten years later, fighting two multinational wars on nearly invisible fronts. Do we know why? Not really. We can only take sides. So what can be said about who we are now, compared to who we were then, are we more or less ourselves?

The events that happened on Manhattan Island on September 11th, 2001 created the dichotomy that pushes our society over into hyper reality. After the dust had settled and the War on Terror begun, you now have a choice to make, go to sleep and have opinion roll over you or go insane and let opinion roll over you. Either you buy the whole picture or you buy none of it. If you buy the whole picture you're denying too much evidence to be correct. If you believe that any part of it is fishy then the whole deck of cards comes down. If you believe it's fishy, you have little evidence to prove your case, thus people think you're a crazy person. I'm not a crazy person, yet I think something is fishy. Where do I fit in? It seems the answer is nowhere. The Hyper-Manipulated Self is awash in a sea of opinion and you must choose. I'm asking you to think about the choice you are making.

Perhaps you've noticed the expanding divide that has grown in America. Be it between the faithful and the atheists, republicans versus democrats, or conservatives fighting liberals, the gap is getting wider, more pronounced, louder and more violent. Examine the health care debate of 2009-2010, with people showing up at “townhall” meetings brandishing machine guns. Consider those who argue that socialized medicine is communism. Listen to the argument on one side that says, “If we get national health care, next you'll be living in a concentration camp,” and on the other side holds up a sign that reads, “Get a brain, morans!” How could any rational thinking person pick either of these sides? We can't. It's stupid to do so. Yet, here we are, we've been forced into this dichotomy. The middle is falling out of everything. With no middle there is no balance. With no balance there are only extremes. Having to choose an extreme is not a solution, unless your goal is chaos.

So what is the goal? I don't mean the small, step-goals such as “think this about that,” these things, at this point, should be obvious, I mean the overall goal. I think the goal is exemplified to us in the results of the actions who give us these intentions. At the onset of this chapter I made the statement, No matter how you reduce it, the events that took place on Manhattan Island, September 11, 2001 were a direct result of the intentions of the American government. I base this statement on the complicity, duplicity and desires of the powers that be. The government may not have had an active role in the events that lead to the results they obviously wanted, but this only means they were lacking intention in action. If the prior intention of a small group leads to the action of others, we simply have collective intentionality. I'm not suggesting that the twin towers talisman worked, but rather that, it is no mistake that we find ourselves in the situation we are. It was socially engineered.

It is important that we recognize that this intention continues on in society, long after the engineers who drafted it and the politicians who enacted it are gone. We are not rid of a philosophy so easily, particularly when we become so invested in it.

They knew it was coming...