Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: 9/11 - research opposing the government's theory  (Read 206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Merry

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 333
  • Reputation: +195/-49
  • Gender: Female
If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

Offline Neil Obstat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18151
  • Reputation: +8243/-631
  • Gender: Male
Re: 9/11 - research opposing the government's theory
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2019, 11:31:09 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    54 views and no comments?
    .
    https://jamesperloff.com/2018/06/22/what-struck-the-twin-towers-revising-my-outlook/
    .
    WHAT STRUCK THE TWIN TOWERS: REVISING MY OUTLOOK
    This is the fifth post I have written on 9/11. The most recent previous ones were:

    To 9/11 and Beyond, which examined evidence that the two explosions which ultimately decimated the Twin Towers were nuclear (a post I could not have written without technical advice from sources who preferred anonymity);

    .
    9/11 Simplified, which attempted to reconstruct the 9/11 events, regarding both the who and the how, and proposed a new take on the fate of the original passenger planes (that they were hijacked by Israeli special ops, and diverted over the Atlantic);
    .
    Conversations with an Airline Pilot about 9/11, an exchange with a highly experienced, active Airbus captain (his identity shielded as “Pilot A”), who helped clarify many technical aspects of 9/11, including elimination of electronic hijackings on that day.
    .
    Because in these posts I had to keep revising and refining my own understanding of 9/11, I felt that I should finally sum them all in a short book. But I tabled that idea because there was still one major 9/11 riddle that seemed impervious to a firm solution: what actually struck the Twin Towers (and the Pentagon and Shanksville).
    .
    In “9/11 Simplified” and “Conversations with an Airline Pilot,” I reviewed the evidence that it could not have been the original jetliners, as the official narrative claims. Without belaboring details here, this included:
    .
    • The planes reaching speeds unattainable by jetliners in the thickened air of low altitude, speeds that could have caused structural damage during flight, with pieces of wings, tail or fuselage breaking off;
    .
    • The demonstrable uncontrollability of planes at such speeds and altitudes, in a scenario where bullseye hits had to be guaranteed if the Twin Towers were to be demolished afterwards;
    .
    • The government’s failure to match a single aircraft part, found in wreckage, to any of the original 9/11 planes, a task that would be easy by comparing serial numbers to logbook records;
    .
    • The impossible physics seen in footage of Flight 175 hitting the South (second) Tower, its aluminum frame slicing through massive 14-inch steel columns, whereas there are many examples of jetliners shattering upon hitting water, having their noses bashed in by bird collisions, etc.;
    .
    • The three-dimensional, missile-shaped object visible on the underside of “Flight 175,” which could not have been missed at Logan Airport by the maintenance crew or by the pilots during their mandatory preflight inspection of the aircraft.
    .
    .
    So what did hit the targets on 9/11? In the earlier posts, we narrowed this down to two basic options: cloaked missile or drone.
    .
    The cloaked missile is a variation of the “no planes” paradigm, and though it is often ridiculed, had much going for it:
    .
    • Missiles can precisely hit targets at high speed; they would not have been subject to the strong “G-forces” facing the alleged jetliners;
    .
    • Unlike airliner noses, a missile’s nose is hardened for penetration;
    .
    • By the 1990s, for strategic purposes, the Air Force had developed holographic technology capable of simulating three-dimensional images of aircraft in broad daylight;
    .
    • Israel—suspect number one for 9/11—had commissioned its first cruise missile-firing submarines in 1999, and began test-firing missiles from them in 2000; it had also been working on stealth technology since the 1980s;
    .
    • A holographic image might explain the “impossible physics” of a plane gliding through steel, as well as other strange phenomena, such as Flight 175’s nose appearing to emerge from the other side of the South Tower, observable in footage from multiple angles.
    .
    .
    However, a cloaked missile could not account for the airliner debris found in the World Trade Center vicinity (such as the famous engine remnant on Murray Street), even though this debris was limited in quantity, and has never been matched by serial numbers to flights 11 or 175. This meant the debris would have had to be planted, which seemed very improbable. However, given the obvious planting of other evidence (such as a Koran together with a flight manual in a car at Logan airport), and the fact that the “dancing Israelis” worked for Urban Moving Systems, which possessed the trucks and manpower to dump off some wreckage during 9/11’s smoke and confusion, this option seemed worth considering.
    .
    The alternative to the missile hypothesis was a drone, an idea with its own strong points:
    • Drones are consistent with the prototype of Operation Northwoods, a real-life 1962 Pentagon plan to stage a “false flag” in order to justify invading Cuba. It called for swapping a drone, disguised as a jetliner, midair for a passenger plane. The passenger plane would be landed safely at a military base, while the drone would be exploded by remote control over Cuba after it sent a fake radio message that Cuban MiGs were attacking it.
    .
    • A drone could account for the aircraft wreckage;
    .
    • It would avoid any risks that holographic cloaking might fail; it wouldn’t just resemble a plane, it would be a plane.
    .
    However, the drone presented its own difficulties. How could a “substitute jetliner” overcome the risks posed by G-forces on a regular jetliner, at high speed and low altitude? How could it be controlled with such precision, and be immune to structural damage in flight? And how could a drone defy physics any more than other planes, sailing right through steel and concrete “like a hot knife through butter”?
    .
    After considerable discussion, Pilot A and I were both favoring the cloaked missile hypothesis over a drone, which seemed burdened with more problems.
    .
    Then, however, I sent Pilot A a picture I found on the Internet juxtaposing the gashes in the two Twin Towers. I asked him if he thought the nearly identical angles had significance.
    .
    .
    Other observations, however, caught Pilot A’s attention. He replied:
    .
    Looking at the gash pictures myself, I couldn’t deny Pilot A’s conclusion. A missile could explain the holes in the middle of either photograph, but not the peripheral damage. Some of the steel bars do bend inward as if struck with tremendous force from outside. I realize that some in alternative media have suggested the gashes were cut-outs from planted charges. But to get the bars bending inward meant planting charges outside the building. True, the famed “Israeli art students” had occupied the North Tower’s 91st floor in the spring of 2000, and had even removed a window and erected a small balcony. But would they leave external charges in place for more than a year? And how could pre-planted explosives coordinate to create such a realistic impression? The weak, furthest tips of the wings, for example, have only dented the external aluminum cladding, as one would expect in a genuine collision.
    .
    Yet we still see improbable physics in these photos. In the North Tower gash, for example, part of the left wing has not merely damaged the external cladding; it has sliced right through and shredded 14-inch steel. Even at high speed, what fragile aluminum wing could accomplish that?
    .
    .
    .
    ............And so on, what you see above is less than half the page. This is good stuff. Written for the average Joe to understand it.
    .
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Quid Retribuam Domino

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 487
    • Reputation: +240/-353
    • Gender: Male
    Re: 9/11 - research opposing the government's theory
    « Reply #2 on: January 07, 2019, 03:54:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    54 views and no comments?

    The blacklisted, but heavy, evidence that 9/11 was an Israeli and dual American-Israeli citizen job is a big inducer of cognitive dissonance, even within many Catholics. It shouldn't be, because Our Lord tells us iniquity (lawlessness) will abound in these latter days. The 9/11 attack is the quintessence of lawlessness, second to any direct transgression against Our Lord.

    On a side note, the father of this article's writer, Perloff, was a Jew. To my knowledge, Perloff isn't even baptized and, certainly, not a Catholic, so proceed with caution when reading this material. He has mentioned a lot of facts about Israeli involvement in 9/11, so that's good. Just be on the watch for any lies mixed with truth that's intended to undermine any credible case against Israel and the American Jews involved in the attack and coverup.
    From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33

    International Women's Day is a day we all celebrate Eve's rebellion at the Tree and our plummet into sin.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16