9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Presents "9/11 INTERCEPTED" - (Full Film) MUST WATCH!

 

Pilots For 9/11 Truth Presents "9/11 INTERCEPTED" - (Full Film) MUST WATCH!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhdppHwUJ9k

 

 

Views: 184

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A few things odd about this video. 

1.  It does not mention Gerard Holmgren's finding that the BTS records showed Flights 11 WTC 1)  and 77 (Pentagon) were not scheduled to fly that day.  Guess official stance of Pilots for 9-11 Truth is that that information is not to be accepted as valid.

 

2.  The video takes Minetta's testimony at face value and says Cheney's "orders" must have been to stand down and let plane hit Pentagon.  I know Cheney's testimony that he did not even get to the PEOC until about 38 minutes AFTER Minetta said he witnessed the conversation between Cheney and the young man in the PEOC is probably false.  However, I think Minetta's testimony can be regarded as also false.  It seems all interpretations of this conflicting testimony must regard either Mineeta is right and Cheney is wrong or vice versa, including now this interpretation by Pilots.  Usually everyone takes Minetta's testimony is valid because everyone pretty much regards Cheney as a consistent total scoundrel.

 

Well, I think Minetta is an equal scoundrel.  I think he was scripted and playing a role and totally made up that testimony about Cheney and the young man.  Minetta's testimony was totally controlled by the perps and it is illogical to take this at face value and honest testimony.  Almost nothing about 9-11 should be taken at face value.  It was too sophisticated of an operation for us to fall for that.

 

It is very peculiar that Norman Minetta was rewarded with the naming and construction of the Minetta Transportation Institute in San Jose, California, for basically calling Dick Cheney a liar.

Folks, something does not compute!

 

 

 

Yes, the Minetta testimony appears to be another one of the false subnarratives that I believe were inserted into the official story.  I believe some of these false  subnarratives were planned from the very beginnings of the planning for 9-11, like Phillip Zelikow's probably expert planning for this "public myth" that was 9-11

 

Obviously the main purpose of the Minetta false subnarrative was its basic underlying assumption that there was a plane, a real plane, headed straight for the Pentagon and that there was an unstated obvious order to stand down and not shoot that real plane down.  There was no real plane.  There was no young man.  There was no radar showing the young man a plane was "50, 30, 10 miles out."

 

The "its 50, its 30, its 10 miles out" is high-value theatrics, just as many many other aspects of what we were made to see on TV about 9-11.  Many gut wrenching, emotional horrifying video features such as would be found in a modern movie thriller. This approaching ominous "thing" was also a feature of the 1938 H.G. Wells / Orson Welles "War of the Worlds" radio show thriller.

 

Some of the designed-to-mislead, divert, and distract and mind control through fear/emotions subnarratives of 9-11 truth these days have been inserted into the narrative, not from its very beginning planning stages, but in this current ten-year-out truth seeking time.  There are new videos coming out every day these days, probably a frequency that can be attributed to the 11th 9-11 anniversary coming up in a few weeks, that insert many false subnarratives.

There is another new 9-11 video titled "9-11 plain and simple" found here today...

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2012/08/911-plain-and...

 

 

 

 

 

While I admire Jeannon and almost always agree with her insightful commentaries, in this instance, I believe she is wrong.  I reviewed Mineta's testimony on "Hannity & Colmes", both the first time (22 June 2006) and the second a few months later.  See my first interview at www.youtube.com/watch?v=08va1i6LYPc (with Ollie North) and the second at www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbNszu6zbe4 (with Sean Hannity). 

The White House announced his unexpected "retirement" from government the following morning (23 June 2006).  That would have been odd if they wanted to accent it. But suppose Jeannon were right.  Then why would Mineta's testimony confirming that a plane was headed toward the Pentagon HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED from The 9/11 Commission Report?  Plus we have independent evidence that a real plane actually DID FLY TOWARD THE BUILDING AND THEN SWOOPED OVER IT as explosives were being set off.

I have made his report an essential part of my evidentiary submissions for The Vancouver Hearings, which I am going to post as blogs.  I would be glad to have comments or criticism, since they are still subject to minor revisions.  I believe the indictments that are going to emerge from our proceeding may be our most important contribution to exposing the perps who were responsible for 9/11 and bringing them closer to justice.

Jeannon replies...

"The White House announced his unexpected "retirement" from government the following morning (23 June 2006).  That would have been odd if they wanted to accent it."

 

Not sure what this means.  Does last word "it" refer to Minetta's testimony?  Why would White House quietly "fire" Minetta right after Dr. Fetzer's TV appearance highlighting and giving credence to Minetta's testimony if the White House really wanted Minetta's testimony to be accented or given most credence?  Would that be a correct translation?

 

The "use" of phony firings and "unexpected retirements" are an old tool in all of this 9-11 misinformation and disinformation.  Yes, it may be that the White House felt they had to use this tool on Mineta right after, and in direct response to, your TV interview.  But I say, the whole Minetta meme was bound to employ the retirement or firing tool anyway at some time along the way.  Using it right after your TV interview only augments the public's perceived "truthfulness" of Minetta's testimony.

_____________________

"But suppose Jeannon were right.  Then why would Mineta's testimony confirming that a plane was headed toward the Pentagon HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED from The 9/11 Commission Report?"

We already know full well that many many things were included or left out of the 9-11 Commission Report on purpose as part of the construction of Zelikow's sophisticated public myth creation.  Leaving out something apparently real and apparently very important is part of the manipulation too.  Just because something is deliberately left out of the report or deliberately suppressed strongly by some entity in some public way does not make the thing excluded or suppressed necessarily factual, but it certainly can make the thing appear to be the real and very important truth.  More Jewish revolutionary spirit brilliance.

_________________

"Plus we have independent evidence that a real plane actually DID FLY TOWARD THE BUILDING AND THEN SWOOPED OVER IT as explosives were being set off."

 

 Yes, this is true, however, I do not think it is THAT real plane heading toward the Pentagon that was the subject of the "young man / Cheney / Minetta false theatrical scene presented to us.

Maybe there could have been a real radar that a real young man saw and where the real plane was picked up and tracked and maybe that is what the young man was so concerned about and kept coming into the room where Cheney was to express his concern and maybe Cheney really replied as related by and observed by Minetta.  However, I do not think it would have been necessary to construct this false theatrical scene that reality based or so elaborately executed.  The more contrived something is, the more unlikely it will come off improperly.  Too many opportunities for big flub-ups. Cheney and Minetta reading their scripts right and making their deceptive moves is all that was needed.  We never were able to factually establish if a young man actually existed or what his name was.  I think everyone who was there and involved knew full well they better get their parts right and their act together or they will be killed.

Given that this real plane was a special military psyops plane that was able to penetrate the Pentagon's air space with ease, it seems possible that this plane possibly could have had other miraculous qualities such as being undetectable on radar.  Also the real plane really being around wonderfully blurs the "no planes theeory" as improperly defined by much of the 9-11 truth "community."  Just musing.  The possibilities are endless.

I too have watched Minetta testimony many times.  In my old age, I have learned to trust my gut.  They guy is lying and is the weasel of all weasels.

The Minetta testimony and all ancillary manipulations and deceptions around it were brilliantly successful.  The "real terrorist planes crashing into buildings" was reinforced in everyone's minds splendidly. 

 

I still say the Minetta testimony was a programmed-in piece of Zelikow brilliance.  It plays on a common human nightmare theme of something horrible rapidly approaching and no one is able to stop it or help us even though we are screaming for help and this horror "gets" us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2017   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service