Tuesday, November 26, 2013

The Realist Report - Tom in CT

On this edition of The Realist Report, we'll be joined once again by Tom in Connecticut. Tom and I will be discussing a number of different subjects relating to psychological and information warfare, particularly as it relates to assaulting, distorting, and corrupting the worldview of a target population.

You can download the mp3 for this program here, or visit The Realist Report on BlogTalkRadio to subscribe via iTunes and view past programs.

Below are relevant links for today's program:


  1. From National911debate@blogspot.com

    by Gerard Holmgren - Summary of main points of evidence
    Summary of points of evidence.

    The list below is a bullet point of some of the more important and more conclusively proven aspects of the case I present. This list of course does not purport to provide here and now the detailed research and documentation. It is simply an introduction to points which will be presented for debate.

    The first is what can be called LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose)

    This section hypothetically concedes, for the sake of argument, that the events of Sept 11 happened more or less as we were told, and then goes on to show that if this were so then the Govt must have had full foreknowledge and taken conscious and deliberate steps to ensure that the attacks were successful, because they wanted them to happen.

    The second can be called MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose) which demonstrates that in fact, the official version of events is almost complete fiction, and that the atrocity was entirely orchestrated by the Govt and media.

    Within each of these two sections, I will divide the points into those which are major points of evidence and those which are more circumstantial or minor when viewed in isolation, but when taken in total context , act cumulatively to add more weight to the case.

    This list is not necessarily exhaustive, and I reserve the right to later add anything which may have been missed by oversight in this list.


    1.The failure of the US air force to even attempt to intercept any of the allegedly hijacked planes, and the later attempts to cover this up is powerful evidence that if we were being told the truth about the timeline of the alleged hijackings, then the air force must have been ordered to stand down from routine interception procedures.

    2. The movements and actions of GW Bush on the morning and the subsequent lies about where he was, what he was doing and what he knew in the crucial period between 8.45 and 9.45 AM indict him as having foreknowledge of the event and conspiring to deliberately avoid taking any action which might have minimized the impact of the attacks. Similar evidence exists against Acting Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.


    1.The invasion of Afghanistan – supposedly in retaliation – had already been planned prior to Sept 11.
    2 Financial transactions surrounding the soon to be gone WTC towers indicate foreknowledge on the part of certain business interests.


    The WTC towers and WTC 7 were brought down with controlled demolitions, and there is evidence that highly advanced technology was used – not just conventional explosives alone.

    No large aircraft struck the Pentagon. And the flight alleged to have been involved – AA 77 did not even exist.

    No plane crashed in PA. And the plane which flew UA 93 that day was still registered as valid in the FAA aircraft registry for more than 4 years later.

    The object which hit the Nth tower was not a large passenger jet, nor any kind of conventional aircraft. The flight alleged to have been involved - AA 11 - did not exist. The media published faked passenger lists for this non existent flight.

    The footage we were shown on TV of a large plane apparently hitting the WTC Sth is faked. On close examination, the video is a crude animation, and the many different videos all radically contradict each other in the approach to the tower. The plane which flew this flight on the day was still registered as valid in the FAA aircraft registry for more than 4 years after.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that any of the alleged hijackers were aboard any of the flights ( even ignoring the fact that two of the flights did not exist). There is evidence that several of them are still alive, or at least were immediately following Sept 11, and protesting their innocence.

    The alleged “confession tape” of Osama Bin laden is a fake.

  2. Continued...


    There are too many to list here, but as a way of generalization, there are many points presented as evidence for the official story which can only be described as bad cartoon scripts. They are so implausible as to be laughable. There are too many to list here fully, but for example:

    Supposedly , four large planes crashed that day, but the wreckage and the bodies of the occupants were never found, supposedly effectively vaporized by the impact. But somehow, the passports of the alleged hijackers were miraculously found nearby in good enough condition for the FBI to name the suspects within a few days. In addition, although the mythical hijackers had supposedly completed their flight training well before the operation, they somehow found it necessary to take flight manuals in Arabic to the airport and leave them in cars which they had been rented in order to be quickly found by the FBI. As if that wasn’t enough, the luggage of the ringleader Mahommed Atta, was fortuitously left behind at Logan, and just happened to contain instructions to his fellow hijackers. Add to that the ridiculous idea that a plane could be taken over by people with little knives, without the crew first getting the chance to punch in the four digit hijacking code. Not just once – but four times out of four. On the mythical flight 11, they are alleged to have gone on a lengthy shooting and stabbing rampage before gaining entry to the cockpit, and somehow the crew still didn’t activate the code.

    I could go on, but this is just a small sample. In summary – even with evidence positively to the contrary, the official story of the hijackings is intrinsically ludicrous. Such a thing simply could not happen in real life. It’s easy to say “they took over the planes”, but not so easy to describe exactly how this would be possible in real life.

    Perhaps this list of absurdities can be examined in more detail, bit it is more logical to examine the major points first. If there were no hijacked planes to begin with, then the *entire* Govt and media story collapses – without the need for more detailed deconstruction.

    Demonstrating even one of the major points above demonstrates either Govt complicity or orchestration – depending on which point one was to demonstrate.

    Depending on the point which is demonstrated, other parts of the official story might still stand, or they may all collapse, because their founding assumption is gone.

    For example – if one were to demonstrate only the LIHOP evidence, this would still demonstrate treason and mass murder on the part of the administration, even if the demolition argument were to fail.

    If one were to demonstrate only the demolition, this would have a similar effect.

    But if one were to demonstrate the TV fakery in relation to the Sth tower, then the *entire* official story collapses, without the need to individually examine the other points, and it would also directly indict the media in a generic sense.

  3. Continued...

    Also a note about standards of evidence.

    Weight of evidence is not a yes or no question.

    It is not as if something is either proven or baseless. There are many shades in between. There is such a thing as proof and where it is demonstrated , it is appropriate to call it as such. However there are also situations where one can demonstrate weight of evidence which may stop short of proof but be sufficiently strong that a reasonable person might accept the case as probable truth. There are even situations where the weight of evidence is less than overwhelming but still of sufficient strength to justify strong suspicion that the case may be true.

    As the debate proceeds, I will demonstrate that the great majority of the points listed above deserve the status of “proof” in their own right, let alone when taken in the larger context of all of the evidence together. There are other points which , when viewed in isolation deserve only the status of “strong evidence” or “grounds for significant suspicion”, but when added to the overall context become proven.

    By contrast, we will see that the official story provides *no* evidence for itself whatsoever. It is an illusion propped up by mere blind faith that if the Govt and media tells us such things, surely they would not lie on such a grand scale.

    This will be a case of critical analysis vs blind faith.

    If we apply equal burden of evidence/proof to both sides it is non contest.

    Even the heavily skewed playing field of demanding proof of my case and no evidence whatsoever for the official story will still yield the proof required.

    Let the debate begin.

  4. I definitely agree with funding JF and his efforts. JF is intelligent and working hard to sort through lies to find the truth.

    Of course, those who benefit from institutional lies don't want us to discover the truth. They fear a societal cascade event where we force the liars out of power.

    Please support JF financially.

    You won't regret it.

  5. :.....Let the debate begin................"

    Better yet, let's just push those responsible. The document "Israel did 9-11, all the proof in the world" is ample evidence for an indictment. It lists all the major players. We need to keep shouting from the rooftops and maybe, just maybe some higher ups in the military will wake up and take action.

    Enough of the how! Who F'n cares. It's the WHO that matters.

    All these people continually pushing "how" are just jerking our chains. Laughing at the same time.

    1. Roy Hobbs,

      How and Who are linked issues.

      To secure an indictment, we need the public to understand "how" it was done.

      We also need the public to understand how we know how it was done.

      Standing around pointing at the jews is of not value - except to the jews.

      If you don't agree with that strategy - act on your own.

    2. The how explains the who. Remember the perpetrators answer to having an investigation? 'No, because we know who did it.' -GWB

      Its important to know the how because they are continually using this playbook on other events such as Sandy Hook and Boston,etc.

      The how, media manipulation and forgery, points quite a large finger at the who does it not? Who owns this media? Two plus two equals four. Simple.

      Ample evidence for an indictment is a start, a conviction is the goal.

      Note: For an excellent example of a 'Debate' between a Plane Hugger and a No Planer. Go to http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=67
      That is part one of three.

      '911 Forensics' explained brilliantly here,

      'Why they didn't use planes' explained brilliantly here.

      'No Hijackings'

      'A Theory' Prophetic words in my opinion.

      911CloseUp.com really is a must read for anybody who thinks knowing the whole truth about 9/11 is important. RIP Gerard Holmgren, just an average Aussie musician who cared. He used structured methods and deductive logic and reasoning that Tom in CT talks about. The site really is a great time capsule and 'as it happened' behind the scenes of the alleged 911 truth movement, what is it now? the ask people if they attended bilderberg movement?

    3. "....How and Who are linked issues....."

      I would agree. WTC-7 clearly was not struck by a plane. Collapse had to occur from within. This is ample evidence/proof for an indictment. We can get all of the other details during trial.

      ".....We also need the public to understand how we know how it was done...."

      The document "Israel did 9-11; all the proof in the world" CLEARY reveals how they were able to secure WTC; control of the federal agencies; control of the press etc., etc.

      "......standing around pointing at Jews is of no value....."

      I would agree. Who is doing that? The claim that people like me only say Jew, Jew, Jew........seems like a generalization that draws attention away from someone sounding reasonable.

      ".....If you don't agree with that strategy - act on your own......"

      What the hell is that supposed to mean?

      All I am suggesting is that this so called "Debate" is getting out of hand.

      I'll support Wolf Wall Street's philosophy on this subject.

      Stick to WTC 7. If you can't convert the average Joe on WTC......move on.

      Avoid the conspiracy "Shell Game" -- Wolf Wall Street; Fourth Position radio at talkshoe.

    4. "All I am suggesting is that this so called "Debate" is getting out of hand."

      Getting out of hand? Please explain...

      The debate has just started. This debate will go on as long as it has to, as well as many others.

      We will avoid such arguments as...'I don't buy that, I don't buy this...' We are not selling anything, those are that want to examine the evidence can, and are encouraged, but anything said will be weighed according to the merit and value each point of evidence has.

      Points of emphasis will be stated clearly, so as to avoid any confusion and wiggle room. People will have to take positions. Defend them, or abandon them. Then move forward.

    5. "....Getting out of hand? Please explain......"

      It seems all I ever hear/read anymore is how the buildings collapsed and related discussion. We haven't had investigative research such as the "Israel did 9-11" article; or the documentary "Missing Links" in over a year or more.

      The Article "Israel did 9-11" is exactly the "how" of 9-11. It lists all the major players directly related/associated to WTC. The owner of the towers is on record as saying that WTC 7 was pulled. Etc., etc.

      Understanding the Jewish Question as it relates to History and understanding how the Jew has manipulated his way into positions of power and influence -- we essentially know the 'how' of the machinations of 911.

      My original frustrated Post wasn't implying that the "how" was not important. I am fascinated with the idea of no planes. But I think it falls under the category of 'theory' and something than can never be proven until we have arrests and discovery. My post was just or was a caution for all of us to stay focused and centralized.

      I paralleled my frustration to the fact that it has been over 50 years and the truth community is still arguing over "who" killed JFK. My fear is that 50 years from now we are all still going to be debating "How" the buildings fell down.

      I supposed my mistake was not editing my original Post. Sometimes I get very frustrated and hopeless and my first Post was just off the top of my head. I usually read over my Posts several times and 'edit' my feelings. For that I am sorry.

      I am a person who won't be around 30-40 years from now so truthfully, I could give a shit what kind of world you will all inherit. I have no children and hardly any family. I have no skin in the game so to speak. I would be happy to acquire a cabin in Alaska somewhere and just tune out to the world's misery. I have the time and the means to significantly 'help' a movement get off the ground. But I'm not going to willy nilly throw money around as I did back in 2004 and got majorly burned. My own fault. I was very naïve, too trustworthy and gullible.

      My point is that I'd like to believe that "age" has taught me the ability to think logically and reasonably. I was just suggesting that perhaps the debate is going too far. Straying off the path somewhat.

      Now I'm rambling.................I think I will take the advice of Anonymous 1:38

      Good luck to you all. I'll do what I can from the position I am in.

    6. You have nothing to be sorry about. I regret plenty comments I have made on forums. Your reply clarified your point of view for me. I too share the worry that this will be debated on and on like JFK. I think that is why we want to nip this planes issue in the bud as soon as possible.

      It is not a theory. Its proven. The visual evidence supplied by the networks and the SUPPOSED amateur photographers (most all are profesionals who are made up of the WHO you describe) are highly questionable as to their authenticity. So those people who are arguing over the collapse footage, may be looking at images of special effects.

      This is very complex stuff so the way in which it (debate) proceeds is very important for everybody, PlaneHugger and NoPlaner alike.

    7. Please do not be put off by someones insensitive comment.

      The core issue is "Deception In Media" and especially the use of digital audio and video creation and manipulation in broadcast news.

      This should be the eventual distilled focus of the upcoming debate.

      Endless speculation about technical details only serve to waste resources and burn up time akin to running out the clock at the end of a football game.

      This debate should distill the problem down into its most basic component parts.

      The bottom line here is that we must act to stop the use of fakery in broadcast news.

  6. The "How" is quite important.

    The "How" goes directly to media fakery and lying.

    If we don't expose the "How" - the media liars continue as before.

    1. Yes, exactly. The "how" is maybe even more important than "who". If people understand "how", the tricks will not work. We know "who", but not "how", doesn't even sound credible.

  7. Interesting that some commenters are now wanting to back away from how media fakery and deception were central to 911.

    Listen up...Delaney and Roberts have been talking sh@t about John Friend. Delaney and Roberts believe a version of events that absolves the jewish media of direct involvement.

    This is going to be discussed thoroughly.

    Sorry guys......how they performed the 911 magic trick will be explained.

  8. Action and Education

    By Gerard Holmgren
    (from a private mailing)

    I think it's a balance. On the one hand, if people just sit around finding
    out more and more stuff but don't do anything with it, then it can become
    merely an intellectual exercise.

    At the other extreme, what's the point in hollering "action" if most people
    have got no idea what they're actually supposed to be going in to action
    over ?

    In the early days of the S11 campaign, there was a local anti globalization
    activist I met who I thought might be an ally. But he just used to keep
    saying "we need to get people on the streets."

    I'd say "about what ? You and I know, but why would they even consider going
    'on the streets' unless they first know why ? On once they're 'on the
    street' what are they actually going to do ?"

    He never had any answer for this, but just said that sitting behind a
    keyboard was useless because "we need people on the streets."

    His action was pure anger and reaction, which seemed to me to be a good way
    for people who knew what was going on to let off some steam and simply annoy
    or alienate those who didn't.

    The way I figure it is that nothing useful can happen without a more
    educated populace. Exactly what they "do" after that isn't always clear, but
    I think if enough people know what's going on, then what to "do" will just
    present itself.

    I think we are a long way from having anywhere enough of an educated
    populace to start worrying about what to "do". For me, simply trying to
    spread the truth and the art of thinking is "doing" something.

    Its not just the facts of what happened. Although they are important, in one
    sense they are only a vehicle for teaching people how to recover their
    skepticism and critical thinking and self educational abilities.

    I think this is the true value of good research. When I discovered the
    emperors clothes site was a huge eye opener for me, partly because of the
    info on it, but more because of the methodology.

    All of a sudden something twigged, and I thought "Ah, so this is how you
    find stuff out, and sort out the rumor from the reality."

  9. Continued...

    I meet a lot of people who have a general sense that something is wrong but
    think that you can never find out the truth. Because they haven't been shown
    the right methodology. So they wring their hands over "who do I believe, who
    do I trust ?" and eventually finish up watching Michael Moore, because they
    can get it at the DVD store, and going to John Pilger's talks, because that
    seems to be who everyone else believes - because no-one has taught them how
    to sift. No-one has taught them that you can actually find out an awful lot
    for yourself, just from methodically sifting through stuff which is fully
    available in the public domain.

    The TENC site taught me how to do that, and I've tried to pass that example
    on in my own research. Rosalee has also taught me a lot, using a less rigid
    and more adventurous style of methodology. I've tried to combine the best of
    the two approaches.

    The object isn't to have people looking to me or anyone else to be their
    leader or hero, its to try to show them that anybody can do this. But first
    the spell needs to broken. And each person who is freed from the spell can
    then hopefully start untying more people.

    Enough awake and educated people and the "action" will happen, in whatever
    forms are needed.

    I appreciate the idea of what Rick is saying and perhaps there is now enough
    awareness that there is a need for some people to focus more on gathering
    the energies of people who have already had the spell broken.

    But if so, it's way from being "the thing" which needs to be done. There is
    a lot more pure education still needed, so there is no way that this can be
    a "distraction".

    We'll know that we have enough people when no-one will join the military any
    more, when only 5% of the population votes, when everyone is refusing to pay
    their taxes, and it's an easy thing to do because 9 out of 10 people you
    meet on the street know why. When CNN goes out of business because nobody
    watches it any more because everybody knows that its 100% lies.

    When doorknocking politicians get either laughed at or told the truth to
    their face or told to fuck off in 9 out of every 10 houses they go to, and
    no one turns up to their rallies.

