|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: Consider this re: military preparedness on 9/11
Hi Bart,
There is a huge silver lining in the story I've
been telling you about 9/11. Our military didn't fail us on 9/11. Isn't
that great to hear?
Personally, I'm glad that our country's defenses
aren't as bad off as the official 9/11 story requires you to believe.
Our military didn't fail us on 9/11 because there
were no hijacked planes to intercept. Most people do not see
that the "no planes" theory is good for America,
but it is.
What the official story expects you to believe is that our defenses were utterly dysfunctional on 9/11, but they weren't.
We were attacked on 9/11, but not by planes. We
were attacked by a still secret group that used an electric weapon
to dissolve the WTC and another new technology
to convince us it was a plane.
A projected image of a plane was projected into
the sky. The image glided into the WTC. An image of a plane is not
a plane, and our military cannot be expected
to intercept images of planes. They don't show up on radar.
What I knew on September 11, 2001, was that a
passenger airliner could not have caused the complete destruction of the
WTC, so you could say I was a "no planer" from
the get-go, although for a few years I had no reason to suspect that
a plane hadn't crashed into the building. I just
knew that even if a plane did crash could not have caused the building
to
turn into powder and fume for months, as it did.
A plane crashing into a building doesn't defy
the laws of physics. A building turning into dust as a result DOES
defy the laws of physics. But, if you look closely
at the replays of this supposed plane impact, you'll notice that
the "plane" doesn't actually crash against the
building. There is no reason to think that an aluminum airplane
could remain intact nose-to-tail during the time
period after it began impacting the building until it fully entered
the building. This is ridiculous. The plane would
have mostly stopped at the face of the building, and the
heavier parts (engines, etc.) would have continued
forward.
But none of this happened, and the real story
has not been adequately told. What really happened is that
they zapped the building with a new type of "laser"
weapon that destroys steel, and that the remaining
steel continued to fume until they removed it
from the WTC site.
The Deutsche Bank, aka Banker's Trust, was damaged
by the electrical weapon and still fumes 8 years later.
I smell it every now and then when I'm walking
around the neighborhood where I live.
The reaction started by this new technology is
not easily quenched!
I've been smelling it for years, and this is
not a joke or an exaggeration.
A plane?
Come on.
Plane crashes don't stink 8 years later.
Your friend,
DrBabs
I tried to watch a new program on the History Channel called "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" and it was all bullshit.
It would've been nice if they had some experts address the big questions, but nooo.
I don't know the numbers, but one theory goes like this:
"Jet fuel burns at 1400 degrees and steel melts
at 2100 degrees
so jet fuel from those two planes could
not have melted the WTC."
Plus, there seems to be little or no wreckage from the PA or Pentagon
planes.
Why not get some experts, with reputations, to ask some tough questions?
They could've had an intelligent show that actually looks at the theories
but since the History Channel
is owned by our-military-and Bush-can-do-no-wrong Hearst, Disney
and NBC, we got bullshit, instead.
Remember, I only watched the first few minutes because I could see where
they were going,
which was anyone who doubts Bush-Cheney must be insane.
Why can't rich Democrats produce a fact-based program on 9-11?
Doesn't it piss you off when someone like Al Gore starts a network but
quickly declares,
"This will be a non-partisan network?"
Why can't we have one slice of honesty in this whore world we're stuck
in?
Send e-mail
to Bart | Discuss
it on The BartCop Forum | Comment
on it at the BartBlog