Saturday, September 11, 2010

Nine-One-One: CGI and Favored Patsies

9/11 Again?

Eye-balls roll, heads shake, and scowls can barely be suppressed when certain topics are brought up: the assassination of JFK, RFK, MLK, ...; Gulf of Tonkin; Iran-Contra; Oklahoma City; 9/11.

Proclaiming 9/11 to be an inside job does little to engender meaningful consideration by those fully indoctrinated by red, white, and blue patriotism, "USA #1" cheerleading, and American Christian manifest destiny, thusly justifying all actions of a nation believed to be closest to Christ and perfection on the planet. The expression of non-sanctioned views becomes a red flag about who might be off (or on) medication and that future discourse should probably be avoided.

The lack of serious consideration and contemplation about 9/11 has two important roots in modern society: media over-saturation and individual powerlessness.

Even before TV remotes could control many pieces of media electronics and hundreds of channels, humans adapted to modern marketing by scanning passed newspaper ads, multi-tasking at commercials, and scrolling over web ads. Ignoring the noise is what we've been trained to do. This, combined with 24/7 lowest-common-denominator titilating content, has turned us into thrill seeking channel-surfers with very short attention spans. The selections overwhelm us, and weighty matters, not having the same thrill factor, are easy to tune-out.

When due attention is paid to serious topics, what can one individual do to help arm the masses with knowledge and understanding? Compared to corporate media, the resources are lacking to cut through the hyped distractions and communicate another message that might be more challenging to fathom but closer to the truth.

Media over-saturation and individual powerlessness are beyond the scope of this essay to solve. They are mentioned, because they were two enabling tools of the 9/11 fraud.

Red Pill, Blue Pill: Were there even commercial planes?

The infamous red pill, blue pill choice that Morpheus gives to Neo in his search for truth in the movie "The Matrix" is given you here. Either stop reading here and keep your world view, or suspend your disbelief and assume the next paragraph is true (but verify it later for yourself.)

Commerical airplanes may have taken off on 9/11, but they did not strike high-valued targets on 9/11 as the supposed catalyst for three skyscrapers collapsing into their own footprints. [Search for Parts 1 through 9 of "September Clues" in YouTube.]

Yes, we all saw the airplanes hitting the towers on television, over and over. We've also seen many other incredible wonders on the boob tube that computer generated imagery (CGI) created.

The earliest 9/11 Doubting-Thomas's have always questioned the existence of the Pentagon plane and the Shanksville plane. The crash sites lacked the debris, wreckage, luggage, bodies, and body parts consistent with other commercial airline disasters. In the case of the Pentagon, the impact hole wasn't big enough for a commercial plane. This is coupled with the high-speed downward spiral into the most heavily defended building on the planet that would be difficult for an experienced pilot, but unbelievable for the reportedly worst pilot among the hijackers. From the manuevers, traffic controllers thought it was a military plane. Plus, within minutes of the crash, the FBI confiscated video tapes from a gas station and hotel that would have shown the plane. These tapes have never been released to the public. What were released were several inconclusive frames from a parking lot camera.

Therefore, the revelation that commercial aircraft did not hit the towers is actually consistent with other aspects of the greater ruse.

Why CGI?

Risk mitigation.

Could four planes even be hijacked? Could they be flown to their targets? Wouldn't hijacked planes get intercepted? Would the hijackers have the nerve to carry out a suicide divebomb? Would the planes hit their targets? Would the impacts cause enough damage?

The WTC towers were designed to withstand impacts from large aircrafts. Were a real plane to fly into them, the fuselage would likely crumble like a beer can. Portions of the plane, like the tail and wings, would likely shear off the fuselage and possibly bounce off of the building completely. The high probability risk is that, other than the heavy engines, a real plane would not penetrate the building deeply, and thereby not be credible as the catalyst for the onset of the fires and later structural failure to bring the whole building to the ground.

A cruise missile, on the other hand, could penetrate the building and just might cause sufficient damage to seemingly initiate structural failure. But a cruise missile exposes the perpetrators, because few people or organizations have them as a resource at their disposal.

Fact: A low-flying airplane is very loud, yet witnesses and some audio-only recordings did not hear anything until the explosion of the "impact." Some witnesses closer did report hearing what sounded like missiles, although the on-the-street interviewers were quickly corrected by in-the-booth newscasters who saw (the faked) footage showing airplanes.

A media feed on a 17 second delay would allow CGI to mask the flight of the missile with pixels resembling an aircraft and thereby cement the visual into the minds of the masses. Over the course of the next few days, new CGI enhanced footage from "amateurs" could be placed into the public domain.

Of course, a missile strike does not leave behind the remains of a commercial aircraft. The complete destruction of the building covers up the actual and missing pieces of critical evidence.

The 9/11 Doubting-Thomas's have always questioned the collapses of the three (3) World Trade Center (WTC) buildings. The thoroughness of the destruction is a smoking gun that the attacks were known and enhanced by insiders, because they defied physics in the speculated heat of jet fuel and office furniture fires, the weakening of steel, the pulverization of materials, and the collapses at near free-fall speed into their own footprints.

Fact: In terms of a business investment, the WTC towers were white elephants that were under-occupied, had asbestos problems, and other structural issues that were extremely expensive to fix. Razing the towers and starting over would have been almost cheaper for the new owner, particularly with the help of an insurance policy that included terrorist attacks.

What happened to the commercial aircraft that took off, and why weren't they intercepted?

After getting hijacked all four aircraft turned off their transponders, which broadcasts among other things flight number and altitude. They still appear on radar as a blip, but two or more transponderless aircraft flying close together or at different altitudes on the same course appear as one radar blip.

At least four military exercises under the command of Vice President Dick Cheney were in progress on the morning of 9/11. Some of the exercises were simulating exactly the scenarios that Secretary Rice said "nobody could imagine", namely terrorists flying planes into buildings. Some of the exercises may have involved inserting fake blips and transponder signals into the radar control.

Commercial aircraft can be flown remotely. The hijackers and pilots would not necessarily even have to be conscious to fly the airplane, like if they were incompassitated early in the flights.

The above conditions provide lots of options for how the commercial planes (about 1/3 their normal occupancy on 9/11) could be shadowed and swapped by a military plane from the perspective of radar. The commercial plane flies off elsewhere and eventually lands, like amidst the confusion of the grounding of all flights, while a transponderless military plane flies on.

The commercial airplanes in questions did not have (working) sky-phones, and cellphones do not work from high altitudes. Cellphone tower antennas aim their signals close to the earth, not up. Airplanes travel so fast, call hand off between cellphone towers can lose calls. Morever, airplanes fly over areas without cellphone coverage. The reported cellphone calls on 9/11 from flights were probably made from the ground after the in-flight plane switches or were faked by voice-morphing software.

Standard Operating Procedures for aircraft controllers have many triggers for subsequent action. Turning off the transponder triggers establishing contact with the pilot. Interceptions are ordered when pilots are unresponsive to control tower communications or when the plane deviates from its flight plan. All were present with all flights; none of the flights were intercepted although it had happened 97 times the previous year.

Due to the military exercises, many of the military aircraft normally available for interception were elsewhere. When they were called into action, some were sent the wrong direction initially. They flew back at only half speed. The ruse would be spoiled if military planes discovered transponderless military planes where hijacked commercial aircraft were supposed to be found, or if they found no planes where radar blips said they'd be. The military changed its official story three times, and still provided unsatisfactory answers.

Al-Queda -- the base -- is said to have been a creation of the CIA. A creation gone awry. Osama bin Laden is on the FBI's most-wanted list for many things, but not for the 9/11 attacks. Insufficient evidence. But shoving the blame for 9/11 on bin Laden conveniently shifts the focus from those truly responsible, a classic false flag operation.

Favored Patsies

Osama bin Laden and his associates may very well be as bad as the goverment says. Al-Queda is implicated in many attrocities, from American embassy bombings to the U.S.S. Cole. Al-Queda's recruitment has prospered since 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. But that doesn't mean that more about 9/11 couldn't be assigned to Al-Queda than they really were responsible for.

Anybody who has watched crime dramas or read crime novels with any regularity has run across the theme of someone being framed for the crimes committed by another. Framing them is easier if they are already of dubious character and are implicated in other crimes. Until they are caught and have their day in court, it isn't as if they even have a forum to offer credible denials for what they didn't do. They might even relish and benefit from the mystic of having more attributed to them than they are actually guilty of. In the end, one sentence of death or life-in-prison is the same as 100 such sentences from a court of law.

The evidence seems to suggest that the Saudi (Al-Queda) hijackers were favored patsies whose function -- whether or not known to them -- was to create a plausible storyline for 9/11.

How were the patsies favored?

Although not possessing attributes (e.g., education, trade skills, etc.) that would make them likely candidates for obtaining U.S. visas, they were granted such. A related backstory from this time period concerns U.S. foreign embassy employee complaints about superiors over-ruling and fast-tracking the issuance of visas to certain unqualified individuals who otherwise would have been rejected.

The FBI was monitoring most of the individuals attributed to the 9/11 hijackings until orders from the highest levels told them to back off, much to the FBI investigators' displeasure. Backstories related to this are the allegations from FBI whistleblowers. Another is that for certain periods of their residency, they lived coincidentally very close to facilities and airports that in the past had ties to CIA operations.

We have evidence that before the 9/11 attacks General Mahmoud Ahmed as head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) instructed that $100,000 be wired to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. Ahmed was in Washington on 9/11. Ahmed had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf.

We do ~not~ know that the 19 named hijackers even got on the planes, because the airport security videos have never been released. No Arab names appear on any of the flight manifests, so if they were on the flights, what fake identification did they use to get on board, where did they get it from, and why has there never been any correlation between their fake names and real names? Six of the named hijackers have been reported as being alive after 9/11, which would indicate identity theft but something the government's 9/11 version never addresses or corrects.

The piloting skills of the hijackers according to their flight instructors do not correlate with the feats of the day, particularly at the Pentagon. Their poor skills as pilots wouldn't be an issue, though, if their role was never really to fly the planes or even get on the planes, as would be the case if the planes were swapped and CGI completed the illusion (or -- assuming real planes -- if they were flown by remote control.)

The Math Doesn't Add Up

A well-informed citizenry is a requirement to maintain our republic, a charge from Thomas Jefferson.

For me, it is a matter of principle as fundamental to my view of the physical and metaphysical as 2+3=5. Except, we were told 4.7 was the answer, and few of us have done our homework and its requisite math to confirm the answer. Any structure relying on flawed fundamentals will be square neither literally nor figuratively.

Which is why I write.

Patterns are present, whether talking on a micro-level on 9/11 as done here, or on a macro-level spanning events, generations, decades, and eras. Recognize the patterns. Connect the dots. Corporate media re-enforced labels of "outrageous conspiracy theory" does not make it any less of a probability; it serves only to marginalize those questioning the vast number of inconsistencies in the handling and the explanations of the events of that fateful day.

The vast number of inconsistencies about 9/11 are enough to give reasonable people pause and to evolve their 9/11 views. That evolution should be on-going as more and more evidence trickles out of government archives and gets declassified.

No comments: