posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:38 AM
I also looked into this info years ago, and still have not seen it debunked.
It's possible that this particular issue, within the vast scope of 9/11 subject-matter, is the most disturbing. Reminiscent of matrix-level reality
bending, it should at least make the honest person pause and consider.
Sadly, from what I've seen, the "no planes" theory is seemingly most reviled, garnering emotional knee-jerk responses, sometimes degenerating into
hysteria. But this makes sense in a way, because the issue forces people to confront the very uncomfortable notion that we can't believe what we see
But it's not quite that bad. We can perhaps still believe what we see, BUT we must realize that what we usually "see", are only images carefully
selected by our masters, who have already calculated our predictable responses.
So, taking a step back, one should always ask, "Does it make sense"?
I think the NPT easily makes sense within the greater context of what most of us have already learned about these kinds of false-flag operations.
They are very sophisticated, and as such, what we may be seeing is perfectly logical, and I might even go further and speculate that this situation is
"probable", given the circumstances.
Consider the issue from "their" perspective. They spend years planning every detail, and yet, after so many years of operations like this, they
know all-too-well that things can, and do, go wrong. This is precisely why you would include "back-up" plans, if you were a good planner.
What would a back-up plan look like, if plan "A" was to crash jetliners full of people into the towers? Could you perhaps have a special "cruise"
type missile, at the ready, just in case? Perhaps plane number one goes as planned, but #2 encounters a problem (Shanksville sort of thing, etc.)
Also paramount in perpetrating your plan, is to ensure that the media is completely under control. No, this hardly requires "complicity" on the
part of the average player, the reporters, the anchors, none of them need to know anything. As has been pointed out before many times, there is
compelling evidence that "cues" were utilized in this operation as well, yet another sign that something was up. Add to this comm delays, so many
seconds that ordinarily should not be there, if reporting was truly being done on the fly, as the news occurred. Missing frames, etc...
I'm glad to see this issue raised again, it is among the most vigorously suppressed, from what I have seen over the years.
As for the knee-jerk no-planer reaction, it will certainly come. Too bad they don't seem to be able to get outside their box to honestly consider
the many dimensions of this issue.
And if I can see a "real" debunking, that would be great. But, I personally will be looking for something less one-dimensional than, "it's a
hoax!" Really, there are too many things going on here, from different angles. A good debunking is going to have to go deeper.
The implications of this, if it is real, are enormous. No, I wouldn't think ATS'ers typically just believe their standard news sources, but the
fact is, we all "tend" to believe more than we should. Psychologists have identified this natural "bias" we have, to believe, and since this is
warfare, our masters would certainly be using it against us.
And the "next time" we all "see" something they have presented for us? Yes, perhaps it is high time we started questioning the "obvious"...