JUne 14, 2006
Here
is a new, and so far unasked question about the badly debunked official
explanation of the events of September 11th 2001. If you spend years
planning a spectacular attack on the World Trade Center in New York
City, and you are a less than adequate pilot, and you wanted to ensure
the attack would be completed without giving the U.S. air defense
apparatus the chance to follow their normal procedures and intercept
your plane, why would you choose to fly out of Boston? Why would you
choose to risk getting lost or stopped as you try to fly 190 miles to
your target when you can hijack a plane from one of three airports
within sight of the target?
There are three airports that would enable a pilot or a hijacker to
have visual contact with the World Trade Center within a minute or two
of takeoff. With all the planning these so called hijackers must have
made, how stupid would they have to have been to travel to Boston in
order to attack NY? We have been told that the so-called hijackers were
barely able to pilot even simple two seater aircraft, but we are
supposed to believe that they felt confident enough to navigate to NY
from Boston without the help of ground control. Are we to believe that
i they would not have flown out an airport from which they had constant
visual contact with their target? Also keep in mind that planes taking
off from these NY area airports would have more fuel remaining in their
tanks when they made contact. They would not have to burn off 45
minutes worth of destructive explosive fuel.
Here is why they had to fly out of Boston: it is because the real
planes had to be switched with the remote controlled modified 737s that
actually impacted the towers. Yes, planes did hit the towers and the
Pentagon, but not the planes that we have been told. I am convinced based on the current body of evidence, that the planes that hit the towers were 737s flown by remote control and that a Skywarrior hit the Pentagon.
Where are the other planes? Skeptics would disqualify this
commentary by saying something stupid like "well, where are the real
planes then?" I’ll tell you where the real planes are, they are
destroyed and the people on board were murdered. They were sacrificed
"for the good of the nation." At least that is the reason for their
sacrifice we would hear from a Machiavellian leader who follows such
illogic. I will ask that you look into that particular philosophy so
that you understand what I mean. We already know that the hawks in the
Bush administration are Machiavellian in their thinking; we hear that
on a regular basis from Chris Matthews on MSNBC. The only problem is
that Matthews never explains what that means. In a nutshell that means
that the hawks in the White House will lie, cheat, deceive and even
kill for the overall good of their mission. These are the same people
that lose no sleep about the almost 3000 Americans that they sent to be
killed in Iraq as part of this same mission. These people have no
problem sacrificing others in order to achieve their mission. They did
it with Iraq and they did it on 9/11. Stop telling me that they would
never do that because they already did!
When I teach people how to watch or interpret news I tell them to
ask themselves three very important questions when they being told
something by the lying bastards in the media:
- Does this information make sense to you?
- Does this information make sense to you?
- Does this information make sense to you?
Once again, I ask you: would hijackers planning on attacking New
York City, a city with 3 airports within direct eyesight of the
intended target, choose to launch their attack from 190 miles away when
they could have launched their attack from a distance of less than 15
miles? We are told that these 'hijackers’ were such geniuses that they
could deceive the most sophisticated air defense system in history.
After spending all that time and resources to plan an attack of that
scale why would minimally trained pilots with no airliner experience
make such a senseless choice Think about it!
