Redundancy
The 9/11 attacks clearly succeeded to an amazing degree.
Of course, the official story is completely ridiculous-- that 19 Arabs could:
1) take control of four commercial aircraft armed with only box-cutters (and perhaps mace)
2) gain conrol of the cockpits without the pilots alerting air traffic control of a hijacking
3) fly the planes for over 30 minutes without any air defenses being mounted
4) pilot the aircraft perfectly into three key structures, despite having very limited flying training
5) cause complete demolition of two of the tallest buildings in the world.
Did the "terrorists" ever seriously think the attacks would work this well?
Of course they didn't, because the official story is complete baloney.
But how did these attacks succeed so well?
One word: redundancy.
The 9/11 attacks were planned to an amazing degree and clearly had several back-up plans.
This redundancy can therefore explain several of the oddities of the 9/11 attacks.
The redundancy shows up as:
1) two flight 11's-- one was flown into the WTC, the other disposed of (crashed) at an unknown location;
2) a companion to flight 77-- a small American Airlines jet that was used in the ongoing military exercises-- this small jet was likely what hit the Pentagon (the real flight 77 was crashed or disposed of elsewhere);
3) the two scenarios for what happened to flight 93-- passenger revolt or hit by a missile from a late-arriving Air National Guard jet (set-up by different faked cell phone calls-- depending on what scenario the planners wanted to push first);
4) some planes with real hijackers others hijacked by remote-control;
5) explosives set in the WTC towers for demolition to amplify the damage from the planes;
6) ongoing military exercises with the Air Force and NORAD to ensure that air defenses would be compromised.
(Originally posted 9/13, edited for clarity on 9/14)
Of course, the official story is completely ridiculous-- that 19 Arabs could:
1) take control of four commercial aircraft armed with only box-cutters (and perhaps mace)
2) gain conrol of the cockpits without the pilots alerting air traffic control of a hijacking
3) fly the planes for over 30 minutes without any air defenses being mounted
4) pilot the aircraft perfectly into three key structures, despite having very limited flying training
5) cause complete demolition of two of the tallest buildings in the world.
Did the "terrorists" ever seriously think the attacks would work this well?
Of course they didn't, because the official story is complete baloney.
But how did these attacks succeed so well?
One word: redundancy.
The 9/11 attacks were planned to an amazing degree and clearly had several back-up plans.
This redundancy can therefore explain several of the oddities of the 9/11 attacks.
The redundancy shows up as:
1) two flight 11's-- one was flown into the WTC, the other disposed of (crashed) at an unknown location;
2) a companion to flight 77-- a small American Airlines jet that was used in the ongoing military exercises-- this small jet was likely what hit the Pentagon (the real flight 77 was crashed or disposed of elsewhere);
3) the two scenarios for what happened to flight 93-- passenger revolt or hit by a missile from a late-arriving Air National Guard jet (set-up by different faked cell phone calls-- depending on what scenario the planners wanted to push first);
4) some planes with real hijackers others hijacked by remote-control;
5) explosives set in the WTC towers for demolition to amplify the damage from the planes;
6) ongoing military exercises with the Air Force and NORAD to ensure that air defenses would be compromised.
(Originally posted 9/13, edited for clarity on 9/14)
3 Comments:
Interesting ideas. I also assume 911 to be a staged event, a la Northwood ^2, enriched with modern technology. As I commented to Rigorous Intuition, e.g.Chaim Kupferberg analyzes another side of 9/11, the propaganda (or marketing) effort that supports the technical execution.
I hope you get some readers.
Best regards
gandalf
Have you seen the transcript of or heard the interview of Stanley Hilton, Bob Doles former chief of staff?
Here's an excerpt:
AJ: We’ll have to recap this when we start the next hour, but just in a nutshell, you have a lawsuit going, you’ve deposed a lot of military officers. You know the truth of 9/11. Just in a nutshell, what is your case alleging?
SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject – how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.
There isn't any evidence for "two flight 11's" -- just a web article with wild leaps of logic based on not much (if anything). Perhaps one day this will be proven, but the pseudonymous author that makes this claim is also a fan of silly disinformation "theories" that have long since been disproven (the fake claim that a "pod" was underneath the Boeing that hit the south tower -- when it is merely a carefully shown picture of the normal structure connecting the wings to the fuselage). This author claims that pointing out the reality of this fake claim is a "smear campaign against 9/11 scientists."
The overwhelming evidence -- lots of eyewitnesses, plane parts, damage to the building -- is that a large jet (presumably Flight 77) really did hit the Pentagon. The real issue is how it was guided into the nearly empty part of the building, which had been recently reconstructed and strengthened.
The "fake cell phone" story is a great way to keep the family members and the skeptics from working together. It's virtually impossible to replicate (technically) the calls, since that would require going to the same locations and altitudes (good luck!). It's one of the many info traps to discredit the skeptics.
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
Post a Comment
<< Home