    When nobody buys the papers any more, because nobody believes anything in

    We are a long way from that. To get there people need something which
    confronts their existing beliefs so brutally, that they have to fight tooth
    and nail if they want to hang on to any of their cartoon world. And to me
    the biggest single confrontation is the no WTC planes. One simple fact
    confronts an entire world view about how things work. Most other things can
    be, at least to some extent, absorbed into the existing world view or seen
    as weird amazing anomalies. Or else might be just as shattering, but can't
    be proved as easily.

    To me, the no planes info is the spell beaker. Having said that, I've met
    plenty of people who even that doesn't really break the spell. They accept
    it, take it in their stride, and don't seem to really see things much

    I admit to being absolutely flummoxed about where to go from there, but I
    know that for such people, talk of "action" isn't going to inspire them

    We've all got our own paths to follow, and I don't want to discourage Rick
    from anything that he feels is his path, but at the moment mine is still
    education, both self and others.

    My best ways to do this are through the net and talking to people one on one
    in my local area as the opportunity arises. If I had more resources, I'd
    also print flyers and organize more structured , advertised talks, but I
    don't have the resources to do that. So I just use what resources I've got.

  10. A THEORY

    A THEORY – not certain, just floating the idea.
    By Gerard Holmgren

    I’m starting to think that S11 was an even more audacious psy-op than any of us imagined. That the ultimate purpose was not so much to get people to believe the official story as such but , but to plunge them into intellectual senility in the process of dealing with it. Of couse, the middle ranking perps like Bush desperately need to people to believe the official story and he’ll fight tooth an nail for that, but he’s just a pawn in the game too. The people pulling his strings have just let him loose in the lions cage and they don’t really care whether he wins or not. It’s the trauma of the fight that’s important.

    I think it works this way. When I first got into S11 activism, I had a theory that there would be about 10 % of the population who would automatically assume that the govt did it, even if they didn’t have any evidence and about 10 % who would never believe it, no matter how much evidence they got. That leaves 80% which are open to persuasion. About half of these would be easy to convince if they got good evidence. The other half would range from difficult to extremely stubborn, but not hopeless.

    So I figured that if the 40% of the population who would be easy to convince got targeted with good info, that would give you 50% and from there, the weight of majority pressure would start wearing down the other 40 % who were difficult but not completely closed.

    I was dead wrong. It may have seemed like a sensible analysis in the pre S11 world, but the event itself changed that. It gave people stark choices. The official story required either that one descended into total intellectual senility in order to still believe it – perhaps deliberately made ridiculous for that very purpose – or else that one keep ones intellect alive but destroy almost everything that one had previously believed about how society works.

    If the real story had just been a kind of hover between LIHOP and criminal negligence as promoted by Ruppert, then people probably would have been able to fit that into their existing social models. So it wouldn’t have had the destructive effect.

    But the cartoon like nature of the script left no middle ground. Destroy all your social paradigms or destroy your intellect in defending them.

  11. Of course everybody first hast to tell that the jews did it. After that he has every right and even plight to tell how they did it.

    I'm very surprised that Delaney and Roberts are telling people to shut their mouth. And I 'm understood that they believe in the Moonlandings too!

  12. The below link connects to a great article that essentially describes how a persons world view can override their intellect and critical thinking ability.


    The interview on world views with Tom in CT discussed some of the issues concerning how people holding different world views can conflict.

    No clearer example of this phenomenon exists than the example of people who simply refuse to believe that the government was involved in 911. This is an example of a world view overriding basic intellect.

    From there, it is easily understood that people with significantly different world views represent a big problem on a societal level.

    The jews who are pulling the strings understand this and use it as a weapon agains us - as they did with 9111.

  13. "Why they didn't use planes" Gerard Holmgren

    Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

    It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

    Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

    Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

    You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

    At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

    1) Actually use planes.

    2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes.

    Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?

    1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

    Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."

    Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

    This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.

    This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.

    What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

    In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

    So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

  14. Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

    Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.

    So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.

    Now to the other problem.

    Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.


    Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

  15. cont'd

    Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

    This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.

    The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

    Remote control.

    Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.

    1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

    Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

    Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

    Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

    Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.

    And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

    And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.

    1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.

    2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

    These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.

    And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.

  16. cont'd

    In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

    As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.

    In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.

    The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.

    This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.


Thanks for reading! Comments are welcome but are not guaranteed to be published. Please refrain from using curse words and other derogatory language. Published comments do not always reflect the views of this blog.