Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

9-11 and 'The Science'. Is the 9-11 narrative true?

Most of what we are told by the Government-Media-'Science'-Disinformation complex is simply a lie. Is 9-11 another one?

by StFerdIII


 

Few are as opposed to the Muslim Jihad and the cult of ‘Islam’ or ‘Submission’ as I am.  I have published books on the topic which investigate the 1400-year Jihad against civilisation by the moon cult of Muhammad, or as I would term it, a fascist-paganism.  Most people in the fast imploding, immoral and degenerate ‘West’ do not understand where the term ‘West’ comes from.  ‘The West’ described the ‘western-rump’ of what remained from the once vast empire of Christendom, most of it conquered by the Muslim Jihad by 1000 A.D. Historically the cult of Muhammad has proven itself far more Christophobic in word and deed, than anti-semitic.

 

The Narrative

 

This is my bias.  This is why I originally accepted 9-11 at face value.  The narrative that Muslims had hijacked jet airliners and flown them into the South and North Towers in Manhattan appeared to be self-evident, supported by video and photographic evidence.  That the towers would then collapse given such an impact seemed plausible.  Given the bloody, brutal, immoral, uncivilised and persistently evil expansion of the Muslim Jihad over 1400 years, such an attack would seem both logical and expected. 

 

 

Neo and changing your mind

 

 

Things change.  Real science does not. I read the 9-11 Commission Report (book), which was rushed into production in a short amount of time and believed it.  But as with evolution, the moon landing, cosmology, physics, vaccines, medical science, Jenner, Pasteur, Einstein, the assassinations of JFK (and the Warren Commission fraud), MLK and RFK and many other topics, I changed my mind when using my background in science and technology, I analysed the evidence. 

 

I am quite happy to be proven wrong and forced to adjust to the evidence.  I coerced myself to revisit 9-11. It was an endeavour I did not want to undertake. Taking the narrative at face value and analysing what they said led to a ‘discovery’ that real ‘science’ does not appear to support the relentless mainstream-contention that the planes themselves caused the destruction of the Twin Towers. 

Yes planes did hit two of the three Towers, but the planes were likely a diversion and a cover.  The Muslim Jihad was a very clever and practical proxy for the attack.  The pretext to endless wage war in the Middle East and beyond was established by 9-11 with all the unforeseen consequences and destruction, including mass, unfettered ‘migration’. Cui bono?

 

3 Towers not 2

 

 

Most people will cite that the Twin Towers, South and North, were the only structures felled on 9-11-2001.  The South Tower was the first to collapse at 9:59 am and the North Tower imploded at 10:28 am.  However, WTC 7 or The Saloman Brothers building, also collapsed onto its own footprint, vaporised at 17:20 pm.  Yet BBC ‘reporter’ Jane Stanley stood in front of an intact WTC 7 at 16:57 pm stating that the building had collapsed, some 23 minutes before it actually did fall.  No planes or objects had battered WTC 7.  It simply collapsed into itself in a controlled demolition.   More here