Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: Consider this re: military preparedness on 9/11

Hi Bart,

There is a huge silver lining in the story I've been telling you about 9/11. Our military didn't fail us on 9/11. Isn't that great to hear? 
Personally, I'm glad that our country's defenses aren't as bad off as the official 9/11 story requires you to believe.

Our military didn't fail us on 9/11 because there were no hijacked planes to intercept. Most people do not see
that the "no planes" theory is good for America, but it is.

What the official story expects you to believe is that our defenses were utterly dysfunctional on 9/11, but they weren't.

We were attacked on 9/11, but not by planes. We were attacked by a still secret group that used an electric weapon
to dissolve the WTC and another new technology to convince us it was a plane.

A projected image of a plane was projected into the sky. The image glided into the WTC. An image of a plane is not
a plane, and our military cannot be expected to intercept images of planes. They don't show up on radar.

What I knew on September 11, 2001, was that a passenger airliner could not have caused the complete destruction of the
WTC, so you could say I was a "no planer" from the get-go, although for a few years I had no reason to suspect that
a plane hadn't crashed into the building. I just knew that even if a plane did crash could not have caused the building to
turn into powder and fume for months, as it did.

A plane crashing into a building doesn't defy the laws of physics. A building turning into dust as a result DOES
defy the laws of physics. But, if you look closely at the replays of this supposed plane impact, you'll notice that
the "plane" doesn't actually crash against the building. There is no reason to think that an aluminum airplane
could remain intact nose-to-tail during the time period after it began impacting the building until it fully entered
the building. This is ridiculous. The plane would have mostly stopped at the face of the building, and the
heavier parts (engines, etc.) would have continued forward.

But none of this happened, and the real story has not been adequately told. What really happened is that
they zapped the building with a new type of "laser" weapon that destroys steel, and that the remaining
steel continued to fume until they removed it from the WTC site.

The Deutsche Bank, aka Banker's Trust, was damaged by the electrical weapon and still fumes 8 years later.
I smell it every now and then when I'm walking around the neighborhood where I live.

The reaction started by this new technology is not easily quenched! 
I've been smelling it for years, and this is not a joke or an exaggeration. 

A plane? 
Come on.
Plane crashes don't stink 8 years later.

Your friend,

I tried to watch a new program on the History Channel called "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" and it was all bullshit.

It would've been nice if they had some experts address the big questions, but nooo.

I don't know the numbers, but one theory goes like this:
"Jet fuel burns at 1400 degrees and steel melts at 2100 degrees
  so jet fuel from those two planes could not have melted the WTC."

Plus, there seems to be little or no wreckage from the PA or Pentagon planes.
Why not get some experts, with reputations, to ask some tough questions?

They could've had an intelligent show that actually looks at the theories but since the History Channel 
is owned by our-military-and Bush-can-do-no-wrong Hearst, Disney and NBC, we got bullshit, instead.

Remember, I only watched the first few minutes because I could see where they were going, 
which was anyone who doubts Bush-Cheney must be insane.

Why can't rich Democrats produce a fact-based program on 9-11?

Doesn't it piss you off when someone like Al Gore starts a network but quickly declares,
"This will be a non-partisan network?"

Why can't we have one slice of honesty in this whore world we're stuck in?

  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart  |  Discuss it on The BartCop ForumComment on it at the BartBlog

Privacy Policy
. .