Friday, March 17, 2017
Posted by Obwon at 5:37 PM
Posted by Obwon at 4:28 PM
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Monday, March 13, 2017
They could not use real planes on 911, because, in the planning stages any use of real planes presented real and insurmountable problems.
Just try to imagine the planning session. The narrative will be that terrorist skyjackers, sent by OBL would takeover jets, fly them to the targets then crash them.
Problem: Jet crashes would not take down the buildings.
Solution: Load the buildings with explosives sufficient to demolish them.
Problem: With the buildings loaded with explosives, both planes must impact the towers and cause maximum damage, such that it is believable that the crashes, not the planted explosives, cause the buildings to fall.
Problem: Real people, even suicidal terrorists are unpredictable. They might not accomplish their tasks for a wide variety of reasons, many of which are not under anyone's control. Loss of nerve, bird strikes, equipment failures, passenger revolt/intervention, failure to overcome the flight crew, just to name a few. If even one plane did not strike it's target, or if both planes struck the targets but so obliquely that minimal damage was done, the entire operation is exposed to failure.
Solution: Fake the use of planes then fake the required impacts. In only this way could you be absolutely certain that the required scenario would be perfectly accomplished in the required manner.
Because news media is often fakery, newscasters cannot challenge their own news/video feeds being played over the air, by people throwing switches in the control room. "Normal" news fakery is often done, simply to give viewers an enhanced view of the news. It cannot be let out that this is done because the media would lose it's credibility. But, to say that something must be so, because it was seen on tv, is ridiculous in the extreme. Many things seen in movies and on television are fake, but seem real. The viewers only clue in many cases, as to what to believe or not, is the context it is given. Thus, if you are watching a movie or story, you know that it's special effects. If it's presented as news, however, you would have no way to know that what you are seeing is either special effects or real live footage. Only later analysis can reveal the differences between the real and the false, and sometimes not even then.
But this was a massive project with too many components to make them mesh seamlessly, so there are a plethora of artifacts that give the mission away. Artifacts that would not be there if all of these things had taken place for real.
Posted by Obwon at 2:31 PM
Sunday, March 12, 2017
They've had to use every trick in the book to keep the truth hidden from view. As a sometimes fan of murder mysteries, myself and others, are aware of the various means and methods that perps use in their attempts to cover their tracks. Although we enjoy our entertainment, we don't go looking to see if any of the techniques have names. Well this one does and if I'm not mistaken, I'd guess that there are many more names for some of the techniques, used by perps and/or criminals to cover up their incriminating activities, that someone has witnessed, by suggesting they are either mistaken or losing their mind.
As if it wasn't vexing enough to see the policeman come onto a scene, where the victim had been shot two or three times in the head, and declare it a suicide. Okay, probably nothing that grossly wrong, yet something close to it, ignoring obvious clues etc., to arrive at an almost insane conclusion. As if, you know: no criminal would ever even think of trying to re-arrange the evidence, so as to conceal their own culpability and, where possible, shift the blame onto someone else. And while you might think that only happens in movies, plays and novels. If you read newspapers and books of real life accounts/investigations, you quickly arrive at a view that these kinds of things are more common than you would have believed possible.
Hardly a wonder then, that people well read in the criminal arts, are not surprised to see people wrongfully convicted, despite glaring flaws in the evidence/testimony/timelines/etc. In cases, worthy of little public note, the officials have the last word on what to believe had taken place. While jurors of little experience, simply take the word for the matters as presented in court, and unless there's some very glaring contradiction, they are given to simply give their own approval of the official version. Of course, if you question that, then I suggest you go to "The Innocence Project" and read some of the case files of cases they've overturned.
So then, that's how the well read crimes/murder story aficionados, saw 911 from the start. They approached the matter as a mystery waiting to be solved. From that perspective, I'll guess that you can just imagine what was going through their minds as evidence began to disappear quickly without examination. Or when a perpetrator was named before one piece of hard evidence had been obtained, let alone examined. But there were real victims who did die that day and a nation grieving for them, is in no condition to join in any real sift through the evidence. Emotions ran hot and tempers were stroked to fury, then pointed towards the accused. While any attempt to call attention to any inconsistencies were branded "conspiracy theories", as if no conspiracy was needed to perpetuate the crime. "Funny" that, eh? Worse yet, more people than not believed this to be a proper course to follow; accuse>>punish and done! No time for all those noble words and high ideals set forth in our own beloved Constitution. Once again, the very idea that a criminal might seek to conceal their own guilt and put blame on someone else, we were told, was unthinkable and unAmerican.
Could our own government be capable of such a thing? Well, some very powerful people in very high places of trust, honor and power in our gov't, formulated, proposed and submitted for the Presidents approval of exactly that same thing, under the title of "Operation Northwood" And while the President rejected the proposal, I don't think for a minute it would have been either created or offered, if there was no belief that it could be accepted at all. I mean, who would do so much work on a project, they believed was just too far and away objectionable, that it had absolutely no chance of being approved?
Worse, of course, is the postscript, that General Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, under whose authority and signature the plan was sent to the President, was simply reassigned to NATO, where Operation Gladio was underway. (Google for it-- it's an eye opener itself.).
So here we are, in the aftermath of 911, plane parts, absent in the early pictures of the debris fields, begin to appear in photos in earnest. An engine on Murry Street that turned out to be from a 747 engine, made by General Electric, while United Airlines used Pratt & Whitney engines. Yet fingers are pointed and stories written about how that engine is seen exiting the north face of the south tower and coursing through the air over to land on Murry and Church streets where it is found. How many people bothered to read the follow up conclusions that this engine, cited more than a few times as proof positive of flight 175 crashing into the south tower, could not have come from that plane?
Then there's that five window segment of fuselage, pictured to have fallen to the ground intact between the towers. But consider this: The planes both went completely inside the towers, no parts are seen to exit either one. Then realize that everything inside those two towers was pulverized to dust. Acres of steel floor pans, on which rested 4 inch thick concrete slabs, and held up by floor trusses, hundreds of them, all turned to dust. Along with hundred of bodies blown to bits, and big commercial copiers, desks, chairs, computers, computer screens and tv's, as well as hundreds of file cabinets, all missing from the debris piles. Not a safe was recovered, there had to be a few safes on the site for storing valuables and sensitive documents etc. Where are they? Yet some unidentifiable plane parts survived? Who writes this stuff? But no, it's "gas lighting". Giving the unsophisticated something to point to and talk up.
Want to see gas lighting in action? Listen to the debunkers go on about how easy it is to use the auto pilot. "Just punch in JFK and the plane flies to JFK, then take over from there", or a statement to that effect. If you go to Youtube and search for "flight management system" which is what the auto pilot is actually named, you'll find out that it's not as easy as what the debunkers are trying to tell you. First there's the means of programming the darned thing, even experience pilots will tell you requires a good bit of training to learn to do. Second, you'll learn that it requires a four digit code to select a destination airport. See if you can figure out where and/or how to enter that code, and it gets even worse.
If you change the destination in the flight management system (FMS) you'll also need to give it your location in latitude and longitude. You see, the FMS works by selecting way points, pre-set radio positions to fly to along the selected route. So, to select the proper set of way points to get you from where you are at present, to JFK, the FMS needs to know your present location, otherwise it can't know which way points to select to get you there. Does anyone think these poor pilots could actually determine their latitude and longitude and enter it into the FMS? Even worse yet is, if they could have, the course the air crafts are supposed to have flown, were not routes or maneuvers that the FMS would have used at all, meaning that the FMS systems were not being used at all.
But, of course, it's all part of gas lighting the public's unsophisticated members. Those who have no knowledge of the details involved, and won't bother to look at them, will find the debunkers explanations easy to believe are true. While even a cursory look beneath the surface of these claims, reveals a totally different story, one that cannot possibly be true.
Real airline pilots know that it's incredibly difficult to fly these big heavy aircraft by hand. That's why the FMS is provided. While hand flying a heavy, it requires the efforts of two trained pilots to monitor all the instruments and keep the flight stable. Pilots say that hand flying these planes for more than ten or so minutes is extremely exhausting work, which is left to the FMS as much as possible, with the pilots doing takeoffs and landings. These planes are very fragile, they are built to be light to save on fuel and fly fast. They are to be kept to within gravity loads of 2 to 3 g's (the force of gravity), although they can survive, perhaps as much as 4 to 5 g's, they can't do so for very long.
Do you find it odd that none of the physics pro's on the truth sites, don't bother to calculate the impact forces in g loads on the planes? With a plane, not being able to withstand more than 700 lbs/square foot without being damaged, and with the steel box columns of the building requiring forces in the range of 12,000 lbs/per square inch to break, it's hard to imagine a plane going completely inside a tower without breaking apart at all, which is what the videos show. So, to gas light you on this issue, you will be told that water can cut steel, and that hurricanes can put straws through trees and cardboard through walls. None of which is true if you look into it. Of course, we've all heard such stories, so if you don't look, maybe it sounds like it could be true, and so you have been gas lighted. Given pause to doubt the truth.
Posted by Obwon at 12:12 PM