Monday, April 24, 2006

[political-research] Bloglines - Planes as Patsies?

Bloglines user has sent this item to you.

Humint Events Online
The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist "Pearl Harbor" event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries. This weblog will explore the incredibly strange events of 9/11/01, and other issues of US government responsibility.

Planes as Patsies?

By Spooked

A few months back I was reading about the assassinations of political leaders in the 60's and even Reagan's assassination attempt in 1980, and I wrote:
The major political assassinations in the US that took place between 1963 and 1980 (JFK, RFK, MLK, Wallace (failed), Reagan (failed)) all had strong indications that they were covert operations that used a designated "patsy". In these cases, the patsy was someone who plausibly could have committed the crime, had some motive for the crime, and was typically at the scene of the crime with a gun (i.e. Oswald, Sirhan, Ray, Bremer, Hinckley). Importantly, the real killing bullets came from nearby professional hitmen (professional killers). The patsies take the blame and the real killers escape unnoticed.

Thus, the use of a patsy is the perfect way to control the operation and deflect blame at the same time.
At the time, I was thinking simply along the lines of the 19 hijackers being patsies, and I was wondering how they would have used the hijackers in an analogous way to the assassinations.

But yesterday, I had the idea: what if the WTC and the Pentagon were the targets for "assassinations" or hits? Indeed, this may be a more appropriate way to think about 9/11-- how did they design the operation to deflect attention away from what really happened?

In fact, the hijackers piloting hijacked planes into buildings was always a ruse-- there was no way the 9/11 planners would ever trust these guys with planes and passengers; such an operation was too unpredictable, even if there were some highly reliable remote control piloting system (and it isn't clear there was one).

Thus, we can think of the four 9/11 planes themselves as patsies; apparent fall guys for the attacks, that on live TV and several videos appeared to attack the south WTC tower. But what really happened was the WTC and Pentagon were not hit by planes at all, but by carefully crafted operations that mimicked plane crashes, much like secret hitmen mimicked the gunfire of the patsy.

Conceivably, the 9/11 operation could have been done with substitute planes, but I believe this was far too risky for exposure.

Much, much better was to fake the crashes, plant a few plane-like debris pieces, and create the story that the planes were obliterated in each crash.

After all, if real (substitute) planes were used, there is no guarantee the planes would be completely demolished in such a way as to leave no incriminating evidence.

Definitely, there was no guarantee that real planes would disappear into the buildings, which was necessary for the story to work. Planes blowing up outside the buildings would leave far too much debris for random people to see. Plus, the disappearance of the planes into the WTC was also necessary to sell the story that the planes caused the total collapses of the towers.

Search the archives for political-research at

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at

Business intelligence Competitive intelligence Market intelligence
Emotional intelligence Military intelligence Critical thinking


No comments: