Monday, October 11, 2010

People Are Allergic to the Facts

One of you mentions 9/11 and one of you mentions a systematic media over the last couple of decades that boils down to five corporations with interconnected subsidiaries and being a subsidiary of major government defense contractors.

The physics of the falling towers (including WTC-7) at free fall rates and with such complete pulverization was what convinced me that 9/11 was an inside job (although with elements that were outsourced, like the Saudi patsies.)

The media was not an innocent observer on 9/11, but a willing complicit participant.

The can of worms I open is that September Clues ( has not been debunked entirely in my books. September Clues posits the premise that television trickery and computer generated imagery (CGI) planted the image of commercial planes into our minds and through repetition even tampered with the recollections of eye witnesses.

We already suspect 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.

The physics of planes crashing into steel towers convinced me that no-planes actually crashed into the towers, which the exposure of the doctored 9/11 video footage (“September Clues”) only re-enforces. 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 enough mass for full penetration.

The CGI we saw on television, much like the Road-Runner and Bugs Bunny cartoon, had the planes enter the building without deformation at the speeds they were traveling through thin air into their cartoon outline on the building, which when you think about it, breaks laws of physics just like the top floors of the towers traveling through the lower floors without resistance while turning things into fine powder — a huge energy sink -- breaks laws of physics. (If true, Allah is greater than our God!)

Eye witnesses of the day in NYC reported seeing a small plane or hearing a missile. Real commercial planes traveling at their supposed speed and that low to the ground (both also physics defying) 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 most of them 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.

With CGI to cover over the reality, it wouldn't matter if military planes fired missiles into the towers as done at the Pentagon or if pre-planted Hollywood explosives gave us the show. CGI planes provide an emotional ruse for what they'll claim initiated the destruction.

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 (of the entire effing WTC complex!)

Moreover, I'm convinced that 9/11 was a nuclear event, where again having control of the media would be essential should any of the multiple milli-nukes per tower have excess energy and explode beyond the outer steel mesh ment to contain it and hide it: such images could be covered over just like images of all magazine cover girls are manipulated.

Before anyone hits me with "Dr. Jones and his nano-thermite," they don't have to be mutually exclusive with a nuclear 9/11. Dr. Jones has supposedly debunked the use nuclear weapons in some report that was based on other government reports and findings. Given that Dr. Jones laments in reports and public statements not getting FOIA requests for information and data from various government agencies and given how statements and reports from government agencies blatantly lied, were unscientific, or misrepresented information (e.g., EPA, NIST), then the old computer slogan "garbage in, garbage out" applies to conclusions that would rule out nukes.

Face it. Nano-thermite is certainly capable of burning without air under the rubble. But when you do the physics and math on the massive quantities of nano-thermite that would be required in order for it to burn FOR MANY ~WEEKS~ under the rubble as observed by infrared satillite images and videos, then the hypothesis of fracticided and fizzled milli-nukes in this overly redundant operation would more easily explain it all. (And I do mean "ALL" including the recruitment of new conspirators and mouthpieces in government and media after the fact, because this revelation ought to reform from the ground up federal government.)

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 and 9/11 nukes 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: