September Clues Addendum. Chapter 1

[kevlar]

Quote:I have done contract work for the Canadian Department of National Defence since 1995, almost 15 years. I also worked for Atomic Energy Canada, Corrections Canada, and "a few other government agencies".

So this site's server is run by a spook, I guess, huh? Then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE???

You said this on the first page, i was only making a joke.

I understand that you don't want to disclose their details, i don't blame you, but then you must realize from my perspective that does not realy hold weight. Not that i don't believe you, it is just not verifiable and i can only base my opinions on verifiable evidence.

As for the victims, i only agree that there was problems with the passengers on the planes, i have never said anything about or investigated the victims from the towers and other locations. I do not take the opinion that no one died, to the contrary i believe a lot of people died but i think the victim lists are not 100% correct. I think there was probably more people that were not on the lists that died and people that died that were added to the lists, that did not die directly from the incidents, but were added later. But i have not looked in to the victims. They apparently have and that is why they have those opinions but i can not agree because i have not looked in to it myself. Knowing someone that has a story about knowing someone who died in 9/11 is not exactly proof that the victim lists were 100% accurate.

[nik]

I agree. Fully.
I do not think people dieing will have presented as much of a problem to the planning as is seemingly taken as a given on sept clues.
There is a lot of discrepancy in the official stats and apparently something has been exposed which definitely merits actual attention,in order to be talked about but I haven't read all yet and to say no one was a killed on 9 11, if that is what they are saying, is clearly unreasonable in the extreme. I would believe it a nonsense to say that personally, tbh, but am not so clear on what claims are being made. Is it an intentional over-provocation of the idea eg. "maybe the prime [working] directive was zero casualties" to draw attention to what they have exposed or do they actually contend it could possibly be that black and white??
I think having people die during such an event helps the people who planned it not the other way round in many respects.

[kevlar]

Ok i will tell you what i think happened on 9/11

The training exercises that day were used as a smoke screen to allow for the confusion that would enable such an attack to occur without the proper defensive capability. This means there was an internal operation, i personally think that a lot of the systems were hacked on 9/11 and that it was the greatest hack of all time. Norad and the faa had to have been hacked/infiltrated for an attack like this to occur. How people could just pretend to believe the official story at such high levels of the intelligence community is only proof of a cover up in the least. The media was also hacked and i can speculate as to how they did that based on the technology as the time that was probably five years a head of what was main stream at least. They used multi track sequences to intercept the live footage and intercepting all the witnesses testimonies and then displaying a very well defined package to the world via the main live stream but all a long they were chopping and changing the audio and playing it over a looped image of the wtc sequence. Of course the anchors had TelePrompTers that would have dictated what they were going to say to a point. This and the way they changed the audio to say what they wanted it to say allowed them to trick the world. The controlled demo had to be done in the months prior to the event but the whole operation probably was years if not decades in planning with many people involved at different levels. That had to have been a double cross, so people knew that something was going to happen and that they should do nothing to prevent it. But they did not know the full extent of the situation. So for example they might have known that planes were going to fly into buildings but they did not know it was going to be controlled demolition as well. This allowed for such a terrible plan to be carried out because it would be more difficult to convince a lot of people that they were going to kill a lot of people, than if they just said it was not going to be that bad. To blow up a building like that they could have used a roll on type of nano thermite a gel or a paint that was connected up to a computer that displayed a perfect 3d computer animated version of the building with each charged and the ability to set off any explosive within the building. The owners of the buildings had to have been involved as well as the port authority. I know a lot of people from the port authority died but they had to be involved at some level because they would not have missed something like that. Building 7 was apparently wired up to explode as a self destruct mechanism years prior to the attack. This is how i thought that event could have been pulled off if i realy used my imagination. It definitely was not pulled off how the official story says it was.

[rsol]

Quote:The training exercises that day were used as a smoke screen to allow for the confusion that would enable such an attack to occur without the proper defensive capability.

No planes.....no need.

[icosaface]

The scenario called for airplane attacks hence airplanes had to be used or, if not used, to be inserted into the radar system or they would not have been able to blame airplane strikes for the cause of the building demolitions.

[itsaname]

Last week me and my neighbor (again) took videos of WTC 3 and it's demolition to our state reps. We still disagree on exactly what happened that day on more them one topic, but one thing is sure and provable, there was demolitions that day, we decided that instead of arguing about being right or wrong on every point, that we would spend our time trying to wake people up in the ways that were provable. Fight all you want about planes - no planes, but when you get the time, pass out copy's of WTC3 to everyone you can. we need you

BTW, did anyone ever see the video that disappeared right after it was upped on youtube from a lady who had set up her web cam in her office in WTC1 to try to catch video of who ever was stealing her food and change out of desk? she claimed to have it set up for a month and a half before 911 and said it was powered by a laptop when she wasn't in the office and had the continues recording set to relay to her home and saved to her home PC? The video showed alot of strange things going on during the power downs and stuff, it was weird because 24 hours after it was upped, it was pulled and I have never been able to find even anything on it anywhere

[icosaface]

Haven't seen it but I would like to.

[7forever]

WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a flying bomb and failed computer graphics

"A lot of ah, uncertainty right now as to what is happening, you can see there are choppers--I believe that could be a police helicopter that is co...oooh."

She only mentioned choppers being in the area after the drone came into frame. She was stunned and shocked when the tower exploded because what appeared on screen had no wings or propeller, which is the very reason she said it only might be a chopper. She used the smallest aircraft that most people would be familiar that fit closest in size to the unknown flying blob. She could have said it was a green concord, but its unknown status would remain for anyone dealing in reality.

"We just saw another (long pause because she did not describe a plane) live picture of, duhhh, what I believe, duhhh, was a plane that just hit another plane?" So, it went from an unidentifiable chopper, to, duh, what she knew had to be a plane, because that's what was supposed to happen, but didn't.

She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the orb was shown at least six more times and was described as a plane or twin engine jet.

The first computer generated image was first shown only one minute after the last orb. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice the bogey move directly east and cgi more left/north.






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKj0H2fCp...E&index=30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGEDvG9...E&index=34