Flying a Plane Into the World Trade Center? Why Not Fly Out of LaGuardia?
Here is a new, and so far unasked question about the badly debunked official explanation of the events of September 11th 2001. If you spend years planning a spectacular attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, and you are a less than adequate pilot, and you wanted to ensure the attack would be completed without giving the U.S. air defense apparatus the chance to follow their normal procedures and intercept your plane, why would you choose to fly out of Boston? Why would you choose to risk getting lost or stopped as you try to fly 190 miles to your target when you can hijack a plane from one of three airports within sight of the target?
There are three airports that would enable a pilot or a hijacker to have visual contact with the World Trade Center within a minute or two of takeoff. With all the planning these so called hijackers must have made, how stupid would they have to have been to travel to Boston in order to attack NY? We have been told that the so-called hijackers were barely able to pilot even simple two seater aircraft, but we are supposed to believe that they felt confident enough to navigate to NY from Boston without the help of ground control. Are we to believe that i they would not have flown out an airport from which they had constant visual contact with their target? Also keep in mind that planes taking off from these NY area airports would have more fuel remaining in their tanks when they made contact. They would not have to burn off 45 minutes worth of destructive explosive fuel.
Here is why they had to fly out of Boston: it is because the real planes had to be switched with the remote controlled modified 737s that actually impacted the towers. Yes, planes did hit the towers and the Pentagon, but not the planes that we have been told. I am convinced based on the current body of evidence, that the planes that hit the towers were 737s flown by remote control and that a Skywarrior hit the Pentagon.
Where are the other planes? Skeptics would disqualify this commentary by saying something stupid like “well, where are the real planes then?” I’ll tell you where the real planes are, they are destroyed and the people on board were murdered. They were sacrificed “for the good of the nation.” At least that is the reason for their sacrifice we would hear from a Machiavellian leader who follows such illogic. I will ask that you look into that particular philosophy so that you understand what I mean. We already know that the hawks in the Bush administration are Machiavellian in their thinking; we hear that on a regular basis from Chris Matthews on MSNBC. The only problem is that Matthews never explains what that means. In a nutshell that means that the hawks in the White House will lie, cheat, deceive and even kill for the overall good of their mission. These are the same people that lose no sleep about the almost 3000 Americans that they sent to be killed in Iraq as part of this same mission. These people have no problem sacrificing others in order to achieve their mission. They did it with Iraq and they did it on 9/11. Stop telling me that they would never do that because they already did!
When I teach people how to watch or interpret news I tell them to ask themselves three very important questions when they being told something by the lying bastards in the media:
1. Does this information make sense to you?
2. Does this information make sense to you?
3. Does this information make sense to you?
Once again, I ask you: would hijackers planning on attacking New York City, a city with 3 airports within direct eyesight of the intended target, choose to launch their attack from 190 miles away when they could have launched their attack from a distance of less than 15 miles? We are told that these ‘hijackers’ were such geniuses that they could deceive the most sophisticated air defense system in history. After spending all that time and resources to plan an attack of that scale why would minimally trained pilots with no airliner experience make such a senseless choice Think about it!
There are three airports that would enable a pilot or a hijacker to have visual contact with the World Trade Center within a minute or two of takeoff. With all the planning these so called hijackers must have made, how stupid would they have to have been to travel to Boston in order to attack NY? We have been told that the so-called hijackers were barely able to pilot even simple two seater aircraft, but we are supposed to believe that they felt confident enough to navigate to NY from Boston without the help of ground control. Are we to believe that i they would not have flown out an airport from which they had constant visual contact with their target? Also keep in mind that planes taking off from these NY area airports would have more fuel remaining in their tanks when they made contact. They would not have to burn off 45 minutes worth of destructive explosive fuel.
Here is why they had to fly out of Boston: it is because the real planes had to be switched with the remote controlled modified 737s that actually impacted the towers. Yes, planes did hit the towers and the Pentagon, but not the planes that we have been told. I am convinced based on the current body of evidence, that the planes that hit the towers were 737s flown by remote control and that a Skywarrior hit the Pentagon.
Where are the other planes? Skeptics would disqualify this commentary by saying something stupid like “well, where are the real planes then?” I’ll tell you where the real planes are, they are destroyed and the people on board were murdered. They were sacrificed “for the good of the nation.” At least that is the reason for their sacrifice we would hear from a Machiavellian leader who follows such illogic. I will ask that you look into that particular philosophy so that you understand what I mean. We already know that the hawks in the Bush administration are Machiavellian in their thinking; we hear that on a regular basis from Chris Matthews on MSNBC. The only problem is that Matthews never explains what that means. In a nutshell that means that the hawks in the White House will lie, cheat, deceive and even kill for the overall good of their mission. These are the same people that lose no sleep about the almost 3000 Americans that they sent to be killed in Iraq as part of this same mission. These people have no problem sacrificing others in order to achieve their mission. They did it with Iraq and they did it on 9/11. Stop telling me that they would never do that because they already did!
When I teach people how to watch or interpret news I tell them to ask themselves three very important questions when they being told something by the lying bastards in the media:
1. Does this information make sense to you?
2. Does this information make sense to you?
3. Does this information make sense to you?
Once again, I ask you: would hijackers planning on attacking New York City, a city with 3 airports within direct eyesight of the intended target, choose to launch their attack from 190 miles away when they could have launched their attack from a distance of less than 15 miles? We are told that these ‘hijackers’ were such geniuses that they could deceive the most sophisticated air defense system in history. After spending all that time and resources to plan an attack of that scale why would minimally trained pilots with no airliner experience make such a senseless choice Think about it!
posted by Tricycle911 at
3:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home