Humint Events Online: Back to Basics About 9/11

Monday, November 07, 2005

Back to Basics About 9/11

All the stuff I've been doing lately on 9/11 has been research into weird physical aspects of 9/11 being an inside job. Some of the stuff I've found may mean nothing, or it may be something important. It's hard to know for sure with the limited data we have in the public domain. Basically, I have been trying to develop a new working model for the attacks, and while I think I have a good idea for certain things, other aspects are less clear-- like what hit exactly the WTC towers.

But I want to go back and refresh everyone, including myself, of WHY I think 9/11 was an inside job.

1) there were many, many of warnings of the attacks before they happened, and some apparently were very specific.
2) there is the fact that the Pakistani ISI is friendly with both Al Qaeda AND the CIA, and thus the CIA HAD to know what was coming (the wiring of money from ISI chief Ahmed to Atta shortly before the attacks is one aspect of this).
3) there were the unusual put options on American and United stocks before the attacks.
4) there was a GODDAMNED LIVE-FLY HIJACKING DRILL BEING RUN ON 9/11 BY NORAD. If that doesn't make you think something strange happened that day, nothing will.
5) there was the complete lack of air defenses on 9/11.
6) there was the lack of warnings to pilots and FAA controllers about hijackings.
7) there were the terror hijacking drills run before 9/11.
8) there were the plane-into building drills run by the Pentagon and also by NORAD before 9/11.
9) there was the GODDAMNED PLANE INTO BUILDING DRILL BEING RUN ON 9/11 BY THE NRO. Again, if that doesn't make you suspcious about 9/11, nothing will.
10) there was the horribly blatant Condi Rice LIE about not imagining terrorists using planes as missiles. She knows and was covering up the truth.
11) there is the fact that intelligence agencies and the defense department were tracking and most likely protecting the hijackers.
12) there was the Operation Northwoods plot, which showed the lengths the Pentagon would go to start a war.
13) there is the history of state-sponsored synthetic terrorism throughout the ages.
14) there was the quick clean up of ground zero and the sham of the NIST collapse analysis.
15) there is the suppression of NYFD witness testimony to bombs in the WTC.
16) there is the strong evidence that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives.
17) there is the unlikelihood of the hijackings themselves-- surprise attacks with knives and boxcutters
18) there is the extreme unlikelihood that the terrorists could pilot the planes as effectively as they were supposed to have.
19) there is the absolutely bizarre nature of the flight 93 crash and the mystery of the many phone calls from that flight.
20) there was the complete white-wash that was the US government's 9/11 commission.

And I could go on and on.

The point is, there are many many reasons to think 9/11 was an inside job.

NOW-- I am looking for physical signs and indications that would help me figure out exactly what happened. Perhaps I can even find a new "smoking gun".

So, that is what I am up to. I hope I haven't wandered too far into la-la land.

I don't think I have, yet.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spooked,

Maybe you have run a bit amok but you did what you needed to do.

For some of us it would be of great importance if the 911 movement could find the highest level of professional image enhancement, be it NASA, Disney or anyone who has the ability, so that we could clean-up the pictures of the first and second planes to the greatest clarity possible. Then we could make better judgements on the planes and their movement.

For instance, are there really no windows and the second plane? If this could be clearly shown then you could go farther toward showing unconvinced americans the truth about 911 than with all the internal one-upmanship of the movement infighters.

The images you guys are "discussing" are just not clear enough for the vast majority of us to make meainingful conclusions about.

Hope this is helpful.

11:47 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Thanks, I appreciate that. Although I need to point out that I am not really trying to convince the public at large about this stuff but mostly myself.

1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've spoken to a number of people about 911 over the past 2 years. When people ask 'where is the proof of this assertion?', I point to the wholly ignored WTC7 collapse. I ask people to think rationally and explain how this building could have fallen without it being a controlled demolition.

In some cases the mental slides snap shut and the idea is simply not processed.

If you want a 'smoking gun' WTC7 is it.

6:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger