(Part 2) Top products from r/911truth

Well, you need to actually listen to it very carefully, and in the context of the impossible cell phone calls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk#t=5906

Some commenters have posted the clip with the single phrase in that whisper at the end slowed down but that's not the least the bit helpful in discerning what she said and how she said it.

Go to wikipedia's flight 93 page, scroll about half way down to find the player on the left side, plug in your headphones, turn up the volume and listen very carefully as she suggests at the opening of the message left on her husband's answering machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

To better understand the problems with the phone record, I would highly recommend reading the book

Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence, by Elias Davidson

which puts forward a very compelling case based on the content and style of the calls, even setting aside the impossible cell phone calls, that the people making them were not being genuine or authentic in their delivery and were in fact reading pre-made scripts delivered under some sort of duress or pressure points to keep them from going off script and saying something like "but don't worry it's just a military exercise".

I have pretty good discernment and evaluative skills, and stand by what I posted, but you have to listen to the whole call, it's tone, style, and how she chose to deliver her message, which seems directed as much to her captors, even to us, as to her husband.

You have to listen "very carefully" while assuming nothing. Note how casually and dismissively she describes the circumstance, with apparent fear creeping in only when she reports that she's aware that planes had hit the WTC.

And that's another unusual aspect of the phone record, that they all followed the same pattern involving nonchalant reporting on the status of plane and hijackers.

In a real world situation, the style and content of the calls would have been all over the map, but they were eerily consistent in a variety of ways that, like her call, are not congruent with the reality.

Combined with the evidence regarding the impossible cell phone calls and, sadly and infuriatingly, only one conclusion can be drawn and that is that these people were not on board the aircraft and were made to participate in what they can only have assumed or been told were military exercises involving simulated hijackings.

She knew the score and she dared to go off script, while choosing her entire delivery very carefully with the aim and hope that she would not be killed and would see her husband again, but she knew better, which is why she whispered "it's a frame" at the end of the call, after asking that she be listened to and heard very carefully.

Sister_Lauren, as I've told you before, you are the only other one here who admits to agreeing with me.

And it's actually quite strange, because I don't have a vested interest in the nuke hypothesis and thus it makes no difference to me whether people agree with it or they don't.

The problem, I suppose, is I don't support the thermite/nanothermite theory or Judy Wood's DEW theory, although I don't think anyone here supports that. If they do I've certainly not heard it mentioned. Btw, except for her DEW theory, I think Wood's book is excellent, by far the best written description of the demolition of the towers there is, and I would strongly recommend that everyone reads it.

http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/dp/0615412564

>What is presented in this book is not a theory and it is not speculation. It is evidence. It is the body of empirical evidence that must be explained in order to determine what happened at Ground Zero.

To know what I'm talking about, just read some of the reviews.

Philip Zelikow:

• lawyer for Barry Seal appointed at behest of George H. W. Bush.
  
  
• lawyer for Barry Seal who got him released to a halfway house with minimum security where Barry Seal was quickly assassinated by "Colombians"
  
  
• secretly in contact with Karl Rove while overseeing the entire 9/11 Commission
  
  
• worked with Condi Rice closely from 1989-1998, including writing a book together, thus making his position of investigating her for the Commission a massive conflict-of-interest
  
  
• director of Aspen Strategy Group which included Rice & Cheney
  
  
• works now for Obama

Interview 27 min. - Paul Zarembka - The Hidden History of 9-11



Abstract The Hidden History of 9-11-2001


The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Volume 23 (Research in Political Economy) (Research in Political Economy) Hardcover – July 14, 2006 Amazon


The hidden history of 9-11-2001 Slideshare

If you read the book "Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" and ponder the evidence presented in it, you'll be either more terrified or reassured that our government has done similar crimes before.

The book is definitely recommended. In short, it'll shed new light on both the "good war" and the way the US government practices realpolitik and propaganda.

> Once you start putting holes in the superstructure and weakening everything with fire the whole structure becomes unstable.

This is just your opinion though, not based on anything but your imagination, further, the building designer claims the complete opposite.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

>Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there

In this interview takenon June 25, 2001, Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management, explains how the Twin Towers were

>designed to withstand the impact of a fully-loaded Boeing 707.

He also goes on to say that each of the Twin Towers would

>probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door: this intense grid; and, the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing this screen netting; it really does nothing to the screen netting.

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11

>The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact, page 131

In Sep 2000, the neo-con PNAC web-site argued that the U.S. needed "a new Pearl Harbor event". A year later, 9/11 was orchestrated and the neo-cons got their wish.

Historian George Nash has now made public Herbert Hoover's secret history of the 1943-1963 period, and we find that the original Pearl Harbor was also an orchestrated event.

> In November, the U.S. intercepted two new offers from Tokyo: a Plan A for an end to the China war and occupation of Indochina and, if that were rejected, a Plan B, a modus vivendi where neither side would make any new move. When presented, these, too, were rejected out of hand.

> At a Nov. 25 meeting of FDR’s war council, Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s notes speak of the prevailing consensus: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”

> “We can wipe the Japanese off the map in three months,” wrote Navy Secretary Frank Knox.

-- Patrick Buchanan, "Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?", Antiwar.com, 07 Dec 2011

Notice that the U.S. is using the same tactic against Iran today: instantly rejecting all conciliatory proposals made by Iran, then using this orchestrated "failure of diplomacy" to provide the justification for military aggression.

The difference is that Iran has so far refused to take the bait and respond to U.S. provocations and acts of war. This means that the U.S. will have to construct a false-flag terror attack on itself, similar to the bogus used-car-salesman assassination plot perhaps, and then use that deceit as a fig-leaf for aggression.