9/11: are there a few irrefutable facts that prove what kind of event it was?

[candy]

You had to talk about the "off course" plane. Even after all this time I dislike thinking back to 9-11.

It was a beautiful day in the neighborhood. I was catching up on some gardening. I heard the rumble of a plane. There in the clear sky was a large plane very low over the golf course where the Ryder Cup was to be played the next week. I assumed that it had something to do about coverage of the event. The plane was so low I worried it might not clear the summit of the mountain and went back to weeding. Then there were vehicles with lights and sirens racing down route 30. I went inside to call a friend with a scanner. She told me planes had crashed and I should turn on the tv. The Johnstown mobile unit had got to the site just behind local fire department. The reporter was at the top of the crater left when the plane impacted. The ground was still smoldering. The reporter broadcast inside the site until the FBI chased him out. The local post office called the mail carriers back to the office. Our carrier called his sub in so he could go with the other volunteer firemen to aid at the crash site. My cousin also a volunteer fire fighter spent over a week at the flight 93 crash site. A friend who was a Red Cross volunteer closed her practice so she could assist at the site.
They were finding body parts in scorched trees.
Is that real enough for you?

 

[Petra Liverani]

I can - there is none.

When there's an obvious problem (like an aircraft over, say, the White House at low altitude) ATC will often call the DOD and they will dispatch aircraft. But there are no protocols for "an airplane going off course." In fact, a great many aircraft in the US fly VFR, where they are not required to hold to any specific course. And a pilot has the right to deviate from any flight plan as much as he needs to to ensure the safety of his aircraft and passengers; hundreds of aircraft do that every day, for issues as minor as avoiding turbulence to as major as a loss of cabin pressure or an engine failure.

Let me guess. You're not a pilot, but you read something on the Internet.

No I'm not a pilot but, in fact, I questioned the lack of interception from Day One when I really hadn't looked at the story at all - didn't know that the story was seriously questioned, didn't know about WTC-7 or questions about cause of collapse of the towers, really not sure what I knew at all apart from planes and terrorists and I really didn't know anything about the interception protocol - and still am only slightly more knowledgeable on the subject - but I was vaguely aware of the fact that there was such a thing as "interception" and wondered why it hadn't happened. I find it intriguing that nothing about the 9/11 narrative makes you ponder, that you accept everything in the narrative as fitting perfectly with expectations - perhaps if a similar event happened tomorrow you'd accept it again as an event perfectly fitting reality.

What I've done is present a more comprehensive picture of the hypothesis "inside job", that is, I've included information that indicates that death and injury were staged and the planes were faked. This paints a very different picture from the US Government coldly and callously letting all those poor people die in the buildings and planes which is a little difficult to accept. I've also shown that there is precedent in events such as the Great Fire of London 1666. I've attempted to paint a picture where one can make this event seem more credible to oneself with a sense of its place in history and a different understanding of what kind of event it really was.

What I've presented has fallen on deaf ears - no surprise to me. There really is nothing more I can say at this point, is there? If you can tell me, billvon, if there's anything I could put forward short of showing people still alive that were said to have died on 9/11 that could change your mind please tell me what it is. I assure you there's certainly nothing that anyone could say that could change my mind simply because obviously I've been where you are, billvon, I believed the story (if unenthusiastically) then after I stopped believing the story I still continued to believe that people died for four years ... but eventually I saw that part of the story was also untrue. How could I possibly go back if I've already been there? So if there's nothing I can say to change your evaluation of the event and there's nothing you - or anyone else can say - to change my mind we're at an impasse. I say we simply stop now. I will in any case ... so sayonara ... until the next conspiracy conversation.

 

[Michael 345]

Question please

How long, periods of time, do you think a "exercise" (from your imagination) of this magnitude would it take to organise while at same time keeping it secret?

 

[O. W. Grant]

to know is from "outside" (the point of view of a creator);

to prove is from "inside" (the point of view of a creation);

a line of thought is a geodesic in 0-d.

===

politics: you work for me or you die.

===

a mathematician for a president
/an oxymoron/

 

[O. W. Grant]

A Lack Of Conscience Was What Gave Her Away

Columbo, Ransom for a Dead Man (1971)

 

[O. W. Grant]

all people are different. all people are entangled.

 

[billvon]

I find it intriguing that nothing about the 9/11 narrative makes you ponder, that you accept everything in the narrative as fitting perfectly with expectations

The non-interception fits perfectly with my experience as a pilot.

In New York, one of the more picturesque tours by air is a path that takes you over JFK, past the southern tip of Manhattan, then up the Hudson at 1000 feet. There used to be a fairly narrow segment of class-E airspace along that route that VFR pilots could fly. I could come within about 2000 feet of the Twin Towers - and be below their tops.

Occasionally I would stray off the flight path, or not descend/ascend as fast as ATC would like. They would chide me and I'd increase my descent rate or whatever. But from my flight plan I could have hit the towers within 15 seconds and there is no way anyone or anything could have stopped me.

So yes, the ability of terrorists to hijack airliners and fly them into the WTC fits perfectly with my expectations.

If you can tell me, billvon, if there's anything I could put forward short of showing people still alive that were said to have died on 9/11 that could change your mind please tell me what it is.

Any verifiable proof at all. For example, if you could produce an old Boeing 767 with tail number N334AA, that would be solid proof it was not flown into the building.

But claims about stuff you saw on the Internet isn't going to do it, sorry.

 

[Petra Liverani]

The non-interception fits perfectly with my experience as a pilot.

In New York, one of the more picturesque tours by air is a path that takes you over JFK, past the southern tip of Manhattan, then up the Hudson at 1000 feet. There used to be a fairly narrow segment of class-E airspace along that route that VFR pilots could fly. I could come within about 2000 feet of the Twin Towers - and be below their tops.

Occasionally I would stray off the flight path, or not descend/ascend as fast as ATC would like. They would chide me and I'd increase my descent rate or whatever. But from my flight plan I could have hit the towers within 15 seconds and there is no way anyone or anything could have stopped me.

So yes, the ability of terrorists to hijack airliners and fly them into the WTC fits perfectly with my expectations.


Any verifiable proof at all. For example, if you could produce an old Boeing 767 with tail number N334AA, that would be solid proof it was not flown into the building.

But claims about stuff you saw on the Internet isn't going to do it, sorry.

So interesting that you're a pilot billvon and that you could have hit the towers within 15 seconds by straying from your flight path. The thing is though that the planes went off-course well before they hit whatever it was they were meant to have hit.

But as I say I've said everything I have to say. I assure you there is absolutely NOTHING you can tell me to change my mind about what kind of event 9/11 was as I'm sure you could assure me that there is absolutely NOTHING I could say that would change yours. We are at a very, very predictable impasse.

 

[billvon]

The thing is though that the planes went off-course well before they hit whatever it was they were meant to have hit.

Yep. And the ATC system reacted as you might have expected - with a lot of trying to contact the aircraft to see what was wrong, why the pilot decided to deviate. A common reason is loss of electrical system - that takes out the radios and transponder, and thus they can no longer communicate. It happens every few months.

It was not until the first aircraft hit that anyone knew anything was seriously wrong. At that point it was too late to stop the aircraft.

I assure you there is absolutely NOTHING you can tell me to change my mind

That is the difference between you and I. I will change my mind when presented with good evidence that I was wrong. It's happened several times in my life already. With you, your beliefs are more religious in nature, and nothing in the reality-based world will ever change your beliefs.

 

[Petra Liverani]

Question please

How long, periods of time, do you think a "exercise" (from your imagination) of this magnitude would it take to organise while at same time keeping it secret?

I don't see 9/11 as particularly secret, I see 9/11 as a Big Lie - whose lack of truth is extremely obvious - that people instinctively know they need to believe in order to get along in the world - we are social and hierarchical creatures and it doesn't do to speak out - people feel very uncomfortable speaking "truth to power" as it is called (I do myself and sometimes that lack of comfort prevents me from doing it) or say things against what the authorities tell us - of course, there is a small percentage belonging to their own tribe - the disbelievers. To me now - although not when it happened - all is laid bare. To me, the story of four passenger airliners going wildly off-course without a breath of interception, including one into Defence HQ, etc is utterly ludicrous and is laid bare for anyone to see - they just don't, they find ways to explain it as testified in response to my question on the subject. Propaganda has a magical blinding quality.

In March 2001, the first episode, Pilot, of the TV Series, The Lone Gunmen, aired. The storyline: while the Lone Gunmen are thwarted in their attempt to steal a computer chip by Yves Adele Harlow, Byers receives news of his father's death, and the trio soon find themselves unraveling a government conspiracy concerning an attempt to fly a commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center, with increased arms sales for the United States as an intended result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Gunmen_(TV_series)
youtube.com/watch?v=cmmOVSmmdwk

"Conspiracy theorists" will, of course, see this episode as one of the many examples of "predictive programming" while those who accept the 9/11 narrative will see it merely as coincidence. Humans are incredibly good at fitting facts to fit their inclinations to believe - I mean, we are absolute rockstars in this effort.
https://www.wakingtimes.com/revelation-of-the-method-predictive-programming-and-the-prime-directive/

Apart from people intuitively knowing what they need to accept as true I'd say a very great number were in on the "secret" of 9/11 - after all, it was just a glorified exercise, right? Certain reporters give indications that they were "in on it" as do certain leaders of countries and others - I cannot be sure who is and who isn't but definitely quite a few people were in on 9/11 no question about it.

 

[Petra Liverani]

OK, so I said I had nothing more to say but this survivor testimonial video just popped up on my YT feed so I thought I'd apply my psyop lens and this is what I found. Now I know you guys will find what Desiree says perfectly conforming with your expectations of what a survivor of the destruction of the towers would say but nevertheless I will put forward an analysis according to psyop MO - a psyop analyst is never really off-duty:

• At 6:00 - Desiree says with regard to the South Tower: "So if you were above [the] impact zone [you] could make it out of the um ... it could find the stairwell ... and I believe there were about 18 people who did make it out ...". At 7:35 Desiree says she worked on "[the] 101st floor".
  Comment: People misspeak and leave words out but it's interesting that three words close to each other are missing (those in square brackets) and where we expect to hear "you" Desiree says "it" which seems so utterly out of place. It also seems strange that she speaks of the stairwell situation and the 18 people who made it out and with no sense of connection to them or certainty about their number although she herself must have been one of these very lucky 18 survivors who found that stairwell.
• Helpfully, Desiree explains certain ways they ensured the buildings were reasonably empty before evacuations needed to occur before their destructions: before normal office hours, first day of public school and voting day.
• At 9:04 - Desiree says, "When that first plane entered the North Tower I was as far away as you could be ... "
  Comment: How so? She was in the South Tower - not so far away.
• At 10:20 - Desiree says with regard to making a phone call to her mother after hearing something gone wrong in the North Tower, "And it's my mother who said, 'Are you leaving'?"
  Comment: "And it's my mother ..." is rather strange phraseology - who else would be asking the question but then wouldn't you expect her mother to tell her to leave rather than simply ask her if she was.
• At 10:35 - Desiree say, "Now I live out [in] New Jersey I don't live in New York so I had to pack my bag. I needed my train tickets to get me back home, I needed my book to read because in public transportation you need to bring some sort of reading material.
  Comment: She's just heard a bomb went off in the North Tower and she's just arrived at the office so why would her train tickets and book not simply still be in her bag and would they really be her primary concern? Also, those who live in New York would still catch trains depending on where they lived in relation to the towers and some people in New Jersey would have lived closer to the twin towers than some living in New York.

I'll go no further although I noticed somewhere in there that she said the word "boom" twice a few words apart and each time the sound was lowered on the word.

Overall comment: You see how a testimony can sound perfectly normal until you start to look at it closely. When you understand psyop MO you can see all the little anomalies so very easily.

 

[Michael 345]

I don't see 9/11 as particularly secret, I see 9/11 as a Big Lie - whose lack of truth is extremely obvious - that people instinctively know they need to believe in order to get along in the world - we are social and hierarchical creatures and it doesn't do to speak out - people feel very uncomfortable speaking "truth to power" as it is called (I do myself and sometimes that lack of comfort prevents me from doing it) or say things against what the authorities tell us - of course, there is a small percentage belonging to their own tribe - the disbelievers. To me now - although not when it happened - all is laid bare. To me, the story of four passenger airliners going wildly off-course without a breath of interception, including one into Defence HQ, etc is utterly ludicrous and is laid bare for anyone to see - they just don't, they find ways to explain it as testified in response to my question on the subject. Propaganda has a magical blinding quality.

In March 2001, the first episode, Pilot, of the TV Series, The Lone Gunmen, aired. The storyline: while the Lone Gunmen are thwarted in their attempt to steal a computer chip by Yves Adele Harlow, Byers receives news of his father's death, and the trio soon find themselves unraveling a government conspiracy concerning an attempt to fly a commercial aircraft into the World Trade Center, with increased arms sales for the United States as an intended result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Gunmen_(TV_series)
youtube.com/watch?v=cmmOVSmmdwk

"Conspiracy theorists" will, of course, see this episode as one of the many examples of "predictive programming" while those who accept the 9/11 narrative will see it merely as coincidence. Humans are incredibly good at fitting facts to fit their inclinations to believe - I mean, we are absolute rockstars in this effort.
https://www.wakingtimes.com/revelation-of-the-method-predictive-programming-and-the-prime-directive/

Apart from people intuitively knowing what they need to accept as true I'd say a very great number were in on the "secret" of 9/11 - after all, it was just a glorified exercise, right? Certain reporters give indications that they were "in on it" as do certain leaders of countries and others - I cannot be sure who is and who isn't but definitely quite a few people were in on 9/11 no question about it.

Blah blah blah but NOT anything in reply which approaches an answer

(CLICK)

 

[DaveC426913]

To me, the story of four passenger airliners going wildly off-course without a breath of interception, including one into Defence HQ, etc is utterly ludicrous

and this based on previous similar terrorist experiences is it? How do you judge it as ludicrous? What are comparing it to?

These are rhetorical questions.


So far, all you've attempted to do is sow doubt about the existing account. I havent seen an offering of your alternate theory. Specifically, I haven't seen any damming evidence e of that theory. No documents laying out the plan a forehand, no mockup aircraft in a secret hangar.

Just because there's discrepancies in the official story doesn't mean its not still the most plausible explanation. What have you offered in the way of evidence for a MORE plausible explanation?

(I have little confidence you will address this; you started off this thread declaring you will ignore individual posts. Which means you're preaching. Prove me wrong. )

 

[Sarkus]

Deleted post.

 

[billvon]

Just because there's discrepancies in the official story doesn't mean its not still the most plausible explanation.

Indeed. In fact, having a story that hangs together 100% with no human errors in the reporting, no bad video, no two people saying even slightly different things would be moderate evidence of an attempt to coordinate everyone's stories.

People get things wrong. Witnesses see different things. Even pilots have demonstrated that they can't estimate altitudes of other aircraft when they are on the ground. Thus there SHOULD be some discrepancies if it's a real event.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not sure what's more disappointing here: the fact that the moderators haven't yet closed down such a disrespectful and insulting thread, or that others are actively facilitating the non-debate. "Oh, but the education..." bollocks! This is cesspool material. Don't feed those that clearly need psychological help. They won't listen to you. Nothing you say will change their mind. Everything you put forward will be responded with "but it can be faked!"
Please, let this thread drop like a stone. By all means join the thread about the psyche and mental illness of such a conspiracy theorist, but let's not facilitate them. It is distasteful from them, and disappointing from those who should know better.

 

[billvon]

I'm not sure what's more disappointing here: the fact that the moderators haven't yet closed down such a disrespectful and insulting thread, or that others are actively facilitating the non-debate. "Oh, but the education..." bollocks! This is cesspool material. Don't feed those that clearly need psychological help. They won't listen to you.

No one really thinks he will.

Whenever I enter into a debate with someone like this, I have zero faith that logic or evidence will change their minds. However, these threads are read by other people. And some rational but misinformed people may read it as well and learn something.

 

[Petra Liverani]

and this based on previous similar terrorist experiences is it? How do you judge it as ludicrous? What are comparing it to?

These are rhetorical questions.


So far, all you've attempted to do is sow doubt about the existing account. I havent seen an offering of your alternate theory. Specifically, I haven't seen any damming evidence e of that theory. No documents laying out the plan a forehand, no mockup aircraft in a secret hangar.

Just because there's discrepancies in the official story doesn't mean its not still the most plausible explanation. What have you offered in the way of evidence for a MORE plausible explanation?

(I have little confidence you will address this; you started off this thread declaring you will ignore individual posts. Which means you're preaching. Prove me wrong. )

What am I comparing it to? What other catastrophic failures of the US multi-trillion dollar military and intelligence infrastructure four times in one morning on home soil are you aware of, Dave ... or anything remotely like this failure?

My hypothesis is that this event was a Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation in the form of a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terror Exercise comprising numerous smaller drills pushed out as a real event where the only reality was the destruction of buildings - the planes were faked and death and injury were staged.

PROOF: There is no purported evidence of the alleged 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured presented that doesn't distinguish itself from the kinds of images you see in drills and there isn't a single survivor or witness testimonial that doesn't betray anomalies. Do you think that when that video of Desiree and her friend popped up in my YouTube feed that I had the slightest concern that perhaps their testimonials might not betray any anomalies - in which case it would be rather difficult for me to present an analysis here? It didn't cross my mind for a nanosecond, I was simply curious to see what anomalies there would be ... and sure enough my prediction was proved correct.

I've made my case. I realise there is absolutely no point trying to defend it. This is definitely my last post on it. Really, my job isn't to persuade you, it is simply to present what I believe is the truth and evidence for that truth and for you to make up your own mind. And if the information doesn't persuade you - or even prompt you to question what you currently believe - so be it - and, of course, I really didn't think it would even challenge your thinking let alone change it - I would've been very surprised if what I put forward even made you question your thinking. We shouldn't be wasting our time arguing. I just need to put my case and leave it at that.

 

[Petra Liverani]

Blah blah blah but NOT anything in reply which approaches an answer

(CLICK)

Just to respond. When there is sufficient evidence for a case, unanswered questions are irrelevant. I don't really have any idea how they kept it secret although - as I say - I don't necessarily think it was particularly "secret", after all, according to my hypothesis it was simply a big drill. I'm sure there was lots of talking about it in some quarters, talk that was simply never publicised. Certain questions not having clear answers doesn't undermine a case for which there is clear evidence unless we're talking about the impossible. It is not impossible that a lot was kept secret (whatever "secret" really means when all you have to do is blow away the propaganda dust to see the truth).

 

[O. W. Grant]

...

===

Afterward, the group are taking Arthur to a 'quiet and idyllic planet' when they come across a half-mad journalist. Some time earlier, he had been reporting on a court case in which a witness named Prak was inadvertently given an overdose of a truth drug. Prak began to tell all truth, horrifying the involved parties so badly that they abandoned the courtroom and sealed it up with him inside...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_the_Universe_and_Everything

Plot summary, the 8th paragraph

===

... In modern usage her name is employed as a rhetorical device to indicate a person whose accurate prophecies, generally of impending disaster, are not believed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra

the 1st paragraph

===

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle

An oracle is a person or thing considered to provide wise and insightful counsel or prophetic predictions, most notably including precognition of the future, inspired by deities.

However, "oracles" are participants of the action.

In the first film, the Oracle is depicted as a cheerful old lady who smokes cigarettes and bakes cookies. She possesses the power of foresight, which she uses to advise and guide the humans attempting to fight the Matrix. Later, she is revealed to be a sapient program who is integral to the very nature of the Matrix itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oracle_(The_Matrix)

Character history, the 1st paragraph

-

Both pills are blue (any pill is blue after all).

===

... (other countries' centuries)

-

Battle of Trafalgar (1805) - Washington Treaty (1922)
/the British century/

Five-Power Naval Limitation Treaty
https://www.britannica.com/event/Five-Power-Naval-Limitation-Treaty

-

1940 - 2022
/the "American" (Federal Reserve) century/

-

1970s -
/corporate century (both in the USA and in the USSR, and the rest)/

-

...

===

... American Revolutionary War, American Civil War, ...
/Great Britain vs the world/

...

/not to mention the rest/

...

=== === ===

Training Day (2001)

https://moviesjoy.to/watch-movie/training-day-18843.5298928