9/11 Was About Star Wars
There has been a lot of suspicion of a connection between the PNAC and 9/11, because they wrote about a new Pearl Harbor-type attack before 9/11 that would required to transform the US military. But some people have tried to discount the significance of PNAC in 9/11 because attacking Iraq was only one of their goals, it wasn't THE MAIN goal.
So what was another major goal of PNAC?
The militarization of space and Star Wars programs.
9/11 was about Star Wars. Among other things, 9/11 was a demonstration of new weaponry.
So what was another major goal of PNAC?
The militarization of space and Star Wars programs.
9/11 was about Star Wars. Among other things, 9/11 was a demonstration of new weaponry.
posted by spooked at 10:21 PM
8 Comments:
Be afraid, be very afraid ...of your government. They can "disappear you" at any moment, as they have already demonstrated they can do: http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html
So, what are we going to do about this?
Run and hide and... cross our fingers and hope for the best?
slowly and surely, if indeed it WAS an inside job, the operation is being exposed, they can not hide in the darkness forever...all it takes is an informed public...once people have the knowledge and information, they will radically change things...this structure of power isn't built to last, the corruption is too deep...
Spooked, if you want to take your journalism and research to the next level, you should do some INTERVIEWS...and post them here...interview anyone you think may have some insight/knowledge...
interview some "witnesses" or pro-official story "experts" and post it all here...interview some planehuggers, interview some no-planers...interview PNAC...interview EVERYONE...
Two things seem simple and indisputable:
1. Something extra made those towers fall. Explosives, beam weapons, whatever. The NIST tautological report that "global collapse ensued" is demonstrably false. NIST has not explained the collapse, and did not even try. Why? Because they can't, without stepping out side the parameters of the official story.
2. Two planes did not just fly into those buildings. This I am a little less sure about. I'm trying to work my way through Wierzbicki's study "Aircraft Impact Damage." It strikes me as implausible that the wings cut through the external column, but he seems to say the wings were rigid because they were thicker, and the columns were deformable. Doesn't make sense to me, but I may be incapable of understanding his arguments. Also doesn't make sense that the tail didn't stop since the core is not very far in.
This seems like common sense.
Seems to me that once these two points are provided the story collapses. If the plane videos are physically impossible, they are false.
A beam weapon is one way the collapse could have occurred, I guess. I don't know what such weapons are capable of.
The key to why a beam weapon would have been used is to think about the seismic forces that would have occurred if the complete weight of one twin tower had fallen in that area of lower manhattan. It would have caused a significant earthquake, as well as damaged the bathtub structure, all of which would have caused massive damage to surrounding structures and untold monetary loss. At least, this is the premise that Judy Wood takes, and it makes sense. The idea is they probably thought pretty hard about how best to take the buildings down, and decided conventional demolition would have been too dangerous. The Star Wars mechanism-- some microwave-type beams shot from a satellite above-- makes sense from a few different viewpoints, and seems to me to be the best explanation I've heard for what happened to the WTC.
It makes sense to me, too, and I'm not saying this is not a reasonable line of inquiry. It also would explain how the explosives were planted -- they weren't.
I was just saying that once those two points are established in the public mind, beam weapons sound more reasonable. I know you are already beyond these two points, and am not saying you should not write about this.
Does that make sense?
Yes, your two points makes sense.
There is really no doubt about the physics of the collapses. Everyone who is not a shill or a dupe realizes this.
The planes issue is trickier, but at this point, for me, there is no doubt many different 2nd hit videos were faked, probably to cover up that there was no plane-- at least no plane in the conventional sense. I still don't know what happened to the tower though I have guesses.
The video evidence is harder to see -- not saying you are not right, it's just more work to follow the argument. The fact that both planes disappeared into the tower, and there is video of the second place sliding in like butter -- that's what makes me open to believing the planes were faked or were not Boeing passenger jets. If it is physically impossible for that second plane to have slid into that building, the video has to be faked, and so do the videos of the approaching plane. Which you can independently prove, it seems.
Alternatively, if the plane that slid into the building is real, and the video was not faked, the plane cannot be a hijacked Boeing.
I think this is pretty much what you are saying.
Post a Comment
<< Home