Tämä video kertoo, että se mitä television kautta 911- iskuissa näkyi oli Hollywoodin tuotetta. Lentokoneiden tilalla lensi pari ohjusta torniin.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8830566521065939493&q=The Making of: A Dictator (The Illuminati at work)&ei=u3NVSIzAM5HgjAKBwqiDDw
En tiedä onko totta, mutta tuopahan uutta näkökulmaa tapahtuneeseen.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8830566521065939493&q=The Making of: A Dictator (The Illuminati at work)&ei=u3NVSIzAM5HgjAKBwqiDDw
En tiedä onko totta, mutta tuopahan uutta näkökulmaa tapahtuneeseen.
Vastaukset 11
Vanhimmat
On yhdentekevää, millä yksityiskohdilla WTC:t tuotiin alas.
Relevanttia on tietää, että se oli sisäpiirityö, eikä mitä valtamedia on meille kertonut.
Samoin on turhaa ajanhukkaa miettiä, että monta ampujaa oli JFK:n murhassa, ja muita yksityiskohtia, relevanttia on tietää, että JFK murhattiin, koska hän oli paljastamassa salaseuroja, ja olisi palauttanut FED:in USA:n valtiolle.
FED, eli USA:n keskuspankkihan on yksityisomistuksessa, ja USA lainaa siltä rahaa, ja maksaa joka lainaamastaan dollarista FED:ille korkoa.
Kannattaa mieluummin seurata reaalitodellisuutta, sillä koko ajan tapahtuu.
Palme ja Estonia tossa lähi menneisyydessä ja lähellä. Siitä ei täällä keskustella kun ei ole valmista materiaalia lainata youtubista sun muista. Helppoa teidän on toistella toisten sanomisia ja valmiiksi tutkittuja asioita. Kertokaas nyt mieli piteenne Palme jutusta ja Estoniasta ihan omin sanoin. Onko niissä jotain yhdentekevää.
teoria. miksi ottaa näin iso riski paljastumisesta? miten tuo teoria selittää kaikki ne kaduntallaajien videoimat pätkät, joissa lentokone näkyy? liian hurja väite - menee jo, sanoisinko fundamentalistisalkkarien piikkiin tämä tarina. helpoin tapa edelleen on tämä:
**************************************************
THE FLIGHT OF THE BUMBLE PLANE
by Snake Plissken as told to Carol A. Valentine
"I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.
THE CLUE
1st Clue -- 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.
2nd Clue -- 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.
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.
3rd clue -- 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.
4th Clue -- 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.
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.
5th Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point out in Operation 911: No Suicide Pilots, the 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.
6th Clue -- 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.
7th Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. That's your seventh clue.
8th Clue -- 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.
HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED
* 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 flights 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? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But 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 ...
That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.
* 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.
Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.
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 or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is 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 catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub 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.
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.
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."
Eivät tahot, jotka nämä WTC iskut tekivät mitään tyhmiä ole.
Nyt vain tuodaan disinformaatiota, että ei olisi ollut lentokoneita.
Tuo on harhauttamista, ja sen yrittämistä, että ihmiset alkavat kinaamaan tuosta asiasta ja unohtavat kokonaiskuvan, ja tämähän sopii illuminatille.
Netissä on siis paljon illuminatin tuomaan disinformaatiota myös salaliittoteorioihin.
Nyt on relevanttia seurata Lissabonin sopimusta, ja miten illuminati aikoo sen juonia läpi, vaikka lain mukaan Irlanti jo sen kaatoi, ja Tsekin presidentti sanoi, että ratifiointia on turha jatkaa.
Läppä on se että ei todellakaan välttämättä ollut koneita!...aluksi luulin että kone-läppä on huuhaata mutta sitten löysin archive.org sivuilta esim sellaisen CNN:n pätkän missä toisen koneen iskeytyessä LIVE-merkki häviää kuvasta. (täsmälleen samaan aikaan).
rupesin kelaa et mitä vittuu :)
ei mene ainakaan koneen siivet terässeinästä läpi, liekkö menis runkokaan. virallisissa videoissa uppoo kuin vanhaan naiseen.
Tuo on hyvä vertaus. Uppoo kuin vanhaan naiseen. Minuun ei ainakaan uppoa sellainen, kun väitetään, että pehmeämpi aine läpäisisi kovemman aineen riippuen pehmeämmän aineen nopeudesta.
Pehmeämpi aine menee vain enemmän lyttyyn, mitä nopeampi vauhti sillä on törmätessä.
Metal piercing luoteihin ei ole pelkästään lisätty ruutia, jotta ne läpäisisivät kovemman metallin. Luodit ovat eri ainetta. Ampukaas ilmakiväärillä lyijyluoti puuseinään ja sitten metallilaattaan. Ja ampukaa sitten lähempää, jolloin vauhtia on enemmän, niin näette, että littuumpaan menee.
Pentagon oli periaatteessa kiveä ja tornit metallia. Olette varmaan nähneet autokolareissa olleita autoja. Aika silppua on jo 150 km/h vauhdissa törmänneet autot. Ajatelkaa lentokonetta, joka lentää 900 km/h vauhdilla päin seinää. Mitä luulette meneekö läpi. Heidän oli järjestettävä Pentagon törmäys siksi, että haluttiin näytettää koneen voivan mennä jopa kiviseinän läpi.
Siksi nämä kaksi eri elementtiä, jotta kansa voisi tykönään funtsia: 'Jos kone menee kiviseinänkin läpi, niin meneehän se sitten metalliseinänkin läpi'.
He tietävät kansan tyhmyyden, kun jopa lukeneissakin on niin paljon tyhmiä. Suorastaan idiootteja. Hohhoijaa
Minuun tuo ei kuitenkaan uppoa tollanen soopa.
Miksi hörhöilet nainen? Kai tiedät ja ymmärrät, että toisen lentokoneen törmäyksen ja uppoamisen tornin sisään näki paikan päällä kymmenet tuhannet ihmiset?
Sehän se vasta omituista olisi ollut, jos 900 km/h torniin törmännyt lentokone olisi kimmonnut sen seinästä.
Hohhoijaa teidän umpityhmien hörhöjen hörhöilyjä.
Ei kai luotikaan kimpoa vaan se litsaantuu. Niin olisi käynyt lentokoneellekin, jos niitä olisi ollut.
Ne todistaja lausunnot saat työntää vaikka persläpeesi. Nyky tiedotusvälineet eivät kaihda mitään. Maksetaan vaikka satanen, että teet jotain tai sanot jotain. Perseaukisia todistajia löytyy pilvin pimein. Älä usko kaikkeen mitä puhutaan. Usko vain mitä näet ja koet omin silmin ja vaikka käsin. Korvin taas kuulee niin paljon paskaa ja silminkin näkee kirjoitettua paskaa, mutta pidä vain pintasi ja älä usko paskaan. Käytä päätäsi.
minkään valtakunnan merkitystä. Oleellista asiassa on vain se, että koko 9/11 oli sisäpiirin työtä alusta loppuun.
Henk. koht olen sitä mieltä, että tuo kyseinen pätkä on Pentagonin suoltamaa disinformaatiota, sillä kymmenet ja taas kymmenet paikallaolijat näkivät koneiden iskeytymisen torneihin.
On videota, jossa nainen sanoo, "It was not an american airline." ja toisella videolla kuuluu myös ääni: "It was a military plane".
Eiköhän WTC iskuilla ollut melkoisen monta tuhatta silminnäkijää jotka näkivät koneet?!
Oletko todellakin noin yksinkertainen ja olet melkein valmis uskomaan kaikkein uskomattomimpiakin salaliittoteorioita?