911 and 77 (21)
One reason that thinking things through for oneself is very important, and that we do not simply unthinkingly accept what someone says just because they are known for their accurate observations and wisdom, is that the making of mistakes in our reasoning, no matter how perfected it is in any one of us, is exactly what we tend to do as human beings.
Some weeks ago when I was first transitioning from being asleep to the insane trick, the inside job that was 9-11, I watched the beginning of a video and actually stopped it short because I totally disagreed when I heard this:
“You couldn’t predict that the plane would actually hit the Trade Center. It could easily have missed.”
That was Noam Chomsky explaining that the 9-11 atrocity could not have been an inside job.
He is saying that for it to have been such a trick it would have depended on those planes hitting their targets and because they could so easily have missed altogether it could not therefore have been an Inside Job.
That is true if, and only if, that part of the evil scheme could not possibly have been planned to this degree of perfection. Thus it is based on an assumption which presupposes that such an insane scheme could not be intelligently planned and perpetrated to that extent. But if it was just such a scheme then that assumption is a false one. Clear evidence, overwhelming evidence, shows that it was an insane job, a grand scheme that was very intelligently prepared. While Mr Chomsky is right to think that the planes could not have been allowed to miss their targets, if such planes actually existed, it is a simple error of reasoning to think that, therefore, it could not have been an inside job.
Elsewhere, in my article "Chain Reaction," I have explained another simple error that a well known and very popular philopher and thinker has made, so unless someone cares to point out some flaw in my own simple reasoning then I have to start to think about making a claim for myself as being someone to look up to for a more balanced view of reality than at least some of our more famous thinkers seem to exhibit. But I digress.
You only have to watch how the buildings seem to fall so methodically to realize that the required degree of pre-planning perfection was present. The quoted statement just is not true and the opposite is true, the planes could not have been allowed to miss. It was an essential part of the plan that they be on target. The planning would have made sure that they did.
Great minds tend to forget what might be called first basic principles of fooling people, what might be called the 'sleight of hand' trick. We see something impressive and are overawed by it - or at least that is where our attention is focussed - and fail to see what might be called the lesser features of the trick. We no longer have an eye to simplicity, to simple clues.
Being able to ENSURE that you could 'predict' each essential ingredient of the plan was vital. If the planes missed then the whole trick would have been ruined and no one would have been fooled.
So the question is really HOW did they ensure that nothing could go wrong, that the planes hit precisely the spots they were meant to hit with zero chance of failure?
Well if you work backwards with this by which I mean if you assume that it was a huge trick or much better, establish for yourself that it could only have been a trick, an inside job trick, and nothing else, then you can work out certain things about the planes.
The plane evidence
To my mind, which means this is just my own 'take' based on my assessment of the evidence:-
One is that each plane, of the two that supposedly hit the towers, had been totally prepared beforehand and there must have been a switchover from the supposed plane to another plane. But it may be that no planes hit the towers at all - that it was a 'filmic stunt'. Either way, it is extremely unlikely or impossible that the supposed planes hit the towers.I could go on.Two is that sorting out the detail of the real planes, if any, would not have been a difficult problem for those who were behind it. They would have had highest access at airports and other places.
Three is that the passengers were probably mostly people who could be relied on not to talk. If there were others then this was a convenient occasion to kill them so that their murder and disappearance could be accounted for.
Four is that the planes, if they existed, were most likely radio controlled models. They were probably very lightweight, like model aircraft, but lifesize and with specialized fittings for the mission.
Five is that the spots where they struck and entered must have been prepared beforehand. No aluminium aeroplane of any size or speed can have broken through those steel outer tubular column frames.
Seven is that even if the fuel was present, in the wings of the supposed planes, it could not have entered the building to any significant degree but would have splashed away on the outside. Again, what we saw must have been something else entirely, all part of the trick, the visual setup.
Eight is that the word 'smokescreen' comes to mind (think Pentagon missile). It was all just one huge elaborately and painstakingly planned exercise that could only have been carried out by the highest levels of the US military or a faction of it with or without some government involvement too.
A point comes when you realise, if you started with an assumption that there was something fishy, that the whole mad scheme was entirely composed of rotten fish.
And what now is my opinion of Mr Chomsky?
I know almost nothing about him whatsoever so I can hardly form any opinion except on this one statement. In my opinion, based on what I now know about 911, that it can only have been a very well planned inside job, his statement is not one that leads me to want to pay much attention to anything else that he might have to say on this subject at least.
Paul E. Coughlin
18th March 2007
(Re-editted on 18th April 2007)
SaneThinking.com
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
