Evidence Mounts - Passenger Planes Couldn't Have Done What Was Done On 9-11 by Planes

[Peter Lemkin]

It is a complex subject. I've been following it for a few years over at Pilots For 911 Truth. It goes way beyond the fact that rookie pilots couldn't have made the planes do what they did [that is easily demonstrated]; it goes to the point where no pilot could have pushed the planes that far beyond their structural limits. Likely logical conclusion: these were not the civilian planes they appeared to be. They were likely modified drones - able to withstand greater speeds and structural forces - as well as able to be homed-in to their targets by remote control [no pilots of any caliber involved]. There is much on this on the Pilots for 911 Truth website, but a good way into this complex subject [further putting GREAT doubt on the 'official version'] is an exchange between the head of Pilots for 911 Truth trying to explain this to Richard Gage [Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth] in an online conversation with a lot of hyperlinks for details. You can find it HERE.
[ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comm...ts/cliugoi ]
Sadly, as with many investigations into unraveling the magic shows of false-flag operations, this line of logical endeavor is VERY susceptible to cries of nutty 'conspiracy theories' - yet, like the almost proven Controlled Demolition of the WTC, this follows the physics and science wherever it led. The entire event was a giant show of Shock & Awe and the 'enemy' target was the US and World populations. Nothing of the official version is as stated other than the date - they got that right....the rest of the official version is a fiction to cover up the truth of what happened and who made it happen... IMO.

Those who support the official version, as with Dallas and other false-flag operations, can only even make a stab at supporting it IF and ONLY IF one assumes/posits that a huge number of sequential improbable to nearly impossible [some absolutely impossible] events occurred end to end.

When the facts don't fit the myth, they want you and the rest of the People to believe their myth.

I'll stick with logic, facts, evidence, and science, thanks....wherever it leads.

[Anthony Thorne]

I've been pondering whether the various links either Chertoff or Zakheim (I think it was the latter) had to various remote control piloting companies was due to an awareness at some point in the 90's that such tech would be required in the future, and it would be best if an inside conspirator was in charge of the company to direct resources wherever it would be required. I recall some of the victims on the flight were also linked to this sort of remote control tech (I'm oversimplifying but hopefully you get the gist). I wonder if these, like some of the other 'coincidental' deaths circa the event of folks linked by career to the activities taking place - John O'Neill in the WTC, the Booz Allen Hamilton employee dying in the Pentagon who had previously worked for Clinton as an anthrax terror advisor - was simply to clear the decks of people who might have inconveniently put two and two together after the event.

There does seem to be new info coming in on a variety of fronts. I recommend both Elias Davidsson's book and Graeme MacQueen's new anthrax volume if you've yet to read either. I'll need to follow the Pilots for 9/11 Truth discussions closely.

[Drew Phipps]

I believe you're thinking of Dov Zakheim's Systems Planning Corp. It was also reported in 8/2001 that Raytheon had successfully demonstrated remote control landings with a 727.

[Martin White]

The famous video of the plane that was crashed in the desert for crash research purposes - when was that? Mid 80s?

The level of control required to take off and crash it into something (even if that 'something' is the ground) is a lot more coarse than the fine control required to safely land.

I have no idea if remote control was used, but it was certainly technically possible.

[Peter Lemkin]

The so-called 'no planes' hypotheses is [by some deniers] considered the height of lunacy. For sure there were 'planes' - but whether they were normal passenger planes is questionable for all of them. Whether they were being piloted by humans or computers is debatable and I think the latter is more logical. Then there were some magic tricks. I don't believe any plane HIT the Pentagon [one flew toward it and then over and away - while others were watching closely from short distances away - one a doomsday plane control center; the other an electronics warfare plane that JUST HAPPENED to also be at Shanksville when that event happened.]. At Shanksville I find very very hard to believe the official version and that a plane was not shot out of the air - what plane is a question. At the Pentagon, almost surely a hardened-nose [bunker-buster depleted Uranium] missile of some type hit and penetrated the building, with some spare plane bits and pieces strewn and then picked-up quickly afterwards.

One of my uncles was a professional magician and taught me some magic tradecraft. The first thing I was taught was misdirection of the attention of the audience. I think on a greater scale this is exactly what happened on 9-11 and continues to happen via the propaganda apparatus. The CIA long ago hired a professional magician to aid them in misdirection of attention and other standard magic disappearances/appearances and SWITCHES!

Most Americans just can't 'go there' to such a total deception by their government - or aspects of it/persons and groups within it - and near complete cover-up by all of it. However, if they don't 'go there' soon, I guarantee another 9-11 type event on steroids sooner rather than later!

[Martin White]

Spot on Peter. A couple of years ago I saw a piece by Penn and Teller. I can't remember the specifics any more but it was clearly aimed at debunking the "back and to the left" idea. The piece finished with Penn looking at the camera and saying "second gun, my ass".

I remember thinking then, "Wow. Using a magician to "prove" the non-existence of a GK gunman. Not very clever.", but then I realised that most people wouldn't even think about the fact that P&T set out to deceive their audience using every trick that's out there. They will just look at it and go "huh. Well I guess it was Oswald after all."

[Martin White]

As to a future 9/11 style event, I think that there is a good case to show that they realised that they got away with JFK, MLK and RFK, they got their way with Vietnam. 9/11 may well just have been the same game with bigger stakes.

The question I have to ask is if they will get too ambitious and overplay their hand, or stage something so outlandish that even the MSM go "wait a minute, what's going on here and who's that guy behind the curtain?"

[Charles Keeble]

[quote=Peter Lemkin][...]At the Pentagon, almost surely a hardened-nose [bunker-buster depleted Uranium] missile of some type hit and penetrated the building, with some spare plane bits and pieces strewn and then picked-up quickly afterwards.[...]/QUOTE]

I once posted a comment on Information Clearing House which included a phrase something like this: 'maybe a "whale" in the Chesepeake "sneezed up" a "flying fish."'

I have all ICH comments archived up until 9/11/11.

[Drew Phipps]

As I recall, the PNAC bunch's rallying cry soon after 9/11 was something like, "5 countries in 5 years." We hit 2 of them all right, but Syria, Iran and one other (Pakistan? Libya? Turkmenistan? IDR...) are still out there, and its been 13 years. Obviously the overall plan fell short, both in execution and (now) in the moral outrage from Americans necessary to sustain the effort.

If you ASSUME that some group of the American government planned and executed 9/11, in order to justify this extended series of military actions, then "something" didn't go according to plan on 9/11. And, if you ASSUME that there is "unfinished business" still on the back burner with this deep structure group, you could rationally conclude that some new "moral outrage" might be necessary to kickstart the program once again.

I must say I HOPE that these assumptions are wrong.

[Peter Lemkin]

I'd assess the 9-11 operation [false-flag and complex, including the Anthrax attacks, (un)Patriot Act, wars, and much else] as a success for the perpetrators. Yes, they may have imagined it would have produced more mayhem and greater immediate diminutions of our liberties, but it produced much too much of both. They have deep pockets and lots of resources to pull off another Big One anytime they feel they have the plan and the opportunity. Generally, I see that they make the next one bigger than the last - so the next one [which I'm SURE will occur soon] will be very big indeed. They won't stop unless stopped. Their plan is clear to me. They want nothing less than total control via a neo-fascist police state inside and endless wars outside - with concomitant rule by the Oligarchy and total exploitation and destruction of most people, cultures and the environment. Exposing their past false flag and terror attacks is the best and most peaceful way of stopping them in the future. I believe, however, that time is short. The stakes for humanity and life on this Planet could not be higher, IMO.