Why they didn't use planes
-Gerard Holmgren
Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or
whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story
about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?
It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof
that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we
have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.
Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this
question on its own terms.
Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could
go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the
smallest risk.
You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.
At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.
1) Actually use planes.
2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they
were planes.
Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell
the story. What could go wrong?
1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.
Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The
myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out
on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people
must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."
Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness
reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.
This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the
object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or
whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting
missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute
window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV -
using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the
media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is
fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the
media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was
small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available
- would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few
who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily
shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines
release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness
dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized
almost to the point of oblivion.
This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they
unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly*
what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to
say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their
face.
What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between
the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that
was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their
face as soon as they opened their mouths.
In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who
said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of
course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.
So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor
inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.
Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been
tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly
fits with the documented record of the events.
Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who
saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did
report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to
inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly
supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather
enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the
ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they
just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but
would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure
of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just
didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.
So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and
doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some
people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.
Now to the other problem.
Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly
what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The
alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our
collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the
groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very
manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of
using real jets.
Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been
handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented
record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee
first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the
choice of strategy.
Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.
This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots
2) Remote control them.
The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this
list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such
a scenario, so I won't go into them here.
Remote control.
Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more
-sub-choices.
1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from
somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.
Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with
passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create
potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood
of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.
Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote
control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an
aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the
plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just
clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of
damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the
Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.
Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would
have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is
specifically engineered for such precision strikes.
Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be
completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems
associated with the alternative scenario.
And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the
aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the
aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers
and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary
people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters,
given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.
And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How
are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This
raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more
sub-choices.
1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors
to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before
they do talk.
2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon
system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the
bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps
swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent
rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far
worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two
tower strikes.
These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as
they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its
still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors.
Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real
people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So
you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with
gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in
the scenario where the plane misses its target.
And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash,
you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut
up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that
for sure.
In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which
means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up,
involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can
be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin
gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say
in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can
post on her website, hoping that people take notice.
As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare
compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily
marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant
media.
In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because
every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully
targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates
an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem
of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the
video shows.
The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the
possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk
when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed
to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a
missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an
easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and
firing them at NY.
This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane
hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.