AMERIKA
what is it about the amerikan media? all controlled by the state? all controlled by zionists?
in the purportedly "legitimate" press[newspapers, television, radio], you will never encounter any truths about the events of 11/09/01.
what you will read, hear, see are artfully crafted fictions.
i have written about some of these fictions extensively. and i may still have some of those essays on a portable hard drive. but i doubt it. i think i had not saved some prior to a major hard drive crash. sigh.
on the other hand, "get me rewrite!"
i want to begin by saying that i do not understand how so many people are unable to cerebrate. and how many accept as truth what the state says.
let us consider just a few of the ways that should cause a sentient individual to question the lies of the state concerning the events of 11/09/01. where to begin? the beginning.......
1. consider a group of earnest terrorists. dedicated to the destruction of the great satan. they have had long-term relations with amerikan intell services. they have family members, and financiers, with long-term relations with the usa. in fact, some of them may have been trained at nas pensacola.
and as danny hopsicker has reported, atta was quite the playboy in venice, florida. and his instructor-employer must have been very well connected to have been caught running lots of cocaine and escaped prosecution. this is an interesting history of atta. principally because the nyt owns the local paper and refrained from doing any investigation into this story[this is the zionist/amerikan intell link - pinch'es dad, punch, was oss and a perfervid zionist]. it should be a matter of great concern to amerikan citizens how the concentration of media ownership allows for the "spiking" of important stories.
anyway, if you were as connected as atta, even marginally as well bank-rolled by the saudis, the mossad, you would never hijack a commercial airliner. you would never accommodate the variable of being denied access to a flight. you would never jeopardize your mission by making a connection. and you would never jeopardize your mission by flying for hours to your target - why would you think that you wouldn't be intercepted and exterminated?
the only reason for the fiction of the hijack story is so that the new amerikan gestapo can monitor/control airline-train travel within the usa. and the devolved/devolving citizenry accepts the imposition of the new totalitarianism.
it must be said: if there were real terrorists, they would never have used hijacking as a part of their scheme. they would have preferred to eliminate the variables. they would have acquired/leased 727's, DC10's. very affordable and very available in 2001. no one would have asked any questions.
they would have rented a hanger at some airport. they would have established a dba as an aircraft customizer. they would have acquired the planes. then loaded them with explosives. and flown them into teterboro, newark on 10/09/01. and if they wanted the WTC, they would have launched and within minutes collided with them. this would have prevented any interception. and would have insured destruction.
but, the question must be raised? why the wtc? this is not a strategic target. it is much like pearl harbor, which was also not a strategic target.
you know, if you were a real terrorist who wanted to injure the great satan, and you had the ability to acquire aircraft and fly them into strategic targets, you would fly them into indian point nuclear power plant and the exxon refinery in linden, nj. that would have shut down the usa. the rupture of the containment of indian point would have been tantamount to chernobyl - vast numbers of deaths from radioactivity and the shut-down of most of the northeast. why would you screw around with the wtc when you could impose that strategic damage?
and you would fly them into the exxon refinery just a few miles further south.
doing these things would have shut-down, destroyed the amerikan east coast.
even if you were foolish enough to energize your plan by incorporating hijackings, if successful in taking control of the airliners, why would you overfly indian point, fail to fly a little bit further south so as to strike exxon's refinery,
and strike a non-strategic target?
recognizing this is the first key to recognizing that the events of that day were part of a usg coup.
2. there is much talk about jet A[kerosene] fires so weakening the structural steel of the towers that they collapsed as if victims of a controlled demolition.
much erroneous information has been foisted on the populace concerning the fires. i have seen so much nonsense. i read somewhere that jet A burns at 1250 F. it doesn't. 850 F.
but more to the point, for those that squirm to defend the bushit version of the day, it should not be forgotten that the wtc had a sprinkler system. which worked. so, when the fires broke out, the sprinkler system was deployed and combustion temperatures were radically reduced. below a point where any weakening of structural steel would occur.
3. i continue to find it odd how so few relate the history of the buildings. i don't have my history of the buildings handy - it is in my library warehouse - but sometime immediately prior to completion, a fire broke out in one of the towers. at that time, there was no fire suppression system[no sprinklers]. if my recollection is accurate, the fire raged for 6 hours before it was extinguished. the after battle assessment of the damage was that no damage had occurred to the structural steel[and by the way, this fire occurred before the steel was coated with anything].
though the port of new york authority had been willing to allow the construction of these buildings without fire suppression systems, after this, sprinkler systems were added.
ponder on that for a moment.
4. it is also my guess that this fire got the attention of the city of new york...which extrapolated that an uncontrolled fire might cause the collapse of the towers. since any such collapse would be irregular, since a toppling could take out st paul's, the millenium hotel, att's comm center for the financial district, and other wtc buildings, i think that along with the change order that added the fire suppression system a demolition system was imposed on the towers - so that if any catastrophe occurred that might cause them to topple so as to damage surrounding properties, they could be brought down so as to fall into their footprint.
xymphora scolds those that view the destruction of the towers as incidents of controlled demolition. his argument is that the charges could not have been installed at any time after the occupation of the towers. and that may be accurate.
the demolition charges were installed after that first fire. before the occupancy of the building. the capability of bring down those towers as the kingdome[or the projects in st louis] was in place decades before 11/09/01.
to be continued.......
in the purportedly "legitimate" press[newspapers, television, radio], you will never encounter any truths about the events of 11/09/01.
what you will read, hear, see are artfully crafted fictions.
i have written about some of these fictions extensively. and i may still have some of those essays on a portable hard drive. but i doubt it. i think i had not saved some prior to a major hard drive crash. sigh.
on the other hand, "get me rewrite!"
i want to begin by saying that i do not understand how so many people are unable to cerebrate. and how many accept as truth what the state says.
let us consider just a few of the ways that should cause a sentient individual to question the lies of the state concerning the events of 11/09/01. where to begin? the beginning.......
1. consider a group of earnest terrorists. dedicated to the destruction of the great satan. they have had long-term relations with amerikan intell services. they have family members, and financiers, with long-term relations with the usa. in fact, some of them may have been trained at nas pensacola.
and as danny hopsicker has reported, atta was quite the playboy in venice, florida. and his instructor-employer must have been very well connected to have been caught running lots of cocaine and escaped prosecution. this is an interesting history of atta. principally because the nyt owns the local paper and refrained from doing any investigation into this story[this is the zionist/amerikan intell link - pinch'es dad, punch, was oss and a perfervid zionist]. it should be a matter of great concern to amerikan citizens how the concentration of media ownership allows for the "spiking" of important stories.
anyway, if you were as connected as atta, even marginally as well bank-rolled by the saudis, the mossad, you would never hijack a commercial airliner. you would never accommodate the variable of being denied access to a flight. you would never jeopardize your mission by making a connection. and you would never jeopardize your mission by flying for hours to your target - why would you think that you wouldn't be intercepted and exterminated?
the only reason for the fiction of the hijack story is so that the new amerikan gestapo can monitor/control airline-train travel within the usa. and the devolved/devolving citizenry accepts the imposition of the new totalitarianism.
it must be said: if there were real terrorists, they would never have used hijacking as a part of their scheme. they would have preferred to eliminate the variables. they would have acquired/leased 727's, DC10's. very affordable and very available in 2001. no one would have asked any questions.
they would have rented a hanger at some airport. they would have established a dba as an aircraft customizer. they would have acquired the planes. then loaded them with explosives. and flown them into teterboro, newark on 10/09/01. and if they wanted the WTC, they would have launched and within minutes collided with them. this would have prevented any interception. and would have insured destruction.
but, the question must be raised? why the wtc? this is not a strategic target. it is much like pearl harbor, which was also not a strategic target.
you know, if you were a real terrorist who wanted to injure the great satan, and you had the ability to acquire aircraft and fly them into strategic targets, you would fly them into indian point nuclear power plant and the exxon refinery in linden, nj. that would have shut down the usa. the rupture of the containment of indian point would have been tantamount to chernobyl - vast numbers of deaths from radioactivity and the shut-down of most of the northeast. why would you screw around with the wtc when you could impose that strategic damage?
and you would fly them into the exxon refinery just a few miles further south.
doing these things would have shut-down, destroyed the amerikan east coast.
even if you were foolish enough to energize your plan by incorporating hijackings, if successful in taking control of the airliners, why would you overfly indian point, fail to fly a little bit further south so as to strike exxon's refinery,
and strike a non-strategic target?
recognizing this is the first key to recognizing that the events of that day were part of a usg coup.
2. there is much talk about jet A[kerosene] fires so weakening the structural steel of the towers that they collapsed as if victims of a controlled demolition.
much erroneous information has been foisted on the populace concerning the fires. i have seen so much nonsense. i read somewhere that jet A burns at 1250 F. it doesn't. 850 F.
but more to the point, for those that squirm to defend the bushit version of the day, it should not be forgotten that the wtc had a sprinkler system. which worked. so, when the fires broke out, the sprinkler system was deployed and combustion temperatures were radically reduced. below a point where any weakening of structural steel would occur.
3. i continue to find it odd how so few relate the history of the buildings. i don't have my history of the buildings handy - it is in my library warehouse - but sometime immediately prior to completion, a fire broke out in one of the towers. at that time, there was no fire suppression system[no sprinklers]. if my recollection is accurate, the fire raged for 6 hours before it was extinguished. the after battle assessment of the damage was that no damage had occurred to the structural steel[and by the way, this fire occurred before the steel was coated with anything].
though the port of new york authority had been willing to allow the construction of these buildings without fire suppression systems, after this, sprinkler systems were added.
ponder on that for a moment.
4. it is also my guess that this fire got the attention of the city of new york...which extrapolated that an uncontrolled fire might cause the collapse of the towers. since any such collapse would be irregular, since a toppling could take out st paul's, the millenium hotel, att's comm center for the financial district, and other wtc buildings, i think that along with the change order that added the fire suppression system a demolition system was imposed on the towers - so that if any catastrophe occurred that might cause them to topple so as to damage surrounding properties, they could be brought down so as to fall into their footprint.
xymphora scolds those that view the destruction of the towers as incidents of controlled demolition. his argument is that the charges could not have been installed at any time after the occupation of the towers. and that may be accurate.
the demolition charges were installed after that first fire. before the occupancy of the building. the capability of bring down those towers as the kingdome[or the projects in st louis] was in place decades before 11/09/01.
to be continued.......
posted by albertchampion at 10:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home