posted 11-28-2003 09:45 AM            

BTW, If I remember correctly, the 4th plane did not crash until soemtime after the 2nd tower was hit.

posted 11-28-2003 01:03 PM            

Perhaps the supposed 757 crash into the Pentagon.
A hologram would leave no wings torn off nor any lawn torn up, nor any wreckage.
Hologram of a jumbo jet to confuse eyewitnesses to the much smaller single engine jet which most certainly DID crash into the Pentagon?
Quite likely!

The WTC crashes and controlled demolitions were certainly no hologram.
The shootdown over PA was no hologram either.

Thanks for the link to more pictures and another snafu:
Operation Northwoods 911 exercise had many
such mistakes, but then they had to rush plans forward.

Probably because the actual Florida vote count was scheduled to be released on 911.
(it was announced on Sept 1st: "Comprehensive count of all Florida ballots...to be released...10 days from now")

Ten days is not enough time to complete arrangments that should have been finished only just before the mid term elections.

This is a repeat pattern with Bush the First.

"A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow."

The Bay of Pigs debacle was also rushed ahead of schedule for fear JFK would cancel the invasion.
An enraged JFK still pulled the aircover.
("Operation Northwoods" was origionally to have provided public outrage and patriotic ferver to support the invasion of Cuba)

Leaving mercenaries offloaded from support ships "Barbara" and "Zapata" in the surf,
was more a result of cowardice by cia operatives, who fled the area and left the mercenaries behind.

The compliant and cooperative US Media provided "eyewitnesses" and ignored evidence to smooth over the glaring gaps and obvious lies in the official version of events;
And they also repeated the "big lie" incessantly to convince us we didn't really see what we photographed and recorded.

Like those imaginary "Iraqi tanks "massed to invade Saudi Arabia" that Bush the First lied about to "justify" Wag the Gulf One.

Proof of WAG THE DOG BushWar one
http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/nocasusbelli.html
>The Guardian
Wednesday February 5, 2003

In 1990 as the US prepared for its first war with Iraq there was heavy reliance on the use of "classified" satellite photographs purporting to show that in September 1990 - a month after the invasion of Kuwait - 265,000 Iraqi soldiers and 1,500 tanks were massing on the border to gear up to invade Saudi Arabia. The threat of Saddam aggressively expanding his empire to Saudi Arabia was crucial to the decision to go to war, but the satellite pictures were never made public.

Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2 1990. The US cabinet met the same day. At that point, war was no more than a possibility. Norman Schwarzkopf recalls the prevailing mood in his autobiography, It Doesn't Take a Hero. He quotes General Colin Powell's remark to him: "I think we could go to war if they invaded Saudi Arabia. I doubt if we would go to war over Kuwait."

Within days the mood at the top had hardened. When Schwarzkopf next met Powell, he was told to prepare to go to Saudi Arabia. "I was stunned," he says in his book. "A lot must have happened after I left Camp David that Powell wasn't talking about. President Bush had made up his mind to send troops."

A lot had changed. By the early weeks of September, America and Britain were leading the march towards war. Somehow, almost without anybody noticing, the agenda was changing. Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait alone was no longer acceptable. New resolutions had been adopted by the UN security council

The photographs, which are still classified in the US (for security reasons, according to Brent Scowcroft, President Bush senior's national security advisor), purportedly showed more than a quarter of a million Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi border poised to pounce. Except, when a resourceful Florida-based reporter at the St Petersburg Times persuaded her newspaper to buy the same independently commissioned satellite photos from a commercial satellite to verify the Pentagon's line, she saw no sign of a quarter of a million troops or their tanks.

Jean Heller, an investigative reporter on the St Petersburg Times, has been nominated for a Pulitzer prize five times and come second twice, so when she asked permission to spend $3,200 (£1,950) on two satellite pictures, the newspaper backed her.

Heller's curiosity had been aroused in September when she read a report of a commercial satellite - the Soyuz Karta - orbiting and taking pictures over Kuwait. She wanted to see what the only independent pictures would make of the alleged massive build-up of Iraqi troops on the Kuwait/Saudi border. Soyuz Karta agreed to provide them. But no trace of the 265,000 Iraqi troops and 1,500 tanks that the US officials said were there could be found in the photographs.

"The satellite pictures were so clear that at Riyadh airport in Saudi Arabia you could see American planes sitting wingtip to wingtip," Heller says.

She took the photographs for analysis to two experts. "I looked at them with a colleague of mine and we both said exactly the same thing at exactly the same moment: 'Where are they?'" recalls Peter Zimmerman, a satellite expert at George Washington University.

'We could see clearly the main road leading right through Kuwait, south to Saudi Arabia, but it was covered with sand banks from the wind and it was clear that no army had moved over it. We could see empty barracks where you would have expected these thousands of troops to be billeted, but they were deserted as well."

Jean Heller wrote her story for the St Petersburg Times. It opened with the words: "It's time to draft Agatha Christie for duty in the Middle East. Call it, The Case of the Vanishing Enemy."

Looking back now, Heller says: "If the story had appeared in the New York Times or the Washington Post, all hell would have broken loose. But here we are, a newspaper in Florida, the retirement capital of the world, and what are we supposed to know?"

A year later, Powell would admit to getting the numbers wrong. There was no massive build-up. But by then, the war had been fought. <

They didn't need holograms for the WTC demolition.
They had a media complicit and experienced in lying to the American people on behalf of Bushco:
>
A public relations firm on a $2m contract from the Kuwaiti government had been surreptitiously employed to make the case for war. Hill & Knowlton's coup de grace was their fabricated "incubator baby" story. A story of how Iraqi soldiers had thrown premature babies out of incubators in the Al Adnan hospital in Kuwait city and "left them on the cold floor to die".

Hill & Knowlton's work involved coaching six witnesses to give the fake details of the attack on the premature baby unit. The story was graphically told to Congress in November 1990 - before a crucial vote - by Niyirah al Sabah who, unknown to her audience, was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US. In her tearful testimony, she said she had witnessed the Iraqi troops' brutality when she worked as a volunteer in the maternity ward.

But Myra Ancog-Cooke, a Filipino nurse who worked in the hospital, said that none of the staff there had ever heard of Niyirah al Sabah; they had been present in the hospital throughout the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and the story was untrue. A staunch Catholic, Ms Ancog-Cooke explained that it was her duty and God's will that she stayed to care for the sick. She was assigned to the children's ward and took it in turns with the other Filipino nurse who stayed behind, Freida Contrais-Naig, to sleep in the incubator room with the babies.

"I remember someone called and said, 'Look at CNN, they are talking about us." We watched and it was strange seeing that girl telling them about the Iraqis taking the babies out of the incubators. I said to Freida, 'That's funny, we've never seen her. She never worked here.' We didn't think very much about it really. We were more excited seeing our hospital on the television," she says.

Later, Amnesty International, who had also been duped by the testimony, admitted it had got it wrong. Andrew Whitley of Middle East Watch described it as a fabrication, but it took months for the truth to come out. Meanwhile, President Bush mentioned the incubator babies in five speeches and seven senators referred to them in speeches backing a pro-war resolution.

Subsequently, Hill & Knowlton was unabashed that the media worldwide, the UN security council and the US Congress had been deceived by a 15-year-old girl who had been "trained" by a public relations firm. Lauri Fitz-Pegado of Hill & Knowlton, who prepared six witnesses to corroborate the incubator story to Congress, told John Macarthur, author of The Second Front, a book on censorship in the Gulf war: "Come on John, who gives a shit whether there were six babies or two. I believed her."
<

I also recall Matt Drudge (rightwing propagandist)
Had pictures on his website showing a missile which missed both WTC towers and was vectored toward WTC-7.

I believe it was fired by one of the helicopters shown in many WTC photos.

IMHO
They wouldn't fire a missile at a hologram;
Unless the missile was aimed, not at the "hijacked airliner" but, instead;
Aimed at WTC-7.
HMMM!

Thanks for the links to more photos and evidence of the additional snafu of 911's Operation Northwoods event.

posted 11-28-2003 03:32 PM            

HOLOGRAM--A REACTIVE REALITY
....

A hologram is a semi reality that allows for programmed participation and a probable outcome. A hologram is a story line that is created for a cast of characters known for offering a predictable response. Probable responses can be programmed into holographic environments that take every sequential possibility into account.

The most current example of a collective holographic experience are the still clouded details surrounding September 11, 2001, and the events that have followed that unforgettable day in humanity's history. They were designed to be unforgettable and as such have programmed your thoughts and environments. This was a successful attempt to influence or polarize the entire population of the Earth into enthusiastically embracing an agenda that otherwise would have been shunned.

Question: Is an illusion different from a hologram?

Yes. An illusion affords a conscious or unconscious choice. It has no polarity, no agenda. An illusion exists within a reality, whereas a hologram is a substitute reality. For example, illusion allows you to play at poverty until you discover your unlimited potential. In a hologram your experience is polarized so that poverty becomes your reality. Illusion is a third-dimensional game; it is child's play compared to a holographic reality. The veils that shadow illusion have become almost transparent now, but the veils that shelter the holograms are the shadow.

HOLOGRAMS HAD TO BECOME MORE SOPHISTICATED

Question: If we are awakening and accelerating so quickly, why can't we step outside of these holograms and see them for what they are?

You are. That is why the holograms have become more sophisticated. That is why their agenda now involves a greater segment of the population. Humanity's constant and consistent awakening is the very reason behind chemtrails; they are a second-phase attempt to reinforce the perimeter of the hologram. If humanity is consumed with orchestrating its health, job, home and money while at the same time guarding against the next possible invasion of terror, it will have little time or energy left to find its way out of the hologram. This is the central and pivoting role of the programming; it has been well designed.

Question: So first we have to step out of the illusion we created. Then if by some miracle we manage to do that, we will still discover (or not) that we are in a hologram and have to find our way out of that, is that right?

No, not exactly. You give more power to both the illusion and the hologram than you give to yourself, and certainly more than they merit. The only thing that keeps you believing the illusion and participating in the hologram is that something or someone outside of you and more powerful than you is forcing you to participate in it. It is true that the holograms have been well designed, but so have you. As you have lent your support to its creation, so do you also have the power to dissolve it. Even if you have forgotten how to dissolve it, you can still choose to destroy it. Remind yourself again, when necessary, that you and All That Is are one. The hologram is also an aspect of All That Is, although its origin seems foreign to you now. All that is a part of All That Is; it cannot be otherwise. This is the fail-safe key that will always unlock the door.

The door to the hologram seems impermeable; it is not. Every program contains at least one flaw, even this well-designed program is heavily flawed, as you will soon see. If humanity had not already taken an evolutionary leap forward, chemtrails would be unnecessary. Humanity's evolutionary leap has for the most part gone unnoticed by its semiconscious mind. No matter--your self-realized God-consciousness has recorded all the details, and your history will reflect each moment. No adventure will go forgotten or be left until.

YOU CAN REJECT THE HOLOGRAM OF THE CHEMTRAILS

Question: What effect, if any, does all this spraying have on the elements that make up our atmosphere?

It is detrimental to the atmosphere, the air and all who breathe it, as you might imagine. Not all chemicals or aspect of chemicals drift down. Some of the elements are caught up in great currents and carried loftily to other destinations. Some do not come down at all. They become attached to pockets of air, filling holes here and there with an energy that is harmful to those pockets. Energy is another word for purpose--it is how nature uses and responds to purpose. Energy pockets are not empty vacuums that float here and there; they are patterns of response that relate to weather conditions. They can, for instance, absorb or couple with energy that would otherwise become a hurricane or a tornado. Have you not wondered why ideal hurricane conditions do not always cause hurricanes? It is because nature's intelligence directs and guides these energies appropriately. It is not prudent to avert all such occurrences, but certainly some can be avoided. If these energetic pockets become filled with energies unlike their purpose, there will be an increase in weather anomalies and natural disasters. Artificial manipulation of the sky and the air has already created atmospheric changes. These changes will be difficult (but not impossible to reverse.

Question: Is the whole world subject to the chemical effects of the chemtrails, or are they localized events?

The entire population of the Earth is being influenced by more than one campaign. Chemtrails are localized events; that is to say the aircraft involved must make various passes and fly at certain altitudes in order to release their influential gaseous cargo. Once released, the chemtrails are attracted to or repelled by the energies, frequencies and vibrations they come in contact with. Again, not all beings are subject to the full effects or harm the chemicals are capable of inflicting. For example, many humans smoke or otherwise ingest tobacco, but not all humans contract cancer. It is not by casual accident that this is the case, but by causal agreement. Do you see the difference?

The airspace within other countries is not as wide open as within the boundaries of the United States. In other countries smaller private planes, jets and helicopters are not as plentiful. Still, the missives of these chemicals, coupled with the intent with which they have originated, will see to it that the effects are worldwide.
Question: Can you offer us some practical suggestions that will help avert or deflect the effects of chemtrails upon our physical and emotional bodies? Can we avoid becoming controlled or influenced by them?

You cannot avoid being influenced by chemtrails, but you can avoid being controlled by them. Earlier in this discussion it was said that you were being invited to participate in a holographic experience and that your vote of confidence was needed in order for the campaign to be a success. This is true, and I emphasize these words now. Influence is not demand, even when you are presented with a demanding influence. The chemical content of the chemtrails causes you to see the world through chemical-agenda-colored glasses. This by itself does not cause distress. It is the attempt to remove the glasses that is distressful. Removal of the glasses causes an imbalance in the equilibrium and of all other vital fields. Physical discomforts, side effects and illnesses are a result of nonacceptance of the campaign. Physical and emotional symptoms are a vote of discontent and no confidence. They are a rejection of the hologram and a statement of self-awareness.

Question: In other words, if we don't get sick it means that we approve of the rape and ownership of the Earth?