Maxims: More of the same ?    
 More of the same ?0 comments
17 Mar 2002 @ 03:02, by Max Tobin

Subject: 9-11: The Flight Of The Bumble Planes > > 9-11: The Flight Of The Bumble Planes > > by Snake Plissken > as told to Carol A. Valentine > Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum > > Copyright, March 2002 > May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes > See [link] > To hear the bumble planes, visit above URL > > March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself > "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger > lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how > remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why > the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no > Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon ... > > By George, I think he's got it! > > My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. > With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted > some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions > will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep > the following in mind: > > "Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be > done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible > depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the > main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the > spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you > have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a > demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of > psychology." (John Mulholland, "The Art of Illusion," Charles > Scribner & Sons, 1944.) > > In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians. > > === > > Carol, > > You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches of > solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest > of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion. > > Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just > one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 > jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation > 911 "Flight of the Bumble Planes." > > I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the > truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the > information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All > four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the > clues and show you where they lead. > > THE CLUES > > * First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have > remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You > might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four > coast-to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few > minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists? Nuts. That's > your first clue. > > * Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue > comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question > about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the > state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between > their knees before she stopped talking. > > What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. > She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC > tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most > people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet > and a smaller plane. > > [ CV cmments: > [ In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on > October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first > September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter airplane. > It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane." > [ [link] > [ [link] ] > > Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the > "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a > hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer > felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make > of the plane. So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked. > > * Third clue -- Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there > had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a > plane. > > If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who > said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this > description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small > plane, not a big, round nosed passenger jet. > > Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole > thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines > passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he > was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the > light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved > the way for the official truth. > > * Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site. By now > lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the > story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? > The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between > the two jet engines. > > [ [link] > [ [link] > > The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across. > > [ US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31 > [ [link] > > After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one > could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- > not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have > been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen > wing wreckage. But there was none. > > [ CV comments: > [ I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various > networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after > 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible. > > [ See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military > District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, > . By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that > inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the > damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives > would have been easy to install. ] > > [ [link] > [ [link] > > [ [link] > [ [link] > > [ [link] damaged.html > [ [link] ] > > [The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with > contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for > example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40. > > [ [link] > [ and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27. > [ [link] > > [ This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army > Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates > that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand > pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, > luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context > scrap of God-knows what was shown by the Pentagon. > [link] > [link] > > [ In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's > work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of > Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos > of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out > the websites of Mike Rivero and Joe Vialls > for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as > real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake > opposition. > > [ OK. Now back to Snake Plissken] > > * Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point out > > [ Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS, [link] > ] > > the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 > said they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever > driven a car ..." The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and > dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons. > > Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before > it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to > make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert > pilots. > > Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. > That is your fifth clue. > > * Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the > "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information > showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA > also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the > planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the > transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue. > > ["Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets?" Part 1 > [ [link] ] > > * Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out, some > of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. > [See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue. > > * Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit: Have a look at the > footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed > the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane > struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue. > > [ See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at: > [ [link] > > HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED > > * A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United > Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of > some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it > parked at a military airfield for the moment. > > * The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially > low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers > and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some > of your own operatives in each flight, maybe. > > * After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut > down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is > this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This > is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national > emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your > transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. > You will land at [name] military air base." > > * The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the > information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the > altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on > conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now. > > * What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never > see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy > wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while > the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do > that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to > fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The > blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a > plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, > the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside > the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and > air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips > ... > > That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll > never see the radar records so we won't know exactly. > > [ For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see > [ [link] > [ For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try > [ [link] > [ You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by > using the search engine.] > > * A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with > incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown > into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness > saw. > > * The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like > a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote > control - without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower. > Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that. > > Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the > remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a > big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a > tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns > like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do > the job right and just hit the corner of the tower. > > * Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with > incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the > Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77. > > * Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" > the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, > Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers. > > * Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the > military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of > your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course. > > * Flight 93 is taken aloft. > > * Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. > Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest > way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a > headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves > will ever be discovered, either. > > * The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was > actually headed towards the White House but changed its course. > > * The trail is further confused by having The Washington Post wax > lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a > non-existence plane (Flight 77). > > * The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and > artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub > really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the > story about the pet goat ... > > So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The > other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist > somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap. > > The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an > airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of > them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as > the news media likes to get anyway, so it works. > > WHY DO IT THAT WAY? > > So there you have it. Not four planes. More than fourJî

[< Back] [Maxims]



Other entries in
22 Sep 2005 @ 00:17: Naked in New Orleans
10 Mar 2002 @ 03:30: Check Mate Mr Bush!
4 Jan 2002 @ 15:02: Remember the space walk!!!

[< Back] [Maxims] [PermaLink]?  [TrackBack]?