9/11 Occult Ritual

[Michel Leclerc]

Thank you Cartomancer.

I am interested in your work about relationships between geomancy and world events.

(I take it that with geomancy you refer to the divination art using 2 to power 4 tetragrams.)

Could you elaborate a little or point to books delving deeper into such incidences? Thank you in advance.

[shaberon]

Posted by Journeyman (here)
The towers were built to be brought down, that's back in the late 40's. The real planning likely centuries before that.

Can you elaborate on this?

We were under the impression that the towers were built in the 70s with exceptionally re-inforced cores, making it next to impossible for them to fall.

Skyscrapers, generally, got popular around the 40s, and I am unclear about how their destruction might be planned before they were invented.

[Bluegreen]

The Most Dangerous Book in the World: 9/11 as Mass Ritual (2013) by S K BAIN





In this shocking exposé, investigative researcher and author S. K. Bain explores the inconsistencies, coincidences, and historical precedents of the events of September 11, 2001, and reconstructs an occult-driven script for a Global Luciferian MegaRitual. Bain argues forcefully that the framework for the entire event was a psychological warfare campaign built upon a deadly foundation of black magick and high technology. The book details a view of the sinister nature of the defining event of the 21st century and opens a window into the vast scope of the machinery of oppression that the author asserts has been constructed around us.

https://sm.blackgold.org/Enki/869920
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Most-Danger...dp/1937584178/

[Journeyman]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by Journeyman (here)
The towers were built to be brought down, that's back in the late 40's. The real planning likely centuries before that.

Can you elaborate on this?

We were under the impression that the towers were built in the 70s with exceptionally re-inforced cores, making it next to impossible for them to fall.

Sorry, I was pushed for time and wasn't very clear. Am currently on my phone so this will also be brief, probably for the best!

My point is that not only was the bringing down of the towers an occult ritual, the plans date back* to the very conception, planning and building of the towers. They weren't built to increase office space or to generate revenue, though they'll happily bank those profits. They were built to form the final pieces of a carefully staged occult ritual, alongside the Washington arch, statue of 'liberty' central park obelisk and certain other buildings in Manhattan.

How to substantiate such a claim? Difficult, but a look at the personnel involved in the conception, the political powers brought to bear to secure the site, the transition from one tower to two, the other buildings of the Japanese architect, maybe taken together start to become suggestive.

There's plenty of people that have unpicked some of the ritual aspects in timing, alignment with heavens, correlations between concepts represented in masonic tracing boards and the buildings at WTC, the tower that replaced it etc. Chris Knowles, Mark Passio, Corey Daniels, doubtless others.

Skyscrapers, generally, got popular around the 40s, and I am unclear about how their destruction might be planned before they were invented.

Not the skyscrapers but the spiritual idea they were representing. They could've been two columns, pillars. There needed to be a difference between them though, the North Tower had an antenna that differentiated it from the south. That's the 'male' tower. Male / Female, Sun/Moon, Above/Below the opposites that are to be reconciled and unified. The male/female triangles can be found integrated into the design of the tower that replaced the twins.





I just wanted to raise the idea that this wasn't some kind of additional aspect, it was the raison detre of not just the day itself, but the towers very existence. They built them with the intention of bringing them down, on that day at that time. As with everything they do they signalled as much, the picture of David Rockefeller is from Newsweek April 1967, his watch is set at 9:11:








*Likely long before is my guess

[Journeyman]

So as a ps to that last post.... I know videos are time consuming, but they're often the only readily available source of certain info. So Chris Knowles outlines some of his research in this interview with Robert Phoenix. Timestamped to spare you some intro and technical kerfuffles:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=W0FM8byJYHQ

Mark Passio, he's good on symbolism timestamped:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=qCVLfewqCUs

Thomas Sheridan, a very engaging funny Irish pagan gives his take:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WYJ0EmEj-So

At least some can be found not in video format:

Corey Daniels is a Phoenix based writer on occult matters:
https://thephoenixenigma.com/de-occu...ual-sacrifice/

MK Styliknski:

9/11: An Occult Ritual? I
9/11: An Occult Ritual? II: Numbers & Symbols
9/11: An Occult Ritual? III: The Twin Towers (1)
9/11: An Occult Ritual? IV: The Twin Towers (2)
9/11: An Occult Ritual? V:New Order of the Oculus

[shaberon]

Posted by Journeyman (here)
How to substantiate such a claim? Difficult, but a look at the personnel involved in the conception, the political powers brought to bear to secure the site, the transition from one tower to two, the other buildings of the Japanese architect, maybe taken together start to become suggestive.



I just wanted to raise the idea that this wasn't some kind of additional aspect, it was the raison detre of not just the day itself, but the towers very existence. They built them with the intention of bringing them down, on that day at that time.

Okay. Around 1960 you had a grand stepping in to power of David and Nelson Rockefeller.

David does not have an office of power but does have a lot of money and influence, and gets the Port Authority involved with his project, since they have extreme jurisdiction to condemn properties and otherwise make way for something big.


The possible sites are few since a large part of Manhattan has too much topsoil to support such structures. The place Mr. Rockefeller wanted to do it became rejected and replaced:


The project, developed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was originally planned to be built on the east side of Lower Manhattan, but the New Jersey and New York state governments could not agree on this location.

After extensive negotiations, the New Jersey and New York state governments agreed to support the World Trade Center project, which was built at the site of Radio Row in the Lower West Side of Manhattan, New York City.



So government does not specifically do anything Rockefeller says, but they make compromises.

What suggests that the intent is anything other than to re-vitalize an urban slum?

Or that this type of construction is something other than the intent to provide sturdy cores that are hurricane and earthquake-proof, capable of shedding a side if necessary:











One could certainly say, from one point of view, it was hated while it was being built. Despised as an edifice of capitalism. But I don't see what is telling us that Mr. Rockefeller or else who could have had such influence as to do the whole project for the purposes of destroying it.

He liked rich Jews but he loathed extreme Zionists. Most of the parties who appear close to the capability of actually destroying it do have strong partnerships with extreme Zionists.

So the motive is hard to see, it does not sound like anything he ever said or did, but then in a military view it is pretty similar to Pearl Harbor.

[Journeyman]

Posted by shaberon (here)

Posted by Journeyman (here)
How to substantiate such a claim? Difficult, but a look at the personnel involved in the conception, the political powers brought to bear to secure the site, the transition from one tower to two, the other buildings of the Japanese architect, maybe taken together start to become suggestive.



I just wanted to raise the idea that this wasn't some kind of additional aspect, it was the raison detre of not just the day itself, but the towers very existence. They built them with the intention of bringing them down, on that day at that time.

Okay. Around 1960 you had a grand stepping in to power of David and Nelson Rockefeller.

David does not have an office of power but does have a lot of money and influence, and gets the Port Authority involved with his project, since they have extreme jurisdiction to condemn properties and otherwise make way for something big.


The possible sites are few since a large part of Manhattan has too much topsoil to support such structures. The place Mr. Rockefeller wanted to do it became rejected and replaced:


The project, developed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was originally planned to be built on the east side of Lower Manhattan, but the New Jersey and New York state governments could not agree on this location.

After extensive negotiations, the New Jersey and New York state governments agreed to support the World Trade Center project, which was built at the site of Radio Row in the Lower West Side of Manhattan, New York City.


So government does not specifically do anything Rockefeller says, but they make compromises.

What suggests that the intent is anything other than to re-vitalize an urban slum?

Or that this type of construction is something other than the intent to provide sturdy cores that are hurricane and earthquake-proof, capable of shedding a side if necessary:

One could certainly say, from one point of view, it was hated while it was being built. Despised as an edifice of capitalism. But I don't see what is telling us that Mr. Rockefeller or else who could have had such influence as to do the whole project for the purposes of destroying it.

He liked rich Jews but he loathed extreme Zionists. Most of the parties who appear close to the capability of actually destroying it do have strong partnerships with extreme Zionists.

So the motive is hard to see, it does not sound like anything he ever said or did, but then in a military view it is pretty similar to Pearl Harbor.

Sorry for the delay in replying.

Second things first, on this point:

Or that this type of construction is something other than the intent to provide sturdy cores that are hurricane and earthquake-proof, capable of shedding a side if necessary:

- absolutely. There was talk from some post the event about the core and a single point of failure etc but it's way outside my wheelhouse and it wasn't my intention to imply that the actual construction of the towers in terms of structural design, material choices, construction techniques etc was anything other than the best that could be attained at the time of building. What the precise method of bringing them down was I don't know, probably many here who are more well versed in the arguments on that aspect.

On the first question, I don't have much in the way of details, it's awhile since I looked at this, but I know the actual process began late 40's rather than 60's and Rockefeller was involved from a relatively young age. I'll see if I've anything written down and come back.

However one part of my argument is already there in the analysis of the Manhattan skyline at the time of the event in the Chris Knowles presentation I linked. That's worth checking out, although I can try to precis if helpful.