Tuesday, January 20, 2009

I'm a no-planer

http://www.loosechange911.com/2009/01/9-11-no-planes-propaganda-on-aes-the-beast-starring-patrock-swayze-whats-up-with-network-television-launching-911-info-in-their-shows-well-and-now-disinfo/

I’m a no-planer. I wasn’t 6 months ago, but as an open-minded person willing to consider the evidence and contradictory views, I became convinced. It boils down to the physics. The physics of the falling towers (including WTC-7) into their own footprints at free fall speed was what convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job. However, the exposure of the doctored 9/11 video footage (“September Clues”) along with the physics of planes crashing into steel towers convinced me that no-planes actually crashed into the towers. We already knew that the Pentagon plane was no commercial aircraft. As for Shanksville Plane, the lack of wreckage, body parts, and luggage suggests it wasn’t a commercial plane either.

But back to the physics. A commercial plane is a little bit better than a flying beer can. When such an object flies into the massive steel structures like the towers, one expects some penetration, sure. But one also expects sudden deceleration and deformation of the aluminum plane as it hits that hard structure. In fact, the force of the deceleration should have torn the wings from the body and certainly the engines from the wings while still on the outside of the building. Certain plane parts should have done an accordian and/or bounced off the building, with the massive engines being the only parts with that enough mass for full penetration.

The CGI we saw on television, much like Spiderman and Superman, had the planes enter the building without deformation at the speeds they were traveling through thin air, which when you think about it, is just as hard to believe as the top floors of the towers traveling through the lower floors without resistance while turning things not just into rubble but into fine powder — a huge energy sink.

Planes traveling at their supposed speed and that low to the ground would have been deafening. Up until the repeat broadcasts worked its PSYOPS through our collective fuzzy memories, people in NY on that day did not hear the planes. The first things they heard and saw were the explosions. And if you’d watch “September Clues”, you can see where raw footage also did not show the planes and where doctored footage covered up their CGI glitches and gotchas.

So, all of this talk about “no-plane disinformation” really needs to be turned around. Those who try to debunk the no-plane concept may really be the spreaders of disinformation.

The reasons for going no-planer and CGI are numerous, like all of the variables and risks of getting a real plane to fly into the towers. More importantly, if the towers were designed to withstand such assaults, then the even greater risks would be the planes getting stuck halfway in the tower or even getting crushed & bouncing off, which in turn would not offer sufficient believable damage that would lead to believable total destruction.
Eye witnesses of the day did report hearing missiles. My speculation is that military planes fired missiles into the towers, whereby the CGI planes would be required to hide the missiles as well as provide an emotional ruse for what initiated the destruction.

We all have hazy pictures of the events of the day. When new evidence presents itself, we can and should all adjust our perception to take it into account. I get the feeling that those people calling no-planes disinformation are simply married to the initial drafts that “Loose Change” was and don’t want to go further down the rabbit hole. “September Clues” doesn’t debunk the entirety of “Loose Change”; it enhances and refines it. Much of “Loose Change” still holds up.

No comments: