Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,867 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,053,050
Pageviews Today: 1,612,053Threads Today: 462Posts Today: 10,136
02:09 PM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
Message Subject I am the real John Lear...ask me a question
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
John,

I respect you as a fellow truth-seeker, pilot and man of integrity, doing your very best to live life without envy, hate or greed.

Dr. Judy Wood's work aside, I understand your current belief is that the 911 planes were the products of video fakery or holograms. I can assure you this was not the case. While this will be a long post, the time invested in reading it may very-well might be worth your while in revising your stance on the planes.

Ten years ago, I exchanged emails with another truth-seeker, Carol Valentine, who had published an article entitled "Operation 911 - No Suicide Pilots" in October of 2001. Our exchange culminated in her publishing an addendum entitled "Flight Of The Bumble Planes" to the aforementioned article, which I agreed to her releasing through the news analysis site Public Action, Inc in early 2002.

I'll include a link to that, at the end, but I've updated a few things, for your consideration, here on GLP:

1) Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.

2) First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

3) What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked.

3) Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.

4) No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site: By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage. But there was none.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon.

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

5) Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point out in Operation 911: No Suicide Pilots

[link to www.Public-action.com]

flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car ..." The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons.

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is your fifth clue.

6) Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.

Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 1

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

7) Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. [See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.

8) Second WTC Tower Barely Hit: Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.

[link to www.public-action.com]

Here's what happened, John:

* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? In the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips...

See 9/11 INTERCEPTED by Pilots for 911 Truth

[link to www.youtube.com]



* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial cat-fight issues, such as -- did Bush really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

[link to www.public-action.com]

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

WHY DO IT THAT WAY?

So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four planes. There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not. You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preporgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS (airborne military communications) hit the planes with EMF (radio blast) and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact.

OTHER DETAILS

* Pentagon Security Photos: On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001. The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible."

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.

* Fireman's (Naudet) Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that flew into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

[link to www.youtube.com]



In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet made the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[link to www.public-action.com]

[link to www.public-action.com]

The Hijackers: I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on.

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but nobody's perfect.

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ...

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course: "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[link to www.public-action.com]

And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service.

"The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)

[link to www.Public-Action.com]

The state of the art in voice simulation is the subject of a Washington Post news article, "When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing" found at

[link to public-action.com]

All that was needed to make 911 (and the next one) happen was ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing was be deceived.

The problem with most people who try to understand events like this, is that they're not trained killers. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

[link to www.public-action.com]
10 March 2002

=======

Respectfully remembering all those who unnecessarily lost their lives, as the world permanently changed, 11 years ago, tomorrow.

Your Friend,
Snake
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for reporting: