Tuesday, 23 August 2011
9/11 - Part 4: "Method In The Madness"
The methods used to bring down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre is a huge matter for debate in the truth community. These matters have been fuelled and compounded by photographic and video footage combined with eyewitness testimony. As the media began coverage of events, many individuals (including certain reporters) made claims about all manner of aircraft and hardware, with some showing no knowledge of the involvement of jet airliners: “A bomb has gone off” and “There has been a huge explosion” were the sorts of statements made.
As events progressed, people were continually being corrected by news anchors: “It was high jacked planes!“ Eventually there were numerous people, cited as eyewitnesses, who were actually from certain institutional agencies and organisations. Some have even been exposed as ‘fake testimony’ (individuals claiming to be a certain individual when they clearly were somebody else!). These people were shown by the mainstream media repeatedly as reliable testimony, almost as if to reinforce an engineered consensus: “Two planes slammed into the towers!” (I will discuss the media’s role in 9/11 in a forthcoming post).
Reconciling inconsistencies in the wealth of eyewitness accounts from 9/11, is difficult. There are a huge number of people who never actually saw planes, yet saw and heard the initial explosions. Some have subsequently filled in the gaps based on “general consensus”. Yet if pushed, they still cannot be 100% sure they even saw a plane. One or two witnesses have even claimed to have seen a plane, yet heard no explosion! Make of that what you will! Testimony from the moments before both the impacts and the collapses, also describe unusual sound anomalies. Droning, hissing and “thrushing” sounds were spoken off by several witnesses. The sound of military-like jets and missiles were also spoken of by others. It is difficult to imagine how the brain ultimately compartmentalises a first hand experience like 9/11. I believe the lack of consistency amongst these differing accounts, exposes the flaws in the ‘official’ story.
More revealing, are numerous accounts of various differing aircraft. Some witnessed small planes: “It looked like a commuter plane” (Don Wright), “The plane appeared to hold 8 to 12 people” (Steve Patterson), etc. Anthony Bartolomey , in his interviews stated: “Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane”.
Former Republican Party insider Karl Schwarz began investigating oddities in the wake of 9/11. In running across the video footage in a French foreign film entitled The Barbarian Invasion (a film unrelated to 9-11), he noticed a 1 minute 52 second video segment, shot by an unknown amateur photographer at the WTC, which Schwartz says clearly shows a Boeing 737 airliner striking the south tower… rather than the government claimed 767. Schwarz said he also had evidence that the engine recovered in the WTC wreckage was a model type CFM56, which propels a 737, not a 767.
There was even an account from Tom Wright (an operations manager at FAA’s New York Terminal Radar Approach Control - DRACON) of a Sikorsky helicopter that was tracked until it collided with the WTC at 8.27am on 9/11. He also claimed that it was “the only target that we saw in the vicinity of the Trade Centre”.
It is conceivable that there would be numerous differing accounts. Despite the fact that, the FAA grounded all aircraft (including military) at 9.24am, various credible internet video footage shows passenger jets in the skies throughout the day. It has been confirmed that the Bin Laden family was flown out of the US after the lockdown, so how many planes were still in the air? Student video footage from across the Hudson River shows fighter jets speeding toward the Towers (between the initial ‘impact’ and collapse) and throughout the day. This poses the larger question of a military presence being able to prevent said ‘attacks’! Even at the moment of ‘impact’, video footage reveals both: a large commercial aircraft flying past the North Tower, as it was hit and a white aircraft behind the towers, as the South Tower was hit.
There were also claims of military hardware: “I was convinced it was a missile”, ”We heard what sounded like a missile”, “One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building” (Anthony Bartolomey), etc. At 9.06am, PAPD Police Desk radio report, PA Channel W reported: “Units on channel W, this is 8581 Sierra. There’s been a reported missile launching from the Woolworth Building. CPD, if you are monitoring, get in touch with New York City. Have them check the Woolworth Building roof top".
The debate about military vehicles and devices was blown open, with claims made about a ’pod’ attached to the underbelly of Flight 175. Subsequent study of numerous photographs and video footage has shown this ’pod’ to be visible from several angles. Researchers have studied the smaller amount of footage of Flight 11 and showed the possibility that it too had a ’pod’. Whilst it is difficult to quantify this theory given the ease with which footage can be doctored, it has fuelled truthers and sceptics alike. Those who follow the ’official story’ claim it is nothing more than shadows and light anomalies. Truth Seekers have been heartened by several independent successes with video analysis. Whilst experts don’t know what it is, they can rule out the shadows and lighting factors. It appears that it is very much a part of the whole vehicle. Combined with the ’flash’ footage that pre-empts the ’impact’, some believe that it is an Incendiary Device. Thus calling the nature of these two planes into doubt.
Were they military in nature? FOX employee, Mark Burnback stated at the time: “There was definitely a blue logo with like a circular logo on the front of the plane, toward the… yeah, definitely toward the front. It definitely didn’t look like a commercial plane. I didn’t see any windows on the side… It was not a normal flight that I’ve ever seen. It did not look like it belonged in this area”. Footage from the time shows eyewitnesses initial observations. One woman screams: “That was not an American Airline” (repeatedly). One man said; “The plane wasn’t no airline or anything. It was a twin engine, big, grey plane”. With this in mind, you have to ask the question: If not Flight 11 and 175, what happened to the planes they claimed were used? Where are the passengers and crew? Considering the answer to this question is a chilling realisation…
You would also have to ask, would those responsible have people prepared to fly vehicles into certain death? The Japanese did it in WW2! Those who believe in an agenda would loyally lay down their lives for, what they perceive to be, the greater good. However, what if these aircraft were unmanned? As crazy as that may sound, it has applications based firmly in reality.
In 1984, The NASA Dryden Flight Research Centre and the FAA flew a fully fuelled Boeing 720 via remote control and crash it into the ground. In 1994, An experiment at the Crows Landing NASA Facility in the Central Valley of California involved 110 landings of a Boeing 737 airliner using an experimental GPS navigation system. On April 24, 2001, The Global Hawk made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned, robotic aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean. On August 25, 2001, Raytheon (several of the listed 9/11 flight passengers were employed by Raytheon!) and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a pilot-less FedEx Boeing 727 six times using a military GPS landing system that enabled ground control to take control of a hijacked airplane and force land it. They also successfully completed flight testing of a system providing accurate and reliable landing guidance for both rotary and fixed wing aircraft during low visibility (Category I and II) approaches, on September 6, 2001.
All four planes hijacked were made by Boeing (a major defence contractor) and have virtually the same flight decks, can store an entire flight path plan, and can be automatically flown immediately after takeoff up until landing. It is strange when you consider that the two Boeing 767's that were claimed to have hit the North and South WTC Towers crashed at approximately the same angle, both hitting their targets tilting to the left. The technology to precisely fly planes by remote, avoiding obstacles and undertaking manoeuvres of near impossibility for a living pilot, is in commercial use today. Military technology is known to be at least 20 years ahead of that in commercial use, so it is certainly feasible.
In examining the theory of unconventional weaponry use to collapse the towers, I must credit Dr Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson for their tireless research into the subject of energy weapons or means. Whilst I still have certain reservations about these matters, I am certainly open to the idea. Especially if you consider the 60 year or more history of classified research, development and testing of microwave weapons, exotic energy weapons and weather modification technology. I am convinced these means exist in some form and, with this in mind, it is not such a stretch of the imagination to entertain the notion of black technology usability in a false flag or covert operation.
Many in the truth movement have lambasted these ideas and, whether you agree or not, the research into this theory is certainly worth taking the time to at least examine… instead of immediately dismissing out of hand. Whilst studying the “bubbling”, “foaming” and “dustification” effect, visible in footage of the collapses, they have also pointed to anomalies in the surrounding area. Upturned cars, bizarre scorching of vehicles, inconsistent fire damage of property and environment and ’cold fires’ (photographs show rescue workers walking through small fires with no effect on the person).
Evidence of these unconventional methods to bring down the towers, may lie in the mystery surrounding Hurricane Erin, which was over the Atlantic Ocean and the longest-lived hurricane in the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season. The hurricane maintained peak strength for 18 hours. Erin should have made New York landfall on September 11, yet it rapidly decelerated and veered off in a totally different easterly direction. Although it could be argued that nature is, by it’s very nature (no pun intended), is unpredictable… is it just a bizarre coincidence?. If Erin had continued on course, we would not have had clear blue skies on 9/11 (for the footage!), flights may have been delayed or cancelled and we may never have had an event called 9/11. It may have been 9/14 or 9/26 (the numerological significance of the date would have diminished though!)… who can tell. However, anybody who knows the history of weather modification projects knows that altering the path of a hurricane is not so far fetched as it may appear.
The problem with examining the twin towers as evidence of a cover-up?
It is difficult to get close to solid proof. The Towers evidence (whilst damning) contradicts itself… left, right and centre.
Proof of something more tangible lay just down the road from the centre of attention though.
Whilst most people didn’t realise it, a confession of guilt was televised, live and for all to see….
At World Trade Centre Building 7.
To Be Continued…