TOTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS

Thursday, October 12, 2006

As contradictory official stories emerge, Wednesday's bizartre air crash must be understood as a manufactured event. But to what end?

Today's statement by the cover-up artists at the federal National Transportation Safety Bureau says there was no distress call issued by the plane. But yesterday, there were several reports that a distress call (eg AP) had indeed been issued.

The plane had a bizarre trajectory in that it took a full U-turn in order to crash into the high-rise building. That fact strongly suggests remote control may have been used to seize control of the 21st-century airplane.

But it is the comparisons to the 9-11 incidents that are most illuminating. There was no Looney-Tunes-style plane-shaped hole punched in the side of the building. The plane did not glide into the building, but rather crumbled and fell to the ground, as a real plane would when crashing into a much stronger building. The building did not disintegrate and collapse within an hour or so, as did the buildings on 9/11.

And in contrast to the hours and hours of wide-open skies of 9-11-01, NORAD actually scrambled planes to defend US airspace within 10 minutes (from AP/NBC17): "According to Admiral Timothy Keating, planes were flying "less than 10 minutes" after he gave the order when he saw the crash on TV. Within half-an-hour, he said military brass knew it probably wasn't terrorism. Officials plan to continue the patrols for an unspecified period of time, after which the fighters will stay on high alert."

It's almost as if this upside-down 9-11-01 was scripted to show us what a real plane-to-building air crash looks like. But why? And by whom? Was this a revelation of the method mindfuck by the perpetrators of 9/11, or something else designed to encourage critical thinking?

It's an upside-down world, alright.

| Posted at 13:36 | PERMA-LINK |

Comments:
i agree fishey indeed.
read: http://gothink.biz/?p=54


#

posted by  Anonymous : 12/10/06 22:32

 

Post a Comment