TOTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS

Sunday, August 14, 2005

This piece by Marcus Icke with Dr. Stephan Grossman has been recently revised. The following from Grossman's introduction and Icke's concluding remarks should hightlight the essential pieces of their argument. Click on to their full article for the detailed video analysis from which the hypotheses arise.

From Dr. Stephan Grossman August 11, 2005:

There is a web site (http://www.orbwar.com) that is in part dedicated to documenting this Pentagon hyper-technology of mid-air illusions, deceptive but not fully perfect (in case of scalar secret weapons, highly energized for explosions). The skin of the proposed flight UA175 (which is the wrong UA175) looks in many respects just like that, especially: its false shine and false shadow, its false lack of details and colour and its blinking and often transparent wing-illusions. I am convinced that the visible outside skin of the wrong flight UA175 is such a 'Ghost Gun' like the holo-cloak of the stealth fighter because it enters the building like an unreal ghost and the entry hole is much smaller than the ghost. I interpret this as a roaring small missile riding (with a toggling missile flight path) inside a specially imaged large holographic cloak depicting with 98% accuracy a Boeing 767 (plus small tell-tale marks to be looked out for, such as in this article by eagle-eyed Marcus Icke). ...
Altogether, the media of record for 911 are so strikingly different from a real Boeing that they give us all the certainty we could possibly need.

The 'pod' is evidently not an illusion of the light, it does not hamper and obstruct the bay doors for the landing gear, and it is an authentic sign that something is wrong with the proposed 'plane'.

And from Marcus Icke's conclusion:

The UA175 aircraft was not a production model Boeing 767-200 manufactured in Seattle, or any other commercially available variant of the Boeing 767 family.

The UA175 aircraft may be a structurally reinforced psuedo-767-200 which might explain why we see it cutting through WTC2 as if it were butter. The passage of the airframe through the tower may have been assisted by the destruction of the interior structure with explosives at the moment of impact.

The UA175 aircraft may have been added to the film during transmission or after transmission / reproduction to cover the absence of any aircraft or to conceal an aircraft that was not a Boeing 767-200.

There is a strong possibly that the UA175 aircraft is a hologram, the technology of which would have been developed and deployed for 911 by the US military...

I consider both the Port wing Anomaly and the orange 'flash' to be examples of 'Whistle Blowing' by disgruntled Perpetrators involved in the creation or modification of photographs and rolling film.


[...]

Piecing It All Together -

While planning the 911 atrocities the Perpetrators realised that flying a real jet into the WTC2 tower was not going cause enough damage to publicly justify the collapse of the structure using the 'burning jet fuel' theory.

As the Perpetrators needed 911 and the eyes of the world were going to be focused on the Trade Towers something that looked believably like a Boeing 767-200 had to be deployed and seen to be flying into the tower.

The only choice was to use some form of hi-tech optical illusion to fool the masses into thinking that a real jet had hit WTC2 and then use pre-planed explosives to create believable structural damage and a impressive pyrotechnic display.

The problem was that the Perpetrators couldn't get the optical illusion to look 100% realistic so in order to conceal this weakness they used a media hoax to 'plug the gap' and leave the masses with believable live footage and/or pre-fabricated/modified footage of the event.

| Posted at 04:35 | PERMA-LINK |

Comments:

Post a Comment