9/11 Truth Movement

Flight 93 and Shanksville

By M.K. Styllinski

Are you ready guys? Let’s roll.”

alleged words of passenger Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93


The official story for United Airlines Flight 93 goes like this: on September 11th 2001, on a scheduled flight from Newark to San Francisco the jet-airliner crashed into a field in Shanksville Pennsylvania after passengers and crew overpowered Al-Qaeda terrorists and prevented the plane reaching its targeted destination of Washington D.C. All 38 passengers, five flight attendants, two pilots and four hijackers were killed.

True to all the other gaping holes in the official theory, Flight 93 proved no different. Two main problems quickly became apparent. Firstly, the debris from the Boeing 757-222’s remains were spread over such a large area that it was immediately obvious that this was not a crash but clear evidence that Flight 93 had been shot down. Eyewitness reports seemed to confirm this possibility with sightings of a fighter jet prior to and immediately after the event.

At 8:42am United Airlines Flight 93 took off from Newark International Airport, 41 minutes late. Between 9:16 am and 9:20 am the FAA informed NORAD that flight 93 may have been hijacked, with fighters scrambled. By 9:30 am, Flight 93’s transponder signal ceased and five minutes later it had begun flying in an entirely different direction towards the Capitol. It was at this time that General Haugen reported that: “A person came on the radio, and identified themselves as being with the Secret Service and he said, ‘I want you to protect the White House at all costs.’ [1] At 9:58 am passenger Todd Beamer’s last call terminated and the fight between passengers and hijackers is said to have begun. By 10:06 am Flight 93 had crashed near Shanksville, 124 miles from Washington D.C. [2]

United Airlines Flight 93

United Airlines Flight 93

The 9/11 Commission Report gave an extensive account of the hijackers’ movements inside all the planes on September 11th based on cell and air phone conversations between passengers and their partners and family members. The 9/11 Commission’s Report provides a vivid, almost Hollywood-esque descriptions of the evil Arabs going about their business, depicting the drama of the passengers’ conversations in juxtaposition to the knives and box-cutter wielding Allah-worshippers, and building the evidence accordingly. [3]

810px-UA93_path.svg

UA 93’s flight path on September 11, 2001, from Newark, New Jersey, to Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania. | 9/11 Commission (updated 2011 (wikipedia)

As we explored in relation to Flight 77, the notion that cell phone use was as easy as calling a friend down the street is untenable. The technology at that time was not available to allow passengers to make a wireless cell phone call from aircrafts travelling at high speed above 8,000 feet. The wireless industry was also surprised on hearing the ease to which cell phone calls had been made on all flights. They viewed the 9/11 Commission descriptions and findings as a “fluke” that calls were able to function at such high altitudes, though at lower levels a certain degree of functionality could be maintained “for a little while” especially if “close to the ground” which of course, they were not. [4] In fact, according to those working in the cellphone industry: “Once above 10,000 feet … calls rarely get through, if ever.” One experienced airline pilot agrees: “The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast for the phone to provide a signal.”  [5]

The credibility of the Commission Report took a further hammering when American Airlines and Qualcomm, a wireless technology company announced in July 2004 that: “Travelers could be talking on their personal cellphones as early as 2006. Earlier this month, American Airlines conducted a trial run on a modified aircraft that permitted cell phone calls.”  [6]

Gosh really? Here we were thinking that  calls with good audio clarity were possible back in 2001. After all, a whole official conspiracy theory has been built on it…

According to the time-lines, flight transponder and cell phone call data, United Airlines Flight 175 calls had to have been received from an altitude between 25–30,000 ft. Before the transponder was turned off at 8:56 am, American Airlines Flight 77 calls would have to come from an altitude that was higher but no lower than 7,000 ft. The 9/11 Commission Report confirmed that on United Airlines Flight 93 passengers began calling their loved ones with cell and air phones just after 9.32am, four minutes after the Report’s confirmation of the plane’s attitude of 35,000 feet. [7]

flight93bannerFlight 93 Commemorative banner Source: History Channel

Two of the longest calls from Flight 93 and which were subsequently milked to support the official story, were allegedly from Edward Felt and Todd Beamer on their respective airfones. The latter was transferred to a Verizon supervisor Lisa Jefferson who engaged an individual claiming to be Beamer in conversation from 9:45 ending his call at 9.58 am “… before saying that the passengers planned ‘to jump’ the hijacker in the back of the plane, then uttered his famous words: ‘Are you ready guys? Let’s roll.’” This was followed at just after 9:47, with another alleged caller Jeremy Glick telling his wife that all the men had decided to attack the hijackers. His last words from his final call at 9:54: “I know we’re all going to die. There’s three of us who are going to do something about it.” [8]

There are several problems with the Beamer story.

Explaining details about the hijacking, describing his family all punctuated by information from a flight attendant who was apparently sitting next to him, Beamer then asks Jefferson to recite the Lord’s Prayer with him, followed by Psalm 23. Given that the length of the conversation at an uninterrupted 13 minutes is incredible in itself, air phones were not available on Boeing 757s in 2001. His wife Lisa Beamer states that Jefferson had told her: “… it was a miracle that Todd’s call hadn’t been disconnected,” and further: “Because of the enormous number of calls that day, the GTE systems overloaded and lines were being disconnected all around her as she sat at the operator’s station outside of Chicago, talking to Todd. [Jefferson] kept thinking, this call is going to get dropped! Yet Todd stayed connected … all the way to the end.”  [9]

Beamer stated: “I know we’re not going to make it out of here …” which makes it even more confusing as to why he would refuse offers to be put through to his wife during such an extraordinary “lucky” and long telephone conversation. Why waste time reading out Psalms when you could have spoken to your wife which in all likelihood you knew you would never be seeing again? The reason given, according to Jefferson, was that: “… he did not want to upset her as they were expecting their third child in January.”  [10]

Todd Beamer

Todd Beamer

This makes little sense either. If the evidence from the trial of alleged hijacker Zacharias Moussaoui is correct, Beamer tried telephoning his wife three times before 9:44 am with conflicting accounts from when and from which device he tried calling from. Apart from the puzzle as to why he would be confused about the device, why would he even do that if he was so concerned about protecting her feelings? What about all his other family members? Were they off limits too?

The crux of the matter is if a family member had spoken to the person claiming to be Todd Beamer on the end of that miracle phone line, perhaps they would have known it wasn’t him.

It seems talking to a total stranger was enough for the last call Beamer would ever make and from which he would sign off with a call to arms of “let’s roll.” Indeed, it seems that phrase became another tool of Bush propaganda on a par with “Bring ‘em on” which spawned a new wave of chest beating patriotism “ as journalist Peter Perl indicated, where the phrase became: “… emblazoned on Air Force fighter planes, city firetrucks, school athletic jerseys, and countless T-shirts, baseball caps and souvenir buttons. It’s also commemorated in popular songs.”  [11]

As 9/11 journalist Ted Rall commented in his article of March 2006:

“The legend of Flight 93 had everything a nation caught with its pants down [and] needed to feel better about itself: guts, heroism, self-sacrifice. Best of all, it was marketable–by Hollywood and by a president willing to surf on a kind of heroism notably absent from his own life. … Lisa Beamer, widow of the passenger credited with the call-to-arms “let’s roll,” wrote a bestselling book by the same name, applied for a trademark on the expression, and is now working the Christianist lecture circuit.”  [12]

The  next anomaly is concerned with the timing of the calls and the presumed timing of the crash itself.

According to 9/11 Commission Report’s own data, Todd Beamer’s last call on United Airlines Flight 93 could not have happened when it purportedly did because two of Beamers calls are listed as occurring at the exact same time. [13] A summary of the passenger phone calls presented at the 2006 trial of Zacharias Moussaoui, Beamer’s call lasts for “3,925 seconds.”  [14] As it began just before 9:44 am, this would mean the call had to have finished at about 10:49 a.m. If the Flight 93 reportedly crashed at 10:03 am then something is amiss. Moreover, if one peruses Beamer’s cell phone records throughout the day and night of September 11th 2001, numerous calls continue after the purported crash as late as 20.58.  [15]

After whomever it was using the name: “Todd Beamer,” signed off from his 13 minute conversation, Lisa Jefferson tells us:

“After he said, ‘Let’s roll,’ he left the phone, and I would assume that’s at the point that they went to charge the cockpit. And I was still on the line and the plane took a dive, and by then, it just went silent. I held on until after the plane crashed–probably about 15 minutes longer and I never heard a crashit just went silent because–I can’t explain it. We didn’t lose a connection because there’s a different sound that you use. It’s a squealing sound when you lose a connection. I never lost connection, but it just went silent.”  [16]

Zacarias_Moussaoui

Alleged 9/11 hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui

So, now we have a silent crash along with phantom calls. And true to form, the FBI has decided to ignore all requests for clarification, which is about the only consistent theme in the whole 9/11 charade.

Delving superficially into Todd Beamer’s work background provides more questions. One 9/11 researcher found that Larry Ellison, the CEO at the software company Oracle Corporation who has had had ties with intelligence agencies for some considerable time, seemed to have a little more insider knowledge than the rest of us. Even Todd.

On September 13 2001: Larry Ellison sent an email to Oracle employees praising Beamer for his: “… heroic actions in fighting the terrorists and in stopping the plane from reaching its destination in Washington DC.”  However, according to one commentator, there was a problem:

“No authority from United Airlines or from the government had yet announced to Todd Beamer’s family or to the public that Todd Beamer had been involved in fighting the terrorists. In fact, Lisa Beamer was told by a United Airlines employee in the evening of 9/14/2001 that the FBI had just publicly released information about Todd’s heroics. So Lisa wonders, as we all do, how did Larry Ellison know about Todd’s heroics one day before the FBI released the information to the public?”  [17]

During the first week of September 2001, Todd and his wife Lisa Beamer were in Italy enjoying a business trip organised by America’s third richest person and who until recently, was Oracle Corp. CEO Larry Ellison. On the trip was colleague Jonathan Oomrigar, now solution specialist vice president at Oracle,  who: “… worked in one of Oracle’s California offices and was one of Todd Beamer’s favourite Oracle co-workers.” Before the trip to Italy, Jonathan and Todd had travelled together on business to Israel. Calls were made to Oomrigar on the morning of September 11th and important meetings had been scheduled previously in San Francisco, the reason for Todd’s booking on Flight 93. Larry Ellison also owned 70 percent of an Israeli company called Quark Biotech. (Israel’s presence all over various aspects of the 9/11 attacks can be discerned time and time again, as we shall see later on).  [18]

oomrigar-EllisonJonathan Oomrigar (left) and Larry Ellison (right)

At 9.58am the other caller Mr. Edward Felt managed to make a 9-1-1 emergency call from the toilet to John W. Shaw. Felt repeatedly cried “hijack, hijack, hijack”, without describing the hijackers.” He also mentioned that there were “lots of individuals on the plane” and most importantly hearing an explosion and smoke on-board. Shaw was interviewed three times by the FBI on September 11th and again on March 25, 2002. [19] Just eight minutes before the reported time of the crash at 10.06 am, Glenn Cramer, an emergency supervisor who had been monitoring the call confirmed Shaw’s testimony. Not only did this call not make it into the 9/11 Commission Report, the tape recording of Felt was confiscated and Mr. Cramer subsequently gagged by the FBI.  [20]

edward_felt

Edward Felt

The redacted transcript of Felt’s phone call was released by the FBI yet bore no resemblance to Shaw’s and Cramer’s accounts nor did it contain any mention of an explosion or smoke. [21] After the FBI’s insistence that “Under no circumstance is Newark to provide [the family of] Felt with a copy of the recording or a copy of the transcript” and after a non-disclosure signature had been obtained from Felt’s wife, Sandra Felt, a supervised meeting was allowed to take place where members of the Felt family and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporters were permitted to hear cockpit voice recording from Edward Felt on Flight UA93; the only cock-pit voice recorder to have been retrieved from any of the 9/11 flights.

On April 18 2002, in a small conference room at the Princeton hotel they were joined by two FBI agents and a victim-assistance counsellor: “Sitting around a polished wood table, the agents handed each of the Felts a typed transcript of the 911 call, and then played it. Ed’s call was made at 9:58 a.m. [H]e spoke in a quivering voice saying, ‘We are being hijacked. We are being hijacked.’ He went on to describe an “explosion” that he heard, and then white smoke on the plane from an undetermined location. Then the line went dead.” [22] The flight recording also indicates a three-minute gap at 10:03am – between the time the tape goes silent and the time that top scientists have pinpointed for the crash, at 10:06:05 am – but FBI and other agencies have refused repeated requests to explain the discrepancy. [23]

It seems there were two versions of the Edward Felt call: one with evidence of an explosion and smoke and a doctored recording, without.

Three key questions remain unanswered:

1) Was Flight 93 shot down?

2) If it was, did this happen because the hijackers were imminent danger of crashing it into the White House?

3) Or, was shot it down because the passengers were about to take control and thus present a threat to the whole official conspiracy theory were they allowed to live?


  “Ultimately, what actually happened to Flight 93 – missile, bomb, passenger heroes, etc. – is not fundamentally significant to the question of government complicity in 9/11. Ultimately, what is most compelling, is the fact that the government lied. The airplane was allowed to fly around our airspace for almost two full hours after the onset of the attacks. Why? And why have we been told some absurd narrative of switched off transponders, lost aircraft, and military confusion? Why were we told the airplane crashed into a field because of the actions of a few ‘heroes’ when all available evidence points to a much simpler explanation? Why the lies? Why the convoluted fabrications? Why the lack of accountability? Clearly the truth about Flight 93 reveals something the government wants covered up. The task of pulling off those covers is ours.”

www.911hardfacts.com


united93

Promotional material for the movie “United 93” (2006) directed by Paul Greengrass. Catchline: September 2001: “Four planes were hijacked. Three of them reached their target. This is the story of the fourth.”

The Tragedy of United Airlines flight 93 received the inevitable Hollywood treatment. As a standard pop-corn entertainment it was reasonable fare. As an accurate representation of what occurred during that day, it was an appalling piece of propaganda.


At 9:57 one of the hijackers was heard saying that there was fighting outside the cockpit. A voice from outside said: ‘Let’s get them.’  It was one minute later that Todd Beamer was alleged to have ended his call while another passenger was saying to her husband: “I think they’re going to do it. They’re forcing their way into the cockpit … and a short time later: “They’re doing it! They’re doing it! They’re doing it!” However, this was closely followed somewhat chillingly by screaming in the background accompanied by a “whooshing sound, a sound like wind” then more screaming, after which he lost contact.” [24]

According to the San Francisco Chronicle: “The silence last[s] two minutes, then there [is] screaming. More silence, followed by more screams. Finally, there [is] a mechanical sound, followed by nothing.” Another chronicler reports that: “Near the end of the cockpit voice recording, loud wind sounds can be heard.” [25] While The Philadelphia Daily News observes that: “[R]elatives of Flight 93 passengers who heard the cockpit tape … said government officials laid out a timetable for the crash in a briefing and in a transcript that accompanied the recording. Relatives later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9:58 a.m., but there was a final ‘rushing sound’ at 10:03, and the tape fell silent.” [26] The “rushing sound” could have indicated a de-pressurisation occurred, or as journalist Paul Thompson suggested, following the sound of wind as last thing to be heard on the cock pit recorder because “the plane had been holed.” [27]

There are various differing accounts regarding jet fighters in the vicinity of Flight 93. Two days after the 9/11 attacks an unnamed New England air traffic controller ignored a ban on controllers speaking to the media, saying that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93 and made a 360-degree turn to remain close to the commercial jet. He added that the fighter pilot “must’ve seen the whole thing.” Assuming of course, we know the nature of his mission. [28]

F-16-911F16 Fighter Jet

Almost a week after September 11th CBS News reported that two F-16s tailed Flight 93 and were within 60 miles of it when it went down. Witnesses on the ground claimed to have seen and heard a fighter plane in the area. The UK’s Independent reported that: “At least half a dozen named individuals…have reported seeing a second plane flying low…over the crash site within minutes of the United Flight crashing. They describe the plane as a small, white jet with rear engines and no discernible markings. The FBI are happy with the idea of it being a Fairchild Falcon business jet yet do not explain why it was there when airspace was restricted. [29] Others disagreed, including witness Jim Bryant who thought: “It reminded [him] of a fighter jet,” and workers Dennis Decker, and Rick Chaney who were located about a mile north of the crash site and heard an explosion. They ran outside and saw a large mushroom cloud spreading over the ridge. As soon as they looked up they: “…saw a midsized jet flying low and fast,” where: “It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out.”  [30]

Witness Susan McElwain also disagreed with the FBI, stating:

“There’s no way I imagined this plane – it was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings but it was definitely military, it just had that look. It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and with two upright fins at the side. I haven’t found one like it on the internet. It definitely wasn’t one of those executive jets. The FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around. Then they changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking pictures of the crash 3,000ft up. [31]

Further evidence that Flight 93 was shot down includes many reports on the debris which was scattered over an eight miles radius and indicated a breakup of the aeroplane prior to impact and in line with a missile attack. Further support for this comes from the bizarre evidence that there seems to be nothing left at all at the actual crash site on the periphery of the town of Shanksville, except for one half-ton piece of engine found over a mile away prior to “burning debris falling from the sky.”  [32] According to one report this is consistent with effects of “the heat-seeking, air-to-air Sidewinder missiles aboard an F-16 [which] would likely target one of the Boeing 757’s two large engines.”  [33]

Even though both the FBI and NORAD have said the aircraft was not shot down, there scores of witness statements which point to Flight 93 being downed by a missile. Though there are many witnesses who report hearing strange noises and flying erratically. There are also witnesses who say that Flight 93 in its final descent did not show any indications of having been hit by a missile because there were “no pieces flying” and that it was “intact.” However, commercial passenger planes hit by missiles continue to fly erratically for several minutes before crashing. An example is Korean Airliner 747 which was hit by two Russian missiles in 1983, yet continued to fly for two more minutes. [34] Debris can also descend after an initial strike some distance away. The debris would drop but not necessarily the whole plane instantaneously.

Witness Kelly Laura Temyer did not see the plane but heard its engine which she described as: “… a loud thump that echoed off the hills …” She heard two more “loud thumps” and then nothing more. Temyer was also told the same thing by “… people she knows in state law enforcement” namely, that: “… the plane was shot down and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field.”  [35]

77 year-old World War II veteran and Mayor of Shanksville Ernie Stuhl told Philadelphia Daily News that he knew: “…of two people – I will not mention names – that heard a missile. They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards … This one fellow served in Vietnam and he says he’s heard them, and he heard one that day.”  [36] One of those individuals may have been Joe Wilt: “… who lives a quarter-mile from the crash site” and who remembers hearing “‘whistling like a missile, then a loud boom.” … “The first thing I thought it was, was a missile.”  [37]

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that the Residents outside Shanksville discovered “… clothing, books, papers, and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene. Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion…”  [38]

However, as John Carlin of the Independent accurately said, so much of the events and confusion surrounding Flight 93 is speculation. There is very little information from which we can make concrete conclusions. He correctly summarises the whole problem when he states:

“… unless the US government reveals more of what it knows, provides a detailed account of the last 10 minutes in the life of Flight 93 and the 44 people who were aboard, there will not only be scope but sound reasons for the conspiracy theorists to continue to speculate as to what really happened in those last few minutes before the plane plunged into the earth; to cast doubts on the soft-focus legend that the traumatised American public has seized upon so gratefully.” [39]

 debrisfieldsImage Source: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/

Nevertheless, while that may be true for much of Flight 93, when a bird’s-eye view is adopted over the 9/11 attacks as a whole, a definite picture of collusion and treason comes into focus, not least when we cast an eye back to the morning of September 11th and replay some of the reports from then President George W. Bush and his Vice President Dick Cheney. who stated: “Well, I discussed it with the president. Are we prepared to order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked? He said yes… I–it was my advice. It was his decision.” And how did Bush feel about that decision? He stated: “That’s a sobering moment, to order your own combat aircraft to shoot down your own civilian aircraft. But it was an easy decision to make, given the – given the fact that we had learned that a commercial aircraft was being used as a weapon. I say easy decision. It was – I didn’t hesitate; let me put it to you that way. I knew what had to be done.” [40]

Though accounts differ on the timing and identity of the plane, when fighters were finally given the order to shoot down aeroplanes apparently under the control of hijackers at 9:56am a military aide had thereafter said to Vice President Cheney: “There is a plane 80 miles out. There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?” Cheney responded “Yes” after which an F-16 went in pursuit of Flight 93. It was also reported that as the fighter got nearer to flight 93, Cheney was asked twice to confirm that the fighter should engage, which Cheney did … Furthermore, when President Bush was told of the crash of Flight 93 at 10:08, he reportedly asked: ‘Did we shoot it town or did it crash?’ ”  [41]

Either way, Cheney is nicely covered and acting out the role as elder statesman doing his god-fearing duty for the American public. He states: “If we had been in a position to intercept one of those, to keep it from striking its target; would we have done it? Absolutely, and what I did was pass on the President’s approval of the basic proposition we would in fact authorise our people to shoot down aircraft that had been hijacked and had refused to divert …”  Very nice dick.

Nonetheless, all the evidence points to the fact light 93 was shot down though very probably outside of the official chain of command as were most of the choreographed events of the day, at least those that were within shadow government control. Whether Cheney was aware of that particular nugget of information we will probably never know.

Donald Rumsfeld unwittingly opened his big mouth once more in a televised speech in which he underscored the remarks of his colleagues when he spoke to US soldiers in Mosul, Iraq in 2004: “And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon…”  [42]

D.Rumsfeld-flight93

Donald Rumsfeld: Like most garden-variety psychopaths they can’t help revealing their lies

On National Public Radio (NPR), anchorman Robert Siegel acknowledged the gaff while attempting to carry on with “business as usual”: “The people who shot down the plane over Pennsylvania.” He was presumably speaking of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11. No US official has ever credited theories that the plane was shot down. We’ve been unable to get clarification from the Pentagon.” [43]

By 2008, another confirmation that Flight 93 was shot down came from a National Security Agency source bringing the total to three independent testimonies from within NSA.

journalist and intelligence analyst Wayne Madsen:

“An F-16 scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia returned to base minus one air-to-air missile but the National Security Agency CRITIC report specified the interceptors that downed United 93 took off from Andrews. […] a number of personnel who were on watch at the Meade Operations Center (MOC) [at the NSA] … were aware that United 93 was brought down by an Air Force air-to-air missile. Personnel within both the MOC and NSOC have reported the doomed aircraft was shot down.” [44]

The official version from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks was much more in keeping with the “they-hate-us-for our-freedoms” script and which the government wanted the public to so desperately accept: “The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting, ‘Allah is the Greatest’. With the sounds of the passenger counter-attack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour….”  [45]  Interestingly, a Muslim member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Muhammad Columbo has said that “Allah akbar! Allah akbar!” translated as “God is great! God is great!” was entirely incorrect. They would never have said this. Columbo explained: “The last words of a Muslim cannot be these! They are used in the call to prayer or in an attack at war. On the moment of death, a Muslim must confirm that ‘There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet!’ This means that someone was either not an Arab-Muslim hijacker or those writing this particular script made a bit of a blunder. [46]

Perhaps the most mysterious presence of a cover-up and similar to the attempts to suggest a Boeing 757 crashed at the Pentagon is the alleged resting place of Flight 93. Many researchers have highlighted significant problems with the crash site, one of which is the apparent absence of the plane itself. The Boeing 757, heavily laden with jet fuel hit the ground at 575 mph spinning 180 degrees landing upside in a coal strip-mine, sending out a fireball across a nearby forest, setting alight many trees. According to a press report from The Age: “The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the ‘black boxes’ was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground.” The 9/11 Commission gives an outline of the Flight 93’s impact trajectory in which: “The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back …” hitting the ground at around 10:03 am 125 miles from Washington, D.C.

The coroner Wallace Miller who was one of the first on the scene of the 20 acre plot of land, recounted how all 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers had essentially been “cremated” upon impact with only 8 percent of the total found. He was also: “… stunned at how small the smoking crater looked … ‘like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10-foot ditch and dumped all this trash into it.’”  The 757 was allegedly swallowed up by the sheer force of the impact and the type of spongy, limestone soil which allowed deep penetration until hitting rock 23 metres down. According to one report: “It was as if a marble had been dropped into water,” with: “… so-called black boxes … excavated [at] fifteen feet into the crater and the cockpit voice recorder at twenty-five feet.”  [47] Wallace Miller said: “I’ve seen a lot of highway fatalities where there’s fragmentation,”… “The interesting thing about this particular case is that I haven’t, to this day, 11 months later, seen any single drop of blood. Not a drop.” [48]

Subsequent studies of the crash site by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have also confirmed that there was no residue from the jet fuel that would have been spread across the length and breadth of the crash site had a Boeing 757 actually crashed there.

The only excavation team to work with the FBI was J & J Svonavec Excavating, headed by Jim Svonavec, his wife Sally and son Jamie who refused previous requests for interviews due to the fact: “they wanted to tell their story to a Catholic publication” and were apparently (and most conveniently) “Men of few words.” Sally Svonavec: “… remembers Jamie phoning them from the site and saying: “There is no plane there, believe me.’” But this is because: “the ground had swallowed up much of the wreckage,” the apparently logical reason being that the plane: “… went in the ground so fast it didn’t have a chance to burn,” while the cock-pit section broke off and hurled itself into the woods shattering into many little bits.  [49]

If you feel that this is another moment where the laws of physics are trashed in favour of abject nonsense then you are not alone.

Following on from this curious description of an excavation team working closely with the FBI, Shanksville’s “Ambassadors” at the annual memorial of Flight 93 “… have participated in rigorous educational training to become familiar with details of Flight 93 and the passengers and crew members to inform visitors about what happened here on 9/11.” Just to make sure that there are no irritating loose ends “on the ground” as it were, it seems folks have been “educated” to tell visitors that more than 80 percent of this aircraft was buried underground, which would mean more than 51 tons of a Boeing 757 managed to be sucked into what is shaping up to be a magnetic vortex of enormous power. Before this took place however, the velocity of that impact managed to send debris spiralling off into space to land eight miles away from the crash scene.

More than a little odd for an aircraft that allegedly nosedived into the ground.

Shanksville-crash1

Does that look like the crash site of a Boeing 747 jet airliner?

CNN news anchor Daryn Kagan spoke to correspondent Brian Cabell reporting from the supposed Shankville crash site on September 13, 2001. The “breaking news” supports the evidence that Flight 93 did not crash but was shot down:

CABELL: Well, Daryn, in the last hour or so, the FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned off a second area about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a number of questions. Why would debris from the plane — and they identified it specifically as being from this plane — why would debris be located 6 miles away. Could it have blown that far away. It seems highly unlikely. Almost all the debris found at this site is within 100 yards, 200 yards, so it raises some question. We don’t want to over speculate of course. But there were some cell phone callers, one cell phone caller in particular, who said saw a bomb, or something that looked like a bomb with one of the hijackers. Also, the man who took over the plane apparently announced at one point, he had –there was a
bomb on board the plane. Again, we don’t want to speculate, we don’t want to jump to conclusions. But what we do know is that there’s a site about half mile behind me, where the plane went down, where most of the debris is, and then about six miles away up by a lake, there is another area that’s been cordoned off, and state police and the FBI have said definitely there is debris from the plane located there. […]

KAGAN: […] WE don’t want to speculate about this large debris field. But it seems to me from covering a number of plane crashes on the scene, that if nothing else, this is not typical for a plane crash to be spread across an area this large.

CABELL: It’s certainly doesn’t make sense, because most of the debris has been found in a very compact area, within 100 yards, 200 yards, maybe a little bit beyond that. Then all of a sudden they’re telling us six miles away, they have another concentration of debris, very small pieces. Most peoples here no bigger than the size of briefcase. The debris six miles away may be smaller. We have talked to a number of individuals here. They say they have talked to people who saw this plane during the final moments. They haven’t confirmed whether they saw — whether they talked to anybody who saw this plane actually land, or crash rather, and as to whether it broke up on the way, we don’t know that. The FBI being very tight-lipped about that. But again, it leads to that possibility. It certainly leads to a number of questions.”  [50] [Emphasis mine]

There is also the issue of registration details and evidence confirming the crash remains are that of UA Flight 93. The FBI has yet to do so. Federal authorities reported that the flight was a Boeing 757-222 with a registration number N591UA.

Yet, as retired Colonel George Nelson (USAF) explains:

“If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.” [51]

Ariel photos of the crash site in a Pennsylvania farm field were made available to the public in 2001 showing a hole in the ground gently smouldering. Perhaps the reasons that fighter pilots were given authorisation to shoot down hijacked airplanes after Flight 93 was the only one left in the sky, and given that the passengers were successfully taking control of the plane away from the hijackers meant that the aircraft was in danger of being landed safely. Hijackers would have been interrogated, passengers debriefed, leading to a widespread media interest that would have very possibly led to the unravelling of the official story from WTC to the Pentagon and beyond.

P200058_1united93_governmentphotoThese are government exhibit photos. They are designed to show us that a Jumbo jet crash-landed at this spot. We are also told that the reason there is no debris, wings, engine or any sign at all that an aircraft landed there, is due to the whole plane was sucked into the soft earth. It is a return to their tried and tested formula used with Flight 77 which we are told was both sucked into a 18 ft. and vapourised at the same time. Why break a winning formula?

shankscrater

FEMA personnel offering a fine impression of forensic examination of the “crash site.”

And here we have some photos of real crash sites:

crashes1Source: infrakshun notes

Instead of photos showing evidence of Flight 93’s final resting place this is more likely to be a hastily created site by FEMA. Take a look at these photos of ordinance explosions. (below) The central image is by Val McClatchey titled: “End of Serenity” and was used in most of the mainstream media in the hope that most people would believe that this was the smoke plume rising from the crash. The other images are various ordinance explosions from around the world.

Now, does this look like the smoke plume from the aftermath of a Boeing jumbo jet airliner which has just impacted the ground, producing a raging fire-ball of jet-fuel, or does it look like your ordinary ordinance explosion?

shanksville-flight93-explosion

With PSYOPS worshipper Karl Rove and his Executive Director Philip D. Zelikow overseeing the 9/11 Commission, they made sure not to interview the on-duty signals intelligence personnel who were aware that United Flight 93 was brought down by Air Force jets. [52] Though the passengers very probably did struggle with hijackers, the cover-story arrived to suggest that they flew the plane into the ground as a sacrifice. The 8-mile debris appears to show that this story is part of a hoax with the probable involvement and careful planning from factions in the US military which extended across all aspects of the 9/11 attacks. If anything, Flight 93 proved that such planning had glitches in its execution. Such is the nature of psychopaths in power – their worst enemy is over confidence and the inability to foresee the natural manifestation of unpredictability which can overturn even the best laid plans.

With Flight 93 and every facet of the September 11th attacks the official story is problematic. An entire book on Flight 93 alone could be filled with troubling questions which have yet to be answered by the relevant authorities. This series has barely touched the surface of contradictory, fallacious and unsatisfactory explanations tossed the public’s way from US federal agencies like stale scraps from a bountiful table. The answers are most certainly there. It is in the best interests of  readers to do their own research and network with others to bring the facts into the light of day.

 


Notes

[1] ‘We Have Some Planes,’ Hijacker Told Controller’ By Matthew L. Wald with Kevin Sack, The New York Times, October 16, 2001.
[2] ‘From Take-off to Take Over – Putting it all Together’ Pittsburgh Post Gazette on October 29, 2001.| ‘Officials: Government failed to react to FAA warning’ CNN.com September 17, 2001.
[3] 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 1, http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf
[4] ‘Final Contact’ By Betsy Harter, November 1, 2001 | http://www.connectedplanetonline.com/wireless/ar/wireless_final_contact/
[5] ‘The Cellphone and Airfone Calls from Flight UA93’ by A. K. Dewdney, 2003. Physics911.net, http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93/
[6] ‘Inflight Cell Phone Use Dies’ By Patty Donmoyer & Jessica Kirshner August 01, 2005 Buisness Travel news. http://www.topics.businesstravelnews.com/business/qualcomm.htm | See also: ‘5th April 2005 AeroMobile™ chooses picocell from ip.access™ for new Inflight Mobile Phone Service’ “The first mobile phone service for passengers on commercial airlines will use miniature cellular technology developed just for inflight operation.”
[7]  http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf (p. 7)
[8] Op. cit. Griffin; (p.50)
[9] Let’s Roll!: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage. By Lisa Beamer and Ken Abraham, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2002, (p. 217).
[10] ‘The Final Moments of United Flight 93’ By Karen Breslau Newsweek MSNBC, Sep. 22, 2001. | Probe reconstructs horror, calculated attacks on planes’ By Glen Johnson, The Boston Globe, November 2, 2001.
[11] ‘Hallowed Ground’ By Peter Perl, Washington Post, May 12, 2002; Page W32.
[12] ‘The Legend of United Flight 93’- by Ted Rall. http://www.911Truth.org, March 8, 2006.
[13] Scholars Call Moussaoui Trail a “Charade” See Constitutional Rights on Trial; Describe Accused as Patsy, Witness tampering, faked evidence, inflammatory testimony display political motives and confirm Charlie Sheen’s concerns, experts claim. Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 22, 2006.
[14] United States v. Zacharias Moussaoui Criminal No. 01-455-A Prosecution Trial Exhibits: www. vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html
[15] http://www.intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-29-FBI-phone-records.pdf
[16] ‘I Promised I Wouldn’t Hang Up’ – “Lisa Jefferson, the phone supervisor who took Todd Beamer’s call on Flight 93, believes God called her for a purpose.” By Wendy Schumann, June 2006. http://www.belief.net
[17] ‘Let’s Roll: The Todd Beamer Mystery’ | ‘More on Todd Beamer,his timeline on the lead up to 9/11 & his connection to Oracle Corporation’ April 4, 2012, by Stark Naked Truth – http://www.starknakedtruth.blogspot.co.uk
[18] Ibid.
[19]‘Evidence that Ed Felt’s phone call was doctored’ by Elias Davidsson, 20 October 2012, http://www.aldeilis.net/ quoting: FBI Documents 265A-NY-280350-302-3725, 302-38710 and 302-107608 of September 11, 200. | FBI Newark from Pittsburgh Squad 4/JTTF to Counterterrorism, New York, March 26, 2002. Bates ,344. PG 3585.
[20] ‘What Happened to Flight 93’ by Richard Wallace Daily Mirror, 12 September 2002 | ‘Day of Terror: Outside tiny Shanksville, a fourth deadly stroke,’ by Jonathan Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 12, 2001. http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp
[21] op. cit. Davidsson.
[22] Ibid. Quoting: Steve Levin, “It hurts to listen”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 21, 2002, at http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020421flight930421p1.asp
[23] ‘Three-minute discrepancy in tape – Cockpit voice recording ends before Flight 93’s official time of impact’ By William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News Sep. 16, 2002.
[24] Ibid.
[25] ‘Bound by fate, determination / The final hours of the passengers aboard S.F.-bound Flight 93’ by Jaxon Van Derbeken, San Francisco Chronicle, September 17, 2001.| Among the Heroes: United Flight 93 and the Passengers and Crew Who Fought Back by Jere Longman, HarperCollins 2002, (pp. 270-271).
[26] op. cit. Bunch.
[27] ‘What Happened to Flight 93?’ by Richard Wallace Daily Mirror, September 12, 2002.
[28] ‘As attacks unfolded, FAA was left guessing’ By Albert McKeon, The Telegraph, September 11, 2011. | ‘FAA employee: Hijacked jets almost collided’ USA Today, September 14, 2001.
[29] ‘Unanswered Questions: The Mystery of Flight 93’ By John Carlin, Independent, 13 August 2002.
[30] ‘NYC Photos, Flight 93 Witnesses Identify 9/11 White Jet by From Jon Carlson, rense.com, http://rense.com/general64/white.htm
[31] op. cit. Wallace.
[32] op. cit. Griffin (p.51)
[3310] op. cit. Carlin.
[34] op. cit. Bunch.
[35] ‘CVR transcript from Korean Air Flight 007 August 31, 1983’ August 31, 1983. Via http://www.historycommons.org
[36] ‘We know it crashed, but not why’ – FBI is silent, fueling “shot down” rumors By William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News, November 15, 2001.
[37] Ibid.
[38] ‘Frantic 911 call preceded crash outside Pittsburgh’ By Anne Michaud, The Boston Globe, September 12, 2001.
[39] ‘Investigators locate ‘black box’ from Flight 93; widen search area in Somerset crash’ By Tom Gibb, James O’Toole and Cindi Lash, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Staff Writers, September 13, 2001.
[40] op. cit. Carlin.
[41] Vice President Dick Cheney, CBS News September 11, 2001.| President George W. Bush, CBS News September 11, 2001.
[42] Donald Rumsfeld, speech to US troops in Mosul, Iraq, December 24, 2004. The speech was broadcast by CNN. For complete transcript of Rumsfeld’s speech see also: Slip of the tongue? Rumsfeld admits that “Flight 93″ was shot down’ VIDEO Footage and transcripts By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, May 12, 2007. [text revised on May 14, 2007]
[43] National Public Radio (NPR), All Things Considered 8:00 PM EST NPR, Donald Rumsfeld’s surprise visits to US troops in Iraq, December 24, 2004, Anchor: Robert Siegel.
[44] ‘Third NSA Source Confirms: Flight 93 Shot Down By Air Force Jet’ By Wayne Madsen, April 20, 2008, http://www.opednews.com
[45] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, July 2004, Chapter 1,www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf
[46] ‘The 9/11 Passenger Paradox: What happened to Flight 93?’ by Dean Hartwell (with Jim Fetzer) March 12 2012. http://www.veterans today.com
[47] op. cit. Longman.
[48] ‘Hallowed Ground’ The Age, September 9, 2002.
[49] ‘Sacred Ground in Pennsylvania’ By Mary Jo Dangel, http://www.americancatholic.org/
[50] ‘America Under Attack: FBI and State Police Cordon Off Debris Area Six to Eight Miles from Crater Where Plane Went Down’ CNN Transcript September 13 2001.
[51] ‘Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle – Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Positive Clue to Aircraft Identity’ by George Nelson Colonel, USAF (ret.) 2003. http://www.physics911.et
[52] op. cit. Madsen.

Advertisements

Flight 77 and the Pentagon

By M.K. Styllinski

“All of this is physically impossible, plain and simple. The wings of a 757 can’t hit a concrete building at more than 500 mph without leaving a mark. And they certainly won’t be vaporized by exploding jet fuel.”

Craig McKee, 9/11 Researcher at Truth and Shadows


Whilst Building 7 appears to represent the more opportunistic aspect of the 9/11 attacks, the Twin Towers acting as the psychological centre piece for maximum effect, the official story of Flight 77 and its alleged impact of the Pentagon goes even further into the realms of the bizarre. Unlike the WTC, very little evidence was available through which to sift. This is more than a little strange since at 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001, a Boeing jet airliner Flight 77 apparently crashed into the reinforced section of the Pentagon, killing 189 people.

At 8:20 am on September 11, American Airlines Flight 77 left Dulles Airport in Washington DC, veering off course at 8:46 for several minutes. By the time the plane had returned to its original flight path at 8.50 am radio contact had been lost, the transponder switched off and by 8.56 am the plane had vanished from radar. [1] Curiously, by 9:09 am FAA chief Jane Garvey had notified the White House that there may have been another plane down. At 9:25 am air traffic controllers at Dulles Airport issued a warning to the White House that a plane was approaching them at considerable speed. According to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD was not told that Flight 77 had been hijacked at this time or at any time prior to impact. However, the FAA has claimed they officially warned NORAD at 9:24 am and informally warned them even earlier.

The same questions asked of Flights 11 and 175 can be levelled at the response to Flight 77: What on earth were the authorities doing for half an hour? Why had no jets been scrambled? [2]

American Airlines Flight 77

American Airlines Flight 77

Andrews Air Base in the District of Columbia houses the 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing equipped with F-16 fighters; Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321, supported by a reserve squadron; the Air National Guard (DCANG) which provides: “…combat units in the highest possible state of readiness.” Yet Washington remained undefended. A stated delay in Air Traffic clearance simply doesn’t cut the mustard when the biggest emergency of modern times was underway. As one ex-Pentagon employee observes: ““ATC Radar images were (and are) available in the under structures of the Pentagon, and any commercial flight within 300 miles of DC that made an abrupt course change toward Washington, turned off their transponder, and refused to communicate with ATC, would have been intercepted at supersonic speeds within a max of 9 minutes by a Fighter out of Andrews. Period. Why these planes weren’t, baffles me. If we could get fighters off the ground in 2 minutes then, we could now.” [3]

At 9:25 Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice were ensconced in a bunker below the Whitehouse. Cheney is said to have been warned of an aircraft approaching Washington and confirmed by radar evidence tracking the plane as it reached a distance of 30 miles to Washington. [4] Meanwhile, air traffic controllers at Washington Dulles saw an unidentified plane (due to its transponder being turned off) or as David Ray Griffin mentions: “…shortly after AA 77’s transponder signal was lost, the flight was also lost to primary radar. So there was no ‘blip’ until much later, when a high-speed primary target… …is seen moving toward Washington.” [5]

This is later confirmed as Flight 77 travelling at such high speed (500 mph) and with a distinctive manoeuvrability that the experienced Dulles Air traffic controllers thought it was a military fighter plane. One controller also expressed reservations about Flight 77 being a commercial flight: “Nobody knew that was American 77.… I thought it was a military flight. I thought that Langley [Air Force Base] had scrambled some fighters and maybe one of them got up there.… It was moving very fast, like a military aircraft might move at a low altitude.” [6]

Accordingly, the “commercial Jet airliner” Flight 77 was seen by radar making for the Pentagon, which it reached at 9:35 before making an extremely – if not impossible – 300 degree loop reportedly flying: “several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House.” It performs rapid downward spiral: “dropping the last 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes,” accelerating to 530 mph before crashing into the West wing of the Pentagon at 9:37 am. [7]

Attack Path

Flight Path of American Airlines Flight 11. Such a maneuver is impossible for a expert pilot let alone an amateur one. It is also against the law of aviation physics. | “At 9 11, four planes for two hours were able to drive around, fly around even one hour in the direction going toward the west and then turn around and then comeback. The military air force was not able to interdict them. It’s [un]imaginable.” – Andreas Von Buelow, Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years.

Before getting into just a few of the countless oddities that make up the Pentagon attacks, let’s return to the overriding question and which has never been convincingly answered: how on earth did a Boeing 757 jet airliner penetrate the most heavily protected US military citadel on earth? When the aircraft breached White House airspace then why didn’t the automated missile system shoot it down?

There are claims by 9/11 debunkers who cling to the official conspiracy theory that there is no evidence that these defence systems exist, hence the problem. It would surely be against the most basic military-intelligence protocol to telegraph where these defence systems are located. According to Navy Combat Systems Specialist Dennis Cimino: “The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict hierarchies would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent the involvement of the supreme US military command.” He states further that this would include:  “…President George Bush, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the then-acting Head of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Meyers.” [8]

The Pentagon is protected by State-of-the-Art antimissile batteries or Raytheon Basic Point Defence missile battery armaments embedded on several building rooftops. Cimino adds: “With anti-aircraft missile defences installed in rooftops in the Washington, D.C. area since the mid 1980’s” and likely versions of the “PAC-3 ‘Patriot’ Missile systems and Secret Service agents on the roof with shoulder fired STINGER Missiles, protecting the White House, the claims that the capability did not exist is an untenable assertion. [9]

Cimino further explains that the Sea Sparrow air defines missiles are used:

“… much in the same fashion that Moscow has a system that NATO code named ‘Yo Yo’ that maintains radar surveillance and provides protection to the Kremlin and other high value targets from military incursions. A ‘MODE 4A military I.F.F. response’ (identify friendly or foe – enemy aircraft) which requires special encryption and restricted to use by military aircraft with an additional ‘mission specific MODEX aka SEDSCAF number’ assigned for each plane’ if it is required to ‘meet PLAN OF THE DAY for the area.’”

Cimino tells us it is this number which “… enables an aircraft then to penetrate prohibited or military restricted airspace such as that which surrounds both the White House and the Pentagon, as well as a number of military installations around the globe.” Without this IFF any aircraft would be shot down.” [10]

The question remains: Who “unplugged” the defence systems? The night cleaner?

pentagon-path-markerThe Pentagon aftermath from overhead video footage

When 130 billion of US tax dollars were funnelled into the Pentagon’s Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars) during the Reagan years, US officials claimed the system could detect and intercept missiles fired from an unknown destination traveling at well over 10 times the speed of a commercial airliner, and to shoot them down in 15 minutes or less, before they reached their US targets. [11] What is more, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tells us that: “a defensive system may need to hit a warhead smaller than an oil drum that is traveling above the atmosphere at speeds greater than 13,000 miles per hour.” The CBO report states that missile defines and intercept systems must take down an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) in a matter of minutes, or its curtains. [12]

Journalist and ex-US government employee Fred Burkes summarises the mystery:

“If these sophisticated military systems were designed to detect missiles fired from unknown locations at over 13,000 mph and shoot them down in mere minutes, why on 9/11 could they not detect any one of the four large airliners traveling at a mere 600 mph, especially when two of them were known to be lost for over 40 minutes before they crashed? … How is it possible that the Pentagon’s highly touted missile detections systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.?” [13]

Which is why a Pentagon spokesman’s response that they were: “… simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way… ” is a load of hokum. How is it possible that with the highly sophisticated radar systems such as the PAVE PAWS which “does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace” yet couldn’t detect a huge Boeing 757 on a crash course to the Pentagon with ample amounts of time to do so? [14] If the plug had somehow been pulled on that system, then are we expected to believe that the Pentagon’s National Military Command Centre, NORAD and the FAA had all decided to have an extended coffee break where standard operating procedures suddenly didn’t apply?

pave-paws-1

PAVE PAWS radar system | Source: globalsecuirty.org

Griffin underscores this confusion when he states: “… if F-16s were airborne by 9:30, as alleged, they would have to travel slightly over 700 mph to reach Washington before Flight 77 does. The maximum speed of an F-16 is 1,500 mph. Even at traveling 1,300 mph, these planes could have reached Washington in six minutes – well before any claim of when Flight 77 crashed. […] Why is the emergency considered important enough to stop all takeoffs from Washington at this time, but not important enough to scramble even a single plane to defend Washington?” [15]

There was also ample time to evacuate all Pentagon personnel. Top officials were well aware of the WTC attacks with air traffic controllers having spotted an unidentified fast-flying aircraft heading towards the Pentagon and the White House at 9:25. By the time of the crash at 9.37am the Pentagon’s ‘War Room’ or Executive Support Centre (ESC) had been in session for at least half an hour watching WTC footage. [16] 30 minutes to a minimum of 12 minutes before the Pentagon was hit, almost everyone could have been evacuated or at least attempts could have been made by a so-called military machine priding itself on safety protocols. Apparently, those in the ESC didn’t even know that they had been hit and it is only when Donald Rumsfeld enters the War Room after thoroughly annoying everyone at the crash scene that anyone knew anything was amiss. If Donald knew all about it and half the Pentagon was smashed in you’d think the heart of the defensive nexus would have at least known the whereabouts of the Secretary of Defence.[17]

Firstly, notwithstanding the fact that Flight 77 was able to hit the Pentagon by executing an almost impossible downward spiral, it is incredible that so little damage was done. The pilot, Hani Hanjour, was not just an amateur but painfully inept. Peggy Chevrette, Arizona Flight School Manager stated in a New York Times piece: “I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon … He could not fly at all … “I couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had”. [18]

pentagon1

Pentagon aftermath. We are meant to believe that a Boeing Jet Airliner hit the outer wall and vapourised – including wings, undercarriage and engines.  (Source: top: 9/11Review.org | Bottom: Alex Wong/Getty Images

The impact targeted the first floor of the Pentagon’s reinforced west wall, the only part of the Pentagon having recently undergone extensive renovation, causing heavy damage to the building’s three outer rings. Destruction ploughed a path through Army accounting offices on the outer E Ring, the Navy Command Centre on the D Ring, and the Defence Intelligence Agency’s comptroller’s office on the C Ring. It seems nonsensical that the terrorists would aim the plane at an 8ft façade in the process of being renovated and reinforced – and therefore with less people present – when they could have crashed into the roof, a far more expansive target with the possibility of killing far more military personnel. As it happens, most of those killed were civilians.

Now, here’s where it gets truly surreal, as Griffin explains:

“…since the aircraft penetrated only the first three rings of the Pentagon, only the nose of a Boeing 757 would have gone inside…The rest of the airplane would have remained outside. […] ‘While the plane’s nose is made of carbon and the wings, containing the fuel, can burn, the Boeing’s fuselage is aluminium and the jet engines are built out of steel. At the end of the fire, it would necessarily left a burnt-out wreck.” […]

… on a Boeing 757,…the jet engines, made of steel, are attached to the wings, so the wings would hit the facade with great force. And yet prior to the collapse…the photos reveal no visible damage to the facade on either side of the orifice, even where the engines would have hit the building…the fact that the photographs clearly show that the facade above the opening is completely intact and even unmarked creates a still more insuperable problem, given Boeing 757’s big tail.”[19]

Furthermore, for a Boeing 757 in excess of 63 tons (virtually empty) to over 100 tons (full) it makes little sense that only the first ring of the building was destroyed so that the second and third rings would only reveal a hole about seven feet in diameter. [20]

In the immediate aftermath of the explosion one would have expected a vast amount of material evidence to have come from a massive 63 ton Boeing 757 Jet airliner crashing into a federal building at a speed of over 530 mph. An aircraft of this size as well as the history of plane crashes show that a huge quantity of debris and smouldering destruction would be spread over a significantly wide area. With no clusters of fires except on the Pentagon itself, only a few pieces of the alleged plane remained, exhibiting no scorching from the alleged “fireball” and which were picked up by hand. What about the thousands of gallons of jet fuel that would have been spilled across the crash site? There was no clean-up of the ground in evidence at any time. If the Boeing 757’s fuselage is made from aluminium and engines made from steel, then no hydrocarbon fire is going to melt them let alone leave no trace as we are being asked to believe.

mystery_debris

The tiny remains of so-called plane debris. But is it from American Airlines?

pl1

This is the Pentagon lawn immediately outside the Pentagon and after the crash of Flight 77. Fancy a game of golf?

This also leaves the question of the upper floors which survived this elusive inferno. There was no evidence of the sort of intense heat required to completely vanish a jet airliner leaving virtually no debris behind on the Pentagon lawn. More than 35 minutes after the crash at 10.15 am the front section of the Pentagon which had been hit by Flight 77 collapsed exposing the interior. Computers, office furniture and even books and files could clearly be seen and were perfectly intact showing no signs of fire damage. [21]

pentagon-inside-hole

This is the approx, 20ft, ground floor hole that American Airlines Flight 77 is said to have vanished into. No damage from he wings either side, no damage on the front lawn.

What was perhaps the most glaring anomaly in the whole media-led illusion was the 18 foot diameter impact hole on the second floor which the jet airliner was meant to have squeezed itself into. If the building’s façade was about 18 feet in diameter and the diameter of the fuselage of Flight 77 around 12 feet; wingspan about 125 feet, with the tip of the tail is about 44 feet from the ground, it begs the question if it did miraculously suck itself into the length of the impact pathway then all those plane parts had to have been left behind. [22] But there was nothing of the kind. The condition of the Pentagon lawn was so pristine lawn that it could have hosted a golfing tournament. The official theory would like us to believe that the 6 ton titanium engines, the wings and the tail simply vaporised. They say this, because no sign of them can be found at the crash site. Not even the seat cushions. [23] Or, as Jamie McKintyre of CNN News observed: “[F]rom my close up inspection there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon… …The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage— nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.” [24] 

So, perhaps the wings were vapourised whilst being sucked into the 18 ft. hole which was in fact a worm-hole?

What is more, there is no sign that there were even any people on board the plane unless they were travelling extremely light as no luggage of any kind was found; no suitcases, shoes, clothing, or anything resembling personal effects that would indicate passengers were aboard. Though there were many victims inside the Pentagon, no bodies or body parts were recovered from the crash site. Alleged passengers were identified from DNA samples yet we are told that most of the Boeing 757 simply vaporised or evaporated which somehow left all the bodies intact yet invisible.

pentagon-plane

A mock-up by a French 9/11 researcher to illustrate how ridiculous the idea is that a Boeing 747 jet-airliner fuselage can somehow vanish into a 20ft to lie comfortably within the interior of the Pentagon, leaving no essential parts behind. Yet, at the same time we are told to believe that Flight 77 powered its flimsy way through three of the five concentric rings of the Pentagon complex.

pentagon-fireball

The orange fireball which people believe is evidence of the net result of a Boeing 747 hitting the outer wall. Where is exactly is all the jet fuel? The wings? Fuselage? wheels? Chairs? Tail-fin? Engine?

The credulity needed to accept the kind of reality where a 125-foot-wide airplane created and then went inside a hole less than 20-feet wide, is beyond anything approaching logic and rationale. Yet, that is apparently what we are expected to believe – even within much of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

9/11 investigators have commented on why the videos surrounding the Pentagon approach were either not working or had been confiscated by the FBI allegedly for analysis. None of the confiscated surveillance and security video tapes from hotels and gas stations, traffic cameras, have been released. Although after much pressure from 9/11 Truth Movement and certain sections of the political and public arena the Department of Defence finally released two clips from Pentagon security cameras no doubt chosen due to the fact they show absolutely nothing.

The standard cry from those confronted with the hint of a possibility that something other than a jet aircraft hit the Pentagon is a hands-on-hips question of: “Well, what happened to the plane and all the people?” This question alone is deemed more than enough proof that to contemplate any other scenario is both silly and pointless. Along with what can be seen and verified at the crash site the US authorities have refused to give any evidence to prove that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon. Despite the FBI and the CIA having a record of lying as long as your arm, they expect us to dutifully trust them in the face of the most obvious evidence that something is very, very wrong.

It is clear from the voluminous analysis now available on internet journals that various examples of obfuscation and blocking by US and government agency officials have continued to this day. On October 14, 2001, flight control transcripts for the 9/11 aeroplanes were finally released. Yet the data on Flight 77 ends almost 20 minutes before it crashes. Could it be, out of many floated explanations that government officials simply didn’t want the press and public to hear what actually took place during the final 20 minutes of Flight 77?


 “After five years of talking to many individuals in the intelligence community, in the military, foreign intelligence agencies, and a whole host of other people, people from the air traffic control community, the FAA, I came to the conclusion that after five years what we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country … These people need to be brought to justice, if not by our own Congress, then by an international tribunal in the Hague…”

Wayne Madsen, Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security. Formerly assigned to the National Security Agency and the State Department


At 9:37 am September 11, the Pentagon’s ‘War Room’ otherwise known as the Executive Support Centre (ESC) was in session. Torie Clarke, the Assistant Secretary of Defence for public affairs, describes the capabilities of the War room as having: “… instant access to satellite images and intelligence sources peering into every corner of the globe” and where: “… the building’s top leadership goes to coordinate military operations during national emergencies.” That being the case, it is doubly strange that no one realised the Pentagon had been hit, or if they did, nobody stirred. Some of the individuals present included Clarke, Stephen Cambone, Donald Rumsfeld’s closest aide, and Larry Di Rita, Rumsfeld’s personal chief of staff, all of whom decided it was either a bomb or “the heating and cooling systems.” Indeed, Clarke would claim that the first they heard it was a possible “plane” was from Rummie himself half an hour after the attack was heard and while the ESC team were still “glued to television screens showing two hijacked planes destroying the World Trade Center,” (no doubt with pop-corn in hands).

usualsuspects1

The Usual Suspects: Clueless authoritarians or did some have the inside scoop?

Rumsfeld decided to arrive at the ESC at 10.15 am after running about the crash scene; getting in the way of rescue teams and interfering with a crime scene.  It was also Rumsfeld who first made the executive decision in less than 30 minutes that the Pentagon had been struck by an aeroplane. [25] [26] Like so many of the Bush Administration officials, Torie Clarke followed the Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice school of dramatic denial in claiming the notion of a jet airliner attacking was “unfathomable,” when it has been proven beyond doubt that the opposite was the case. [27] As we have seen, the US government had long since created simulations and models to predict what would happen if terrorist flew planes into the White House, The Twin Towers and the Pentagon, including intelligence reports illustrating how “Al-Qaeda could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives … into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House.” [28]

first-response1Donald Rumsfeld “lending a hand” outside the Pentagon

Just one example in an ocean of foreknowledge includes the more peculiar case of Charles Burlingame who in 1990 participated in a department of Defence exercise called “Project MASCA” in which a commercial jet airliner is deployed as a weapon and crashed into the Pentagon. Charles Burlingame was found to be none other than the Captain who supposedly flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon. [29]

In creating distractions to reinforce the official story on 9/11 there are plenty of people on hand to deliver. Though most of the sources for making the link between AA Flight 77 and whatever struck the Pentagon came from military personnel, Ted Olson, Republicrat, U.S. Solicitor General and his wife Neo-Con author Barbara Olson became the designated pillars of truth linking Flight 77 with the Pentagon attack. There were other calls reportedly made by passengers and flight attendants, but Ted Olson was the only person to receive calls from his wife at around 9:25 and 9:30am.

According to a CNN report, Ted Olson maintained that his wife had: “called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77,” further stating that: “all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.” [30] This helped to produce the outpourings of indignation and collective revenge surrounding the death of Olson’s wife who had been downed by foaming-at-the-mouth Muslim terrorists, the antithesis of American Christian values. The highbrow “bring ‘em on” philosophy of Bush which seeped into middle town America’s vengeance meant that the “War on Terror” took on new vigour.

barbara-ted-olsonBarbara and Ted Olson

Ted Olson was a faithful supporter of Bush and Neo-Conservatism which right then and there, allows some scepticism about his claims. David Ray Griffin reminds us that he: “… pleaded George W. Bush’s cause before the Supreme Court in the 2000 election dispute” and also: “… defended Vice President Cheney’s attempt to prevent the release of papers from his energy task force to the committee investigating the Enron scandal.” [31] While adoration of the Bush Doctrine isn’t enough to place him under suspicion of lying, the contradictions and constant changes and vagueness in his story certainly are.

The claim that his wife had called him twice from a cell phone via the Department of Justice collect was contradicted on a Hannity and Colmes, Fox News interview on September 14. Olson thought she must have used the aeroplane phone because for some reason her credit cards were inaccessible. This doesn’t work either because a credit card is still needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.  [32] No doubt realising he was digging a hole for himself, when giving an interview to American talk show host Larry King, he said that the call went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” which was a huge understatement considering that high-altitude cell phone calls from jet airliners were not possible until 2004.  [33] Olson’s statement is contradicted a second time by American Airlines who are on record saying that no Boeing 757s had phones at that time: “The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.” [34]

Perhaps, Mrs. Olson used her cell phone after all? Taking into account the improbability of such a move given the state of technology, an FBI report at the 2006 trial of alleged hijacker Zacharias Moussaoui added to the weakening of Olson’s story still further by attributing one “unconnected call” to Barbara Olson lasting “o seconds”. According to the FBI report, there was no incoming call from Flight 77 to Ted Olson or anyone else from a cell phone or passenger phone. Why was this total refutation of Ted Olson’s famous “two calls from his wife” not reported?

The nail in the coffin of Ted Olson’s story is the sheer absurdity of the hijack scenario that Ted and Barbara Olson would like us to believe, yet remains a fundamental pillar of the official 9/11 narrative. According to Olson his wife had said that: ‘all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.’ This is barely credible. 60+ people are hardly likely to be held against their will by 3-4 armed with knives and “box-cutters.” (Actually box-cutters were not allowed on any aircraft from 1994 onwards, so this is another fantasy).  Further, the hijackers had previously been described by the 9/11 Commission as: “… not physically imposing, … the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build’…” If Charles Burlingame had been aboard as claimed, as a weight-lifter and boxer it is distinctly unlikely he would have suddenly turned into a pussy-cat. His brother also dismissed this scenario who said: “I don’t know what happened in that cockpit, but I’m sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane.”  [35]

Either Ted Olson was lying or he was a useful idiot. Probably both. The story which he has given to the media doesn’t hold up under any kind of scrutiny though it did provide suitable distraction. But this still leaves us with the burning question:

What was it that hit the Pentagon?

This perhaps:

drone-schmatic

See: Truth and Consequences: A Watershed Moment for Rebuilding a Movement by Scott Creighton | Though the tiny amount of debris that was found does not fit the wreckage profile of a jet airliner by any stretch of the imagination, it certainly conforms to the idea of a drone.

Or even a cruise missile such as this one?

cruisemissile1

During an October 2001 interview U.S. Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld made a revealing remark:

“They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventative work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it’s physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building [the Pentagon] and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.”  [36]

Did Rumsfeld “misspeak”? Was the reference to a missile hitting the Pentagon just an innocent slip of the tongue or did it reveal a deeper truth? If it was truly a jet airliner how could anyone confuse this with a missile unless it is a truth that slipped out unconsciously – a common trait of the psychopath.

Recall that the nose of the Boeing 757 is composed of carbon fibres and thus very fragile. It is physically impossible to suggest that the most fragile part of the aircraft could have piled through three rings of the Pentagon to create a seven-foot exit hole in the inside wall of the third ring. The head of a missile however, would be a much more logical conclusion. The fire produced at the Pentagon shows red flames which are consistent with the type of AGM Maverick, Tomahawk or Russian/Soviet Granit missile which would indicate a hotter and more instantaneous fire.  [37]

Short video clips from Pentagon security videos were leaked by an alleged whistleblower in 2002 from which the most pertinent five frames were analysed and pored over, (as it turned out, to little avail) showing something hitting the Pentagon but very likely not a Boeing 757. On May 16th 2006, the U.S. Department of Defence released two more short video clips apparently to placate those calling for the release of all security tapes. Officials declared that these clips show conclusively AA Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. Once again, there is an explosion but it certainly doesn’t show anything resembling a Boeing 757. What the images do seem to resemble on the so-called crash site is a cruise missile or carrier drone.

pentagonhit1-5

The so-called “leaked” video of a “Boeing 747” hitting the Pentagon. The smoke and fireball however, looks suspiciously like some variety of tomahawk or stinger missile.

The manoeuvre seen in the security video clips is straight as an arrow and typifies the trajectory and behaviour of a missile, as researcher Peter Wakefield Sault explains:

“The reason it could not be an airplane is that airplanes swoop up and down, always pointing in the direction of flight, unlike cruise missiles which, because they are pilotless, can perform violent maneuvres known as ‘bump up/down’ wherein the attitude of the missile does not change while the missile changes its line of attack. A cruise missile is steered with one or more onboard devices known as ‘Control Moment Gyroscopes’ (CMGs). These control the direction that the missile points in, its attitude, and thereby its course. The wings, which swivel laterally in their entirety, can be used to cause a sudden rapid ascent or descent while the gyroscopes force the missile to maintain the same attitude. This is the maneuvre shown as ‘bump up/down’ … Cruise missiles are designed to hug the ground (or sea) at a height of 6 feet (2 metres) during their final approaches, employing radars and high-speed electronics to achieve this.”  [38]

The vapour trail which can be seen in the security camera video clips and stills has also been listed as singular proof of the Aircraft’s presence before slamming into the Pentagon, riding heavily on the power of suggestion, as with most of the 9/11 images. However, jet airliners do not produce vapour trails below 30,000 ft. which must therefore exclude any kind of aeroplane, though the US State Department very much wanted us to believe otherwise. A cruise missile is propelled by a rocket motor and could be seen if launched from a relatively short-distance from the Pentagon. Though speculative, the Army and Navy Club, less than two miles away is one location where a possible missile trajectory can be traced and which may have served as the missile launch zone. [39]

Wakefield-Sault also alerts us to considerable evidence concerning the presence of an aeroplane which passed low and nearby a press conference sometime between 09:31 and 09:38 on the morning of September 11th 2001. Then Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Porter Goss, had convened the conference over three miles North-East of the Pentagon.

According to taxi-driver Lloyde England a large airplane flew very low across State Route 27 taking out five lampposts as it approached the Pentagon, one of which hit Mr. England’s car. According to his testimony on the now defunct website of The Survivors’ Fund Project:

“As [Lloyde] approached the Navy Annex, he saw a plane flying dangerously low overhead. Simultaneously, the plane struck a light pole and the pole came crashing down onto the front of Lloyde’s taxi cab, destroying the windshield in front of his eyes. Glass was everywhere as he tried to stop the car. Another car stopped and the driver helped move the heavy pole off Lloyde’s car. As they were moving the pole, they heard a big boom and turned to see an explosion. The light pole fell on Lloyd and he struggled to get up from underneath, wondering what had happened.”  [40]

Given the trajectory of the flight-path it is highly probable that this is the same plane heard at the Porter Goss press conference and does mean that there was not some kind of aircraft approaching the Pentagon. However, the timings are wrong since “… the flight time from the highway to the Pentagon is about one second. Clearly then, if Mr England is correct about the sequence of events, the explosion could not have taken place at the same time that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.”  [41]

Furthermore, “…at least half of the “north side flyover” witnesses also claim to have seen the airplane they saw flying over hit the Pentagon, … which is contradicted by the physical evidence of the damage path both inside and outside the Pentagon, hence diminishing their credibility as witnesses to a great big zero.”

lloyd-england-taxiLloyde England’s Taxi which was used to justify the direction and trajectory of the alleged Flight 77. Unfortunately, for the official story, this too is riven with contradictions.

“National Security Alert” a short documentary film made by Citizen Investigation Team claims to have established that witnesses supported a banking north side approach to the Pentagon, with nothing on the South side, “this means the damage to the light-poles and taxi-cab had to have been staged.” The video extract continues: “As unanimously demonstrated by the witnesses, the plane was nowhere near the downed light poles, but it was furthest from light pole no.1 which is what cab-driver Lloyde England claims he lifted out of the windshield of his cab minutes after the attack.” In June of 2008 the CIT confronted England with the information, but before the interview began audio test recording picked up a “strange reaction.” Saying “… he knew that his cab and light pole were on the bridge.” Here is short transcript of what he had to say:

L: One guy who took..um..the pictures lives right over here on 17th street

CIT: He took pictures of your cab?

L: and, um…. he took pictures … He was up on the bridge. He took pictures of the pole, he took pictures of the car.

CIT: Oh, right.

L: And as far as I know he still has them.

When cameras started rolling England states the exact opposite and refused to admit he was anywhere near the bridge. Later on in the film he becomes more candid:

L: I’m not supposed to be involved in all this… This is their thing.

CIT: Meaning they are doing it for their own reasons?

Pentagon_taxi_hit_by_lightpole

Lloyd England by his car after the Pentagon attack and before the collapse.

L: That’s right. I’m not supposed to be in.

CIT: But they used you right?

L: I’m in it.

CIT: You’re in it?

L: Yeah, we came across … across the highway together.

CIT: You and their “event”?

L: That’s right.

CIT: Then they must have planned it?

L: It was planned. […] One thing about it you gotta understand something, when people do things and get away with it – you…eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me it’s going to be so big I can’t do nothin’ about it …. So, it has to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.”  [42]

CIT claim that England was cautious not to “outright confess,” working hard to distance himself from the planners while admitting it was planned. They believe this is corroboration for other witness statements in the film testifying to a North side approach, the staging of the light-poles and cab event and thus the plane could not have hit the Pentagon.

One researcher Gerard Holmgren and his brilliant analysis found that many of the testimonies were seriously flawed or in Holmgren words: “What appeared at first reading to be 19 eyewitness accounts … actually turned out to be none.” Yet he was open-minded and aware that: “Eyewitnesses who are vague on fine details are generally more likely to be telling the truth than those who claim to have meticulously taken in everything. But there should be some indication that the object was a large passenger jet, and could not have been a much smaller jet, a military craft, a light plane, a helicopter or a cruise missile.” His meticulous findings concluded that such indications did not materialise.  [43]

The source of his initial research of eyewitness accounts focused on a website called http://www.urbanlegends.about.com, which included a rebuttal of the theory that Flight77 did not hit the Pentagon. The main evidence presented was the listing of 19 web-linked eyewitness accounts of the event which appeared to be compelling at first glance. On closer inspection Holmgren found they were all missing a “basic condition” in that: “the witnesses did not actually claim to see the Pentagon hit by the plane. What they claimed was to have seen a plane flying way too low, and then immediately afterwards to have seen smoke or an explosion coming from the direction of the Pentagon which was out of sight at the time of the collision.” This became a familiar theme which could not be in anyway termed “evidence” and thus had to be ruled out. This, in addition to logistical and photographic inconsistencies, non-existent witnesses, tampering with witness reports and possible examples of CoIntelpro, led Holmgren to conclude: “… that there is no eyewitness evidence to support the theory that F77 hit the Pentagon …”  [44]

pentagon

After the collapse of the outer ring. Of course, that’s where all the plane wreckage is buried…But didn’t they say the plane reached two inner rings of the Pentagon? Did they collapse? Nope. Any wreckage there? Nope.

An enormous contribution to 9/11 official theory derives from witness testimony disseminated by the MSM has come down to us as fact when it is more often a product of trauma-induced confusion sitting alongside careful disinformation. Most of these witnesses were either Pentagon employees, thus unreliable, or USA Today reporters such as Walters whose statements have been heavily referenced. However, as Canadian author and independent journalist Dave McGowan points out, knowing what we know about media complicity in PSYOPS, can we trust what these reporters have to say about the events, given the newspaper’s background and a distinct pattern of USA Today interest which has emerged?

McGowan explains: “USA Today and Navy Times are both part of the Gannett family of news outlets. … Gannett also publishes Air Force Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defence News. In other words, it’s just your typical independent, civilian media organization. Having established that, let’s now take a look at who our group of mystery witnesses are (or who they were at the time of the Pentagon attack):

  • Bob Dubill was the executive editor for USA Today.
  • Mary Ann Owens was a journalist for Gannett.
  • Richard Benedetto was a reporter for USA Today.
  • Christopher Munsey was a reporter for Navy Times.
  • Vin Narayanan was a reporter for USA Today.
  • Joel Sucherman was a multimedia editor for USA Today.
  • Mike Walters was a reporter for USA Today.
  • Steve Anderson was the director of communications for USA Today.
  • Fred Gaskins was the national editor for USA Today.
  • Mark Faram was a reporter for Navy Times. [45]

The odds of all those USA Today reporters being on sight and in such numbers and touting the same story counter to the evidence is a stretch. Or as McGowan reiterates: “So unless USA Today staff was holding its annual company picnic on the Pentagon lawn that morning, it seems to me that there is something seriously wrong with this story.” [46] This is the same newspaper which reported that Andrews Air Base: “… had no fighters assigned to it,” and in a later piece, that Andrews did have fighters present “but those planes were not on alert” both statements of which were wholly untrue. As evidence from multiple reports that immediately after the attack on the Pentagon, F-16s from Andrews were flying over Washington. [47]

It is also true to say that this doesn’t mean that USA Today was necessarily in on the official story conspiracy. As Holmgren mentions: “if a newspaper gives a one line quote from an anonymous witness and gives no details of when, where or how the quote was gathered, does not specify who wrote the story and gives no other details, then this is not an eyewitness account. It is hearsay.” And the vast majority of eyewitness accounts which support the official story are precisely that.

pentagonstrikewww.pentagonstrike.co.uk/

The total lack of evidence of anything remotely fitting the description of a jet airliner being found at the scene should be the defining characteristic of the Pentagon attacks. Yet, the 9/11 Truth Movement cries “disinformation!” at the merest hint of such a suggestion since it opens a veritable hornet’s nest of uncomfortable questions which apparently, cannot be answered. (i.e. Where did Flight 77 go? What happened to the passengers? – and other conundrums.)

Just because this raises more complicated questions and “reinforces conspiracy theory” doesn’t mean that we should shy away from appraising a crime scene and reaching conclusions based on what is. Digging for truth is a dirty job and doesn’t necessarily fit into neat boxes with nice little ticks. Sometimes all we have is a framework upon which we can build further answers. Yet, the framework is crucial. If that is wrong then we are led down avenues of exploration which must be wrong too. And so it is with Flight 77 and the Pentagon.

 


Notes

[1] ‘FAA Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11 2001 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf
[2] ‘ “We have planes. Stay quiet” – Then silence’ by Michael Ellison, The Guardian, 17 October 2001. | ‘Timeline in Terrorist Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001’ Staff and Wire Reports, Washington Post, September 12, 2001 | ‘9/11 commission staff statement No. 17,’ NBC News, http://www.msnbc.msn.com June 17, 2004.
[3] http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_timeline.html
[4] 9/11 National Commision on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Public Hearing Friday, May 23, 2003. http://www.9-11commission.gov/ | ‘Clear the skies’ September 8, 2002 http://www.mnet.co.za
[5] p.232; Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the .Official Conspiracy Theory by David Ray Griffin,, Olive Branch Press, 2007 | ISBN-10: 156656686X
[6] ‘Get These Planes on the Ground’ Air Traffic Controllers Recall Sept. 11: ABC News October 24, 2001.| MSNBC Transcript: ‘American Remembers, Air Traffic Controllers Describe How Events Unfolded As They Saw Them on September 11th.’ MSNBC Dateline. September 11, 2002.
[7] ‘Probe reconstructs horror, calculated attacks on planes’ By Glen Johnson, The Boston Globe, November 23, 2001. | ‘Primary Target’ CBS News, February 11, 2009 | ‘Primary Target’ CBS News, February 11, 2009. | ‘Part I: Terror attacks brought drastic decision: Clear the skies’ By Alan Levin, Marilyn Adams and Blake Morrison, USA Today, August 12, 2002 | National Transportation and Safety Board, Office of Research and Engineering, Washington D.C. 20594, Febraury 19 2002. Flight Path Study American Airlines Flight 77. http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ Path_ Study_AA77.pdf
[8] ‘The Official Account of the Pentagon Attack is Fantasy’ March 3, 2012. http://www.veteranstoday.com By Dennis Cimino and Jim Fetzer,| Dennis Cimino, A.A., EE; 35-years EMI/EMC testing, field engineering; FDR testing and certifications specialist; Navy Combat Systems Specialist; 2,000 hours, Pilot in Command, Commercial Instrument Single and Multi-Engine Land Pilot, Eastern Airlines 727-200, Second Officer. Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer and founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] ‘Ill-Starred ‘Star Wars’ Tests’ Los Angeles Times, December 20, 2004.
[12] ‘Alternatives for Boost-Phase Missile Defense’ CBO Report, July 1, 2004. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/15852
[13] ‘9/11, Pentagon, and Missile Defense: $130 Billion on Pentagon’s Missile Defense Fails to Stop Four Airliners on 9/11’ By Fred Burkes, http://www.wanttoknow.info.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Paul Thompson (9:03-9:08 AM), citing USA Today, September 12 and 13, 2002.
[16] U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) Speech Testimony Prepared for Delivery to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States | http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=105 | Testimony Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 23, 2004.
[17] p.5; Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy By Andrew Cockburn, Published by Scribner 2007. | ISBN-10: 1416535748.
[18] ‘A Trainee Noted for Incompetence’ By Jim Yardley, New York Times, May 4, 2002.
[19] 9/11:The Big Lie By Thierry Meyssan Published by Carnot Editions 2003. ISBN-10: 1592090265 | p.22.
[20] Aircraft Information Boeing 757/767: http://www.simviation.com/rinfo75767.htm
[21] op. cit. LeLong (p.118)
[22] ‘Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn’t Impact the Pentagon on 9/11and Neither Did a Boeing 757’ by Joe Quinn, Sott.net, June 9, 2006.
[23] http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_16.htm
[24] ‘Live CNN Report of Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon’ | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck
[25] op. cit. Griffin (2004; p.34)
[26] Ibid. | TV Transcipt: ‘The Pentagon Goes to War’ National Military Command Centre, CNN American Morning with Paula Zahn | ‘Keeping the Heart of the Pentagon Beating’ By Jim Garamone, American Airforces Press Service, July 9 2006.
[27]
(p.219 – 221) Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game By Torie Clarke, Published by Free Press, 2006.
[28] ‘1999 Report Warned of Suicide Hijack’ By John Soloman, AP Press, April 18 2002. (The report can be found in the Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, entitled: ’The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism.’) George W. Bush denied he had ever seen such a report despite the fact it is was commonly known to intel personnel and available all over the internet. | p.175; Learning Rants, Raves, and Reflections: A Collection of Passionate and Professional Perspectives Elliott Masie (Editor) Paul L. Nenninger: “Simulation at the Secret Service – As Real as it Gets” Published by Pfeiffer, 2005 | ISBN-10: 0787973025.
[29] ‘Ex-Navy Pilot Flies Flight 77’ http://www.911lies.org/was_911_an_inside_job.html
[30] ‘Wife of Solicitor General Alerted Him of Hijacking from Plane,’ by Tim O’Brien, CNN, September 11, 2001. (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/pentagon.olson).
[31] op. cit. Griffin; (2004; p.28)
[32] Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, September 14, 2001 | http://www.s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/foxnews091401.html.
[33] ‘America’s New War: Recovering from Tragedy,’ Larry King Live, CNN, September 14, 2001 http://www.edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html | ‘Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials’ by David Ray Griffin, Global Research, April 01, 2008.
[34] Ibid.
[35] ‘Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials’ By David Ray Griffin, Global Research, April 01, 2008.
[36] U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) News Transcript: Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine, Interview with Lyric Wallwork Winik. October 12 2001. http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3845
[37] 9/11 Deceptions by M.P.LeLong Published by XLibris 2011. (p.260)
[38] ‘September 11th 2001: A Cruise Missile at The Pentagon’ by Peter Wakefield Sault, http://www.odeion.org/ updated August 2012.
[39] Ibid.
[40] ‘Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England’s Virtual Confession’ Citizen Investigation Team http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho | See the complete interviews with Lloyde here: thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm
[41]
Perdue Universities RCAC center produced this Pentagon FEA simulation. Originally produced in 2003, before the 9/11 Truth movement, this groundbreaking FEA based simulation was followed by the more famous WTC North simulation, presented on Youtube. This simulation pioneered mass data input for 3D modeling and input, and developed file formats that allow universities to create, trade, and build a library of huge digital models of 3D aircraft, ships and buildings. By V. Popescu, C. Hoffmann, S. Kilic, M. Sozen, S. Meador, “Producing High-Quality Visualizations of Large-Scale Simulations”, Proc. of IEEE Visualization, Oct., 2003.
[42] op. cit pentacon.com
[43]
‘Did F77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined: Examines the apparent contradiction between photographic evidence and eyewitness evidence.’ by Gerard Holmgren. 5 ’03)
[44] http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t4603.html
[45] ‘September 11, 2001 Revisited’ By Dave McGowan, The Center for an Informed America Newsletter #68E April 12, 2005. http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html
[46] Ibid.
[47] ‘Military now a presence on home front’ By Andrea Stone, USA Today,September 16, 2001.

The Destruction of the Twin Towers

 By M.K. Styllinski

“I was on the ground floor of the building …. (the foyer of WTC) … “There was a huge bang ….”But seconds later, there were two or three similar huge explosions and the building literally shook.”

– Stephen Evans WTC survivor, BBC North American Business Correspondent (http://media.guardian.co.uk 9/11/01)


The official account would have us believe that the North and South Towers collapsed due to the impact of the airliners and the resulting heat produced by numerous fires within the buildings. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) completed a performance study of the buildings in May 2002, declaring that “… the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitely determined.” Though it said that the WTC design was not to blame and that certain extraordinary factors were responsible which had been beyond the control of the builders. One of those factors was the apparent weakening of the floor joists by the internal fires caused by the initial impact which precipitated a progressive “pancake” collapse of all the floors as they detached from the main structure falling one by one onto each other. [1]

September 2005 saw the completion of another investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Following FEMA’s lead the NIST also gave a clean bill of health for the WTC design, choosing the sheer scale of the destruction from two jet airliners had not been envisaged by the builders or architects. The NIST deviated slightly from FEMA and pronounced sagging floors themselves as the culprits which caused “… the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.” [2]

Although the report was riven with assumptions, conflicts of interest, and attempts to re-write the laws of physics which bordered on farce, this remained the primary source of refutation for official theory adherents, (a tradition for which the IPCC would have been proud). Indeed, FEMA and the NIST (whose subsequent reports continue to astound) are not the only ones to promote the official theory. The BBC, the History Channel and government agencies have firmly stuck to what amounts to propaganda in the face of objective evidence, marginalising and ridiculing those who come forward.

Numerous architects and engineers had quickly discovered that the temperature of the fires required to collapse the North and South Towers would have to have been enough to melt the steel, namely temperatures of 2,770°F (1,500°C). The burning of jet fuel or kerosene doesn’t even come close to these temperatures as it burns off extremely fast. Remember the impact of the planes repeated endlessly on our televisions? All that thick black smoke was a product of hydro-carbon fires and not very hot ones at that. The official theory clings to the idea that the fires were responsible for steel-reinforced buildings to fall into their own footprints in around ten seconds. For such a thing to happen the fires would have to have spread throughout the North and South towers with the evenly distributed heat of a furnace burning for a very long time indeed – none of which is the case, since the jet fuel that spilled from Flight 11 when it hit the North Tower had mostly burned up by this time. The NIST commented in its report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” further confirmed by many independent observers including engineering Professor Forman Williams who stated the jet fuel: “burned for maybe 10 minutes.” [3]

impactnorthtower1South Tower fireball on impact (left) North Tower impact damage (right) (wikipedia)

There is no evidence of fires in the North Tower that could constitute the kind of intense heat needed to bring down a steel-framed building. Only a jagged hole with dark smoke pouring out of it can be seen with hardly any flames visible, indicating the cooling of fires consistent with kerosene burn off, rather than increasing heat. This is also true of the South Tower which had only a few cursory fires on floors above the impact point. After 16 minutes had passed the idea that a raging inferno was already present is patently false. As Dr. David Ray Griffin points out, the evidence shows from the copious amounts of photos that: “… the fires were not even that hot. … the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin … This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, ‘only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C [482°F],’ and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures.” [4]

Even if the building had been engulfed in flames it would not have collapsed, just as the 32-story steel framed Windsor building in Madrid, burned for more than 24 hours in 2005 and did not collapse. Or the fire in October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, where a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. There is also the 1991 fire which gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, burning for 18 hours. This building also, did not collapse. [5] Nevertheless, we are still told the huge Twin Towers collapsed the South in just under an hour and the North in an hour and a half. If the official theory is true, it would be the first time in history a steel-structured building has ever collapsed due to fire.

Hundreds of architects and engineers have begun to question the official story providing their testimony and professional evaluations. To that end, Architects and Engineers for Truth at www.ae911Truth.org provides a forum for gathering peer-reviewed evidence and testimony from over 2,337 professionals and another 20,117 supporters who cannot accept the science in the official story and seek an independent investigation. In a recent, comprehensive ae911 Truth report, 29 civil engineers voiced their concern over the collapse theory. Consulting civil/structural engineer Nathan S. Lomba with 39 years of professional experience asked: “How did the structures collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?” Whereas Dennis Kollar, P.E. a licensed professional engineer “was troubled by the collapses’ ‘totality and uniformity’ and the fact that the mass of debris remained centered on the building core all the way down.”

Frank Cullinan, P.E., explained that “…These systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail ‘nearly simultaneously,’ but also ‘in sequential order,’ …That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and … small, short-duration fires.” [6] Charles Pegelow who has performed design work on offshore oil rigs and tall buildings also raised concerns about the action of symmetrical collapse which would “… require simultaneous failure of all supporting columns. How could all 47 core columns fail at the same instant? … Fires could not do that.” [7] 

Richard F. Humenn, PE, Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems at the entire World Trade Centre, had over 60 people working under him. Humenn stated: “On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel. After viewing material presented by Architects and Engineers for 911 truth Humenn “… supported the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual free-fall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.” [8]

Another architect the late Frank De Martini, who worked as the World Trade Centre’s construction manager gave an interview for the History Channel who were making a documentary about the WTC towers prior to September 11th. He stated: “I believe the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” De Martini died in his office on the 88th floor of the North Tower when it is was hit on 9/11. According to an associated press report he died when the tower collapsed after helping people escape. [9] This is given further credibility by one of the original structural engineers of the Twin Towers Leslie Robertson, who believed there was: “… little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” [10] At a later conference in Frankfurt, Germany in 2001 he said: “The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.” [11] Robertson would later recant these statements and change his story a few days after 9/11 which led to many suspecting he had been unduly pressured to do so. [12]

In early February of 1964, during the design phase of the towers, a three-page white paper, offered these findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner [Boeing 707-DC 8] traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” [13]

Building designer John Skilling, among the world’s top structural engineers who worked on that particular 1964 paper and the structural design of the WTC, carried out an analysis on the impact of a Jet airliner impact on the Twin Towers which: “… indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the airplane] would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says: “The building structure would still be there.” Skilling also added: “I’m not saying that properly applied explosives – shaped explosives – of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage.” [14]

Just before the North and South Towers collapsed many eyewitnesses including firemen, reported hearing, feeling and seeing the effects of what appeared to be explosions, in the immediate floors and in the sub-basements of the Towers.

Griffin and thousands of others think that is precisely what may have occurred:

[An] alternative explanation is that the collapse was an example of a controlled demolition based on explosives that had been placed throughout the building…With regard to why the collapse was so total and rapid, [Peter] Meyer says that ‘this is understandable if the bases of the steel columns were destroyed by explosions at the level of bedrock. With those bases obliterated, and the supporting steel columns shattered by explosions at various levels in the Twin Towers, the upper floors lost all support and collapsed to ground level in about ten seconds […] Since the fire in the South Tower resulted from the combustion of less fuel than the fire in the North Tower, the fire in the South Tower began to go out earlier than the fire in the North Tower. Those controlling the demolition thus has to collapse the South Tower before they collapsed the North Tower.’ [15]

A common myth promoted by 9/11 truth debunkers and government officials is the idea that the weight of the top sections of the buildings somehow progressively crushed those below, gaining velocity as they did so. To suggest that the upper structure of the Twin Towers could fall through 90-100 floors of an undamaged, full-strength steel core structure at free-fall speed is not only silly, but against the very laws of physics. Any secondary school-boy with a modicum of scientific knowledge knows that this is impossible but the theory remains popular with debunkers, turning themselves inside out to explain its validity.


 Both the North Tower and the South Tower collapsed just as their respective fires were dying down, even though this meant that the South Tower, which had been hit second, collapsed first.”

David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration & 9/11


Engineer Gordon Ross who holds degrees in both mechanical and manufacturing engineering calculated the weight of the floors from the upper sections in a theoretical collapse down onto the lower portions of the two structures. Ross had to simulate a theoretical collapse but first had to veer away from reality in order to stay true to the official story. He had to imagine that there had indeed been extremely hot fires and melting steel structures so that the upper section was able to collapse without any resistance into free-fall scenario. The energy needed for this to happen was also calculated including the amount of resistance needed from the lower sections and how much of the energy would be absorbed by resistance from the initial impact of the upper structure descending downwards. On the first impact alone, he found that the upper sections would have lost 66 percent of their kinetic energy showing that no more energy would have been left to continue even one more story. There was no downward pressure of the kind government officials suggest.  [16]

The simple fact of the matter is that the tops of the buildings disintegrated into fine dust within seconds of the “collapse”. If the reader looks carefully at video shots of the WTC collapse you will see that no upper sections existed for this theory to be tenable. The buildings simply vaporised. Once you see it – it remains with you. But you have to disengage from the mind-programming telling you otherwise. Only carefully designed and placed explosives – possibly with advanced technology – could have allowed such a scenario to be fulfilled, otherwise known as a controlled demolition.

Adding to these suspicions were “hot spots” of molten steel found in the sub-basements, in particular at the bottoms of elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven basement levels which were smouldering for weeks. For example, Ron Burger, a public health adviser who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminded him of a volcano. Paramedic Lee Turner was also at the WTC site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. He described his journey: “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground,” where he saw: “… in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.” [17] In fact, scores of witnesses in the immediate aftermath of 911 and following weeks and months reported seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Centre.  [18]

 molten-metal2

Metal crane at Ground Zero extracting molten metal (left) Molten metal pouring from the 81st floor. Fires were still burning beneath the the World Trade Centre and WTC building 7 and were not extinguished until December 2001.

As each tower collapsed, Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, just 21 miles north of the WTC, picked up a 2.1 magnitude earthquake at 9:59:04, then a 2.3 quake beginning at 10:28:31. [19] According to a report by the Mineta Transportation Institute: “People inside the South Tower felt the floor vibrate as if a small earthquake were occurring … The vibration lasted for about 30 seconds. The doors were knocked out, and a huge ball of flame created by the exploding diesel fuel from the building’s own supply tank shot from the elevator shaft and out the doors of the South Tower, consuming everything in its path. Minutes later, at 9:59 a.m., the tower collapsed.”  [20]

If it was a controlled demolition then it was of a type so powerful it literally pulverised the towers so that very little remained.

Dr.Griffin explains:

“… each collapse produced a lot of fine dust or powder, which upon analysis proved to consist primarily of gypsum and concrete […] ‘ Where does the energy come from to turn all this reinforced concrete into dust?’ […] ‘virtually every piece of concrete in each tower was pulverized to a powder. This required a lot of energy.’ […] “…things would actually be moving quite slowly at first…It is very hard to imagine a physical mechanism to generate that much dust with concrete slabs bumping into each other at 20 0r 30 mph…In order to pulverize concrete into powder, explosives must be used.” […] “…when the towers started to collapse, they did not fall straight down, as the pancake theory holds. They exploded. The powder was ejected horizontally from the buildings with such force that the buildings were surrounded by enormous dust clouds that were perhaps three times the width of the buildings themselves…What other than explosives could turn concrete into powder and then eject it 150 feet or more?” [21] [Emphasis mine]

There were many physical anomalies associated with the destruction that cannot be explained using the official story.

The 9/11 Commission Report said that the “South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds” and the NIST said that the tops of the buildings came down “essentially in free fall.”  [22] This conflicts with the official “pancake” theory whereby the floors weakened by the impact of the airliner falling on the floor below starting the so-called chain reaction. This is clearly not what happened because there was literally no resistance from a reinforced steel and concrete structure. But the rubble falling internally compared with externally fell at the same speed. Architect and physicist Dave Heller tells us that the pancake theory is untenable because: “The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how? … In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual free-fall.”  [23]

oem_9_16_pic05

What was left of the first ever steel reinforced building to collapse. The WTC Twin Towers were built to withstand jet airliner impacts through a “mosquito net” design. Jet fuel? Really?

This leads us to the total collapse of 110-story buildings with an inexplicably small amount of debris. Where did the 47 massive steel box columns go? According to the pancake theory they should have been still standing. Tons of concrete was simply vapourised. Massive steel girders were found twisted in strange shapes. If it was a controlled demolition then something other than normal explosives seemed to have been used. The anomalies experienced at ground zero offer no other explanation.

NIST hasn’t been much help in offering scientific and impartial analysis either. Its $20 million 2005 report at 10,000 pages (yes, that’s right) is taken as a definite account to explain how fires and plane impacts destroyed the WTC. Unfortunately, as Ronald Brookman, S.E., a licensed structural engineer from Novato, California tells us: “The report not only fails to explain why and how the towers completely collapsed,” … “it states that the collapse became inevitable without any further explanation,” and where the report considered: “conservation of energy and momentum principles only up to the moment prior to collapse.” [24] And since the NIST stopped its computerized models before the onset of collapse, no work was carried out to calculate what happened during the failure. [25]

Significant quantities of thermetic material were found in dust samples from the WTC site yet showing clear evidence of advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. NIST officials deemed this inadmissible as evidence, despite researchers showing that the material could not have been found from a natural process before or during the destruction of the Twin Towers. Pyroclastic flow was observed in the concrete-based clouds which are only found with volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations. Pyroclastic flow will not mix with other clouds meaning very serious health issues not possible with the conventional demolition or explosive charges. The presence of such a pyroclastic material would offer partial explanation as to the formation of pyroclastic clouds observed during the destruction of the WTC given that many thousands of tiny blasts would be required:

“Aluminothermic reactions are a class of energy-releasing oxidation-reduction chemical reactions in which elemental aluminum reduces a compound, typically by stealing the oxygen from a metal oxide. Aluminothermics range from low-tech preparations that take seconds to react and therefore release nearly all their energy as heat and light, to advanced engineered materials with accelerated reaction rates that yield explosive powers similar to conventional high explosives. […] The red layers contain abundant aluminum, iron, and oxygen, where the iron is associated with oxygen, and the aluminum is mostly in a pure, elemental, form. The relative quantities of aluminum, iron, and oxygen match those of the most common thermite formulation: Fe2O3 + 2 Al .

Although these elements — aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon — were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

The iron-rich spheroids formed by heating the chips in this manner match those found in abundance in all of the samples of WTC dust studied, and those produced by the reaction of commercial thermite, both in appearance and in chemical composition revealed by XEDS analysis.” [26]

However, even thermite does not explain the sheer destruction which was visited on the WTC in such a rapid space of time. Some researchers have rightly stated that claims for thermite have thus been exaggerated. [27] Other researchers suggest the presence advanced experimental technology not currently recognised in military circles. Not only did concrete disappear but other construction materials such as glass and alloys, along with office furniture and tens of thousands of computers. [28] The pulverisation of 99 percent of concrete into ultra-fine dust and recorded by official studies was not the only example of effects outside the norms of a controlled demolition.

A Finish military expert who wished to remain anonymous due to fears for his safety wrote a summary of why there may be more unconventional reasons for the WTC destruction, some of which are included here:

  • Superheated steels ablating (vaporizing continuously as they fall) as seen in video clips of the towers collapsing. This requires uniform temperatures roughly twice that of thermite. Conventional demolition or explosive charges (thermate, rdx, hdx etc.) cannot transfer heat so rapidly that the steel goes above its boiling temperature.
  • 22 ton outer wall steel sections ejected 200 meters into the winter garden. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without heavy, solid surface mounts.
  • 330 ton section of outer wall columns ripping off side of tower. Cutting charges cannot eject heavy steels linked together and throwing charges cannot provide the energy required without very heavy, solid surfaces to mount those charges.
  • The spire behaviour (stands for 20-30 seconds, evaporates and goes down, steel dust remains in the air where the spire was). The spire did not stand because it lost its durability when the joints vaporized.
  • A press weighting 50 tons disappeared from a basement floor of Twin Towers and was never recovered from debris. Not possible with collapses or controlled demolitions. The press was vaporized or melted totally.
  • Bone dust cloud around the WTC. This was found not until spring 2006 from the Deutsche Bank building. [In excess of 700 human remains found on the roof and from air vents]. [29]
  • Rubble height was some 10percent of the original instead of 33percent expected in a traditional demolition. Fusion device removal of underground central steel framework allowed upper framework to fall into this empty space and reduce the rubble height.
  • 14 rescue dogs and some rescue workers died far too soon afterward to be attributed to asbestos or dust toxins (respiratory problems due to alpha and tritium particles created by fusion are far more toxic)
  • Record concentrations of near-atomic size metal particles found in dust studies due to ablated steel. Only possible with vaporized (boiling) steels.
  • No bodies, furniture or computers found in the rubble, but intact sheets of paper covered the streets with fine dust. Items with significant mass absorbed fusion energy (neutrons, x-rays) and were vaporized while paper did not. Paper and powder theory.
  • 200 000 gallon sprinkler water tanks on the roofs of WTC1 and WTC2, but no water in the ruins. Heat of fusion devices vaporized large reservoirs of water.
  • Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site.
  • Wide area electrical outage, repairs took over 3 months. Fusion devices cause EM pulse with Compton scattering. (See German engineers help the USA plate 5. http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm)
  • EM pulse was recorded by broadcast cameras with high quality electronic circuitry. This occurred at the same time as the seismic peaks recorded by Lamont Doherty during the beginning of the collapse. This is due to the Compton Effect and resulted in a large area power outage at the WTC. [30]

Rather than purely a nuclear device or conventional explosives former Virginia Tech professor of mechanical engineering Dr. Judy Wood is convinced the only explanation is derived from the use of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) having “… ruled out a Kinetic Energy Device (bombs, missiles, etc.) as the method of destruction as well as a gravity-driven ‘collapse.’” Somewhat understandably, she has been marginalised by both the 9/11 Truth movement and less surprisingly, the MSM. This is probably due to aspects of her research which tend to push the boundaries of what can be considered rational, which is problematic for the 9/11 Truth movement which is still struggling to get people to accept that an “inside job” is even possible. Nevertheless, Dr. Wood contends that: “…the evidence is consistent with the use of energy weapons that go well beyond the capabilities of conventional explosives and can be directed” and that a: “satellite-mounted military weapon” may have been used to destroy the WTC. [31]

The foundation of Wood’s theory is not only from the evidence at the WTC itself but the existence of DEW’s sourced firstly from the Star Wars Program, also known as the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). “Since the invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely.” Having been secretly developed over 100 years and one of the most classified of military weapons it surely a case of near certainty. [32]

The reasons Woods gives for concluding that DEWs were responsible for the type of destruction wrought on WTC is vast in scope. A very brief selection of the main points of contention is included from Dr. Wood’s website:

  • The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (at free fall speed ‘collapse’).
  • They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.
  • The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.
  • The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage.
  • The WTC mall survived well.
  • The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.
  • The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet…seismic signal was no greater than background noise.
  • The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
  • The upper 90 percent, approximately, of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.
  • File cabinet with folder dividers survived.
  • Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often alongside burning cars.
  • Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty Street in front of Bankers Trust.
  • All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed.
  • Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.
  • The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.
  • The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.
  • The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass.
  • The WTC7 rubble pile was too small and contained a lot of mud.
  • Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by “unexplained” waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
  • There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.

northtowerpulverization4

Various shots of the North Tower turning to dust? | Source: http://www.drjudywood.co.uk

Dr. Woods is a very controversial figure in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Whether we find the above evidence too outrageous to contemplate should not necessarily preclude its validity. However, there is no doubt that the WTC was effectively turned to dust. Something other than conventional weaponry was used, perhaps unknown to the military. The problem appears to be that Wood assumes she know what it is, which is clearly not the case. In amongst the valuable information there are persistent assumptions with no evidence to back it up. Overall, Wood maybe onto something, and her work has highlighted important anomalies which as yet, cannot be explained. The question mark appears to be over Dr. Wood herself and her associations with known disinformation agents. [33]As with most unconscious CoIntelpro operatives and their handlers, their information is valuable and designed to be derailed through the protagonist’s erratic behaviour and supposition theories which don’t necessarily stand up to scrutiny (Hutchison effect). It is in that way that the glimmers of truth lying behind the information is discarded while people who could provide collaboration and possible answers steer well clear. For now, Wood must be treated with extreme caution whilst acknowledging the central thrust of her work. Perhaps in the future, as 9/11 justice gains further momentum information may safely come to light and in the right hands.

(Note: For an interesting discussion on Dr. Judy Woods’ work please visit: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/)

All good quality reseearch contributions must be included whilst maintaining the momentum of pressure for an independent investigation – an admittedly slim chance when criminal elements are still in control. This fact became abundantly clear when a federal offence was committed (actually aided and abetted by federal officials) who allowed the crime scene itself to be carted off and sold to scrap dealers who put it on ships to Asia. Vital evidence was forever lost to forensic science, a decision which was roundly condemned by many within the engineering and fire-fighting communities, culminating in a virtual riot by fire-fighters at Ground Zero, who were: “… protesting the desecration of the dead in a hasty ‘scoop and dump’ clean-up of the structural steel debris.”  [34]

One senior level fire-fighter Bill Manning called the WTC investigation a “half-baked farce,” adding: “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.” Manning also concluded that many of his colleagues and other fire-fighters are of the opinion that: “… the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Yet, “[a]s things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper-and computer-generated hypotheticals.”  [35] This is something that has been quite useful for obfuscation and pseudo-science as we have seen in previous posts.

gz_d1391p02WTC debris Source: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/

The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC in the few days after the destruction was also protested by some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts. The 20 engineer team at Ground Zero leading the investigation also found constant obstruction by FEMA officials when attempting to interview witnesses and examining the site itself. Requests to see videos and detailed blueprints of the buildings were also denied. [36] Despite steel components being stamped with identification numbers for reassembly and study at a later date, this proved impossible.

Another spectre that plagued the ground zero responders and New York Residents is the issue of poor health arising from the smoke inhalation from the pulverized WTC material. On September 18, 2001, then chief of the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) Christine Todd Whitman told reporters through a press release: “We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air-quality and drinking-water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances,” and that “given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York … that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink.” [37] Rudy Giuliani (below) agreed with her assessment, cheerily stating that: “the problems created … are not health-threatening” and that “the air quality is safe and acceptable.” [38]

1rudy-giulianiFormer Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: Ground Zero Hero?

In a 2006 CBS News Interview EPA scientist Dr. Cate Jenkins described some of the dust at Ground Zero “As caustic and alkaline as Drano.” She also claimed that EPA officials had been aware of air toxicity and had chosen to lie about at the behest of the Bush Administration. In fact, before the publication of a 2003 report by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA pressure was brought to bear to remove and alter information which urged caution regarding the dangers surrounding the air quality at Ground Zero. The fact that the air was described by one air pollution expert as “wildly toxic,” due to contaminants and carcinogens saturating the atmosphere at the time, it should not come as a shock that getting Wall St. back into business rather than saving lives was by far the most important order of the day – Bush family crimes have been part of its sordid history for quite some time. [39] Exposure to Ground Zero toxins has meant increasing numbers of residents reporting symptoms of respiratory illnesses with over 75 ground zero recovery workers having been “… diagnosed with blood cell cancers that a half-dozen top doctors and epidemiologists have confirmed as having been likely caused by that exposure.” [40] [41]

AASreeetAPAfter trying to play the hero at Ground Zero further evidence of Giuliani’s actions contradicting his own words were shown in November 2001 when he: “…wrote to members of the city’s Congressional delegation urging passage of a bill that capped the city’s liability at $350 million. And two years after Mr. Giuliani left office, FEMA appropriated $1 billion for a special insurance company to defend the city against 9/11 lawsuits.” [42]

Described as a “benevolent dictator” by one Ground Zero official, Giuiliani and his City team: “seized control” and largely limited the influence of federal authorities in the clean-up operation. The use of respirators and basic health procedures were discarded in favour getting Wall St. operational under the instruction of the Bush Administration. New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health industrial hygienist David Newman said, “I was down there watching people working without respirators.” He continued: “Others took off their respirators to eat. It was a surreal, ridiculous, unacceptable situation.” [43]

Judging by Giuliani’s legacy of corruption and racism [29] after leaving the mayor’s office, the mythology of a Ground Zero hero continues to feel the strain. Furthermore, it seems foreknowledge of some kind was in evidence. Giuliani, one of many officials at the time, told ABC News that he received a warning that the WTC was “gonna’ collapse” about ten minutes before it did.

“I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna’ to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us. ” [44]

Quite apart from there being no historical basis for such a prediction – no steel girded building had fallen in such a way – and with only isolated fires reported just before the collapse, why was it that no one but select officials were warned? What about Port Authority police?

Most importantly, why were fire-fighters still in the impact zone wholly unaware of an imminent collapse of WTC 2?

 


Notes

[1] Hamburger, Ronald, et al.. “World Trade Center Building Performance Study” (PDF). Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[2] ‘NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster’ (PDF) ‘World Trade Center Disaster Study’ – “On August 21, 2002, with funding from the U.S. Congress through FEMA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster that occured on September 11, 2001. The NIST WTC Investigation was conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team Act.” | http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/
[3] National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 (pp. 183) | Popular Mechanics| http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842?page=1
[4] ‘The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True’ by Dr. David Ray Griffin Global Research, via 911truth.com January 29, 2006.
[5] ‘Towering Inferno In Caracas’ February 11, 2009 | ‘One Meridien Plaza’ Philadelphia, Pennsylvania http://web.archive.org/web/20040216014121/http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridia| ‘Commuter chaos after Madrid blaze’ BBC News, 14 February, 2005. | See also Christopher Bollyn’s ‘9/11 and the Windsor Tower Fire.’
[6] ‘29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11’ – More than 700 architects and engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official reports Gregg Roberts and Staff June 17, 2009.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers by Jim Dwyer. Published by Times Books, 2005. (p.149)
[10] Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, (pp. 1-17)
[11] ‘Towers built to withstand jet impact’ Chicago Tribune, September 12, 2001.
[12] ‘What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11’ http://www.911Blogger, February 21, 2007.
[13] City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, (pp. 70-71)
[14] ‘Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision’By Eric Nalder, Seattle Times, February 27, 1993.
[15] op. cit. Griffin; 2004 (p.17)
[16] ‘Momentum Transfer Analysis of the collapse of the Upper Storeys of the WTC1’ By Gordon Ross. Ross was born in Dundee, Scotland. He holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, graduating from Liverpool John Moores University, in 1984. www. gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html
[17] ‘Memories’By Marci MacDonald, US New & World Report September 2002.| ‘Messages in the Dust’ by Francseca Lyman, The National Environmental Health Association 2003.www.neha.org/
[18] ‘September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero’ 911 Timeline – http://www.historycommons.org
[19] ‘Damage to Buildings Near World Trade Center Towers Caused by Falling Debris and Air Pressure Wave, Not by Ground Shaking, Columbia Seismologists Report’ in November 20 issue of Eos – Researchers Call for Seismographic Stations in Urban Areas. Earth Institute Colombia University /11/16/01.
[20] ‘Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks’ MTI REPORT 02-06 by Brian Michael Jenkins & Frances Edwards-Winslow, Ph.D., CEM. