Government's out to get me!
Posted on 11/13/2001 10:16:00 AM PST by FresnoDA
American Airlines Flight 587's Crash
was NOT an Accident.
Angel Shamaya 11.13.01
Consider the following known facts:
1) The airplane that went down was an American Airlines jet. American Airlines was used against America on 9/11. It bears the name of our nation, making it, once again, a juicy target for those who hate our country. (The airlines used on 9/11 were American and United -- the latter likely chosen to "prove" that were are not united.)
2) The airplane went down on Veteran's Day, a slap in the face of all Vets -- including those who are painting the Afghanistan desert floor with Taliban blood.
3) The airplane went down during the UN General Assembly meetings between a host of international dignitaries, in the same city where the meetings were taking place, as meetings were underway, in the same city where the largest attacks of 9/11 took place. The likely message received by the leaders of countless nations of the world: "America is losing it."
4) The engine separated from the plane, as did at least one major section of the airfoil structures (tail fin, shown recovered from the waters off of New York, CNN, not long after the crash). Reports from multiple pilots -- including one who witnessed the crash and the engine's separation from the plane -- say they have NEVER known of mere engine failure to make engines and tail fins fly off of airplanes -- in this or any other modern aircraft of its type.
5) The federal government is on record as saying the crash was "an accident" -- "some sort of engine failure" -- long before they had the voice recorder or the flight data recorder (black box, which as of this writing they claim not to have yet recovered) in their possession -- curious and suspicious to a very high degree as it's highly unscientific and unprofessional. This even though they have no records of previous airplane crashes showing such unusual "separation of parts" prior to accidental (mechanical failure) crashes of the same or similar planes as was seen in this "accident." Instead, they specifically, clearly and IMMEDIATELY released statements that break with investigatory patterns involving conclusive statements pointing to causes of crashes.
QUESTION:
What are the chances of all of the above known factors coming into play at the same time?
ANSWER:
So remote as to reside -- on the Scale of Probabilities -- somewhere between:
A) "gross statistical impossibility"
B) "utterly impossible and pointing to a clear, unmistakable cover-up."
Pick one.
I say it's B, for the following primary reasons:
1) The government and the airlines industry was, even as the flames were still burning after the crash of AA597, urging the American people to book flights for Thanksgiving and Christmas. Their fears of travel downturns are being realized, and the economic impact of said downturn is being felt painfully throughout the industry and thus the nation. Another terrorist attack just prior to one of the two largest travel weeks in the year could literally put a couple of the airlines out of business for good and have untold negative economic consequences, none of which looks good for our depressed economy.
They want you to keep propping up the American Empire with your federal reserve notes -- backed ONLY by your belief in them -- before they are no longer worth anything.
2) The federal government has been exhibiting -- forever -- a lack of trust and faith in the ability of the American people to handle the truth. They don't think you are "mature enough" to handle the truth. Your great- and great-great- and great-great-great-grandparents couldn't handle the truth about massacres of native American indians, so they painted the genocides as righteous events. Et cetera, throughout our history, right up to Waco where We The People "couldn't handle the truth" that a host of FBI and BATF agents were cold blooded murderers of innocent American women and children, so anything but the truth was made known even though what we were told was way beyond preposterous.
Your government doesn't trust you, believe in you, have faith in you, respect you or your judgement and certainly doesn't believe you can deal with the fact that the latest flying bomb was downed intentionally. But they want you to keep your head in the sand and fly another potential flying bomb in hopes you get to and from your holiday destinations alive. Those who don't, mark my words, will be declared the victims of another "accident." Either that or a "Thanksgiving Airline Disaster" would be used to justify giving some federal agency another $40 billion "to protect you." Or both.
If your government doesn't trust you, isn't honest with you, lies directly to you, hides facts and avoids discussions of known facts while trying to lure more money out of your pocket and safety from your life..., what does that say about their opinion of you?
And what does that mean about your relationship to them?
Angel Shamaya is the Founder/Executive Director of KeepAndBearArms.com
Also, in the summer of 1990, the entire B1B fleet was grounded, because an engine had fell off a plane during a training exercise. This is why the B1B did not participate in the Gulf War.
Just FYI for discussion
In it, he described something called a Liquid Metal Embrittlement Agent.
The idea was, the terrorists gained access to the planes exteriors, and then "drew" on them invisibly with this stuff, and the planes came apart in flight.
Anybody else ever heard of this stuff. Is it real?
I can't recall if Liddy was writing this as purely fictional, or if it was supposed to be based on actual possibilities.
Actually, Veteran's Day was the day before.
But even so, I'll wear a tin foil garrison cap for the next week just to be safe.
This is an out and out lie. An untruth. A statement as fact of something that isn't. Not only was the government not on record as "saying the crash was an accident" yesterday, they aren't today. What they are on record with, and if you're paying any attention you should know this, is "nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out." They've said that there is currently no evidence for terrorism. They have not said that it wasn't terrorism. There's a significant difference.
And yesterday wasn't Veterans' Day. That was Sunday, which was, coincidentally, two months, to the day, after the 9/11 attacks. Surely it would have been much more symbolic to crash another plane on 11/11, Veterans' Day, than on 11/12, the day after Veterans' Day.
As to this - "Reports from multiple pilots...say they have NEVER known of mere engine failure to make engines and tail fins fly off of airplanes", it doesn't take much research to come up with this - "Engine and pylon separated from aircraft during takeoff. Loss of hydraulics to slats. Aircraft rolled and crashed. Highest single plane death toll in U.S. aviation history. Maintenance-induced damage to the pylon. " - 5/25/79, O'Hare, American Airlines FLIGHT: 191.
Hmm...that sounds suspiciously like what happened yesterday. I bet that Chicago incident was terrorists, too, preparing...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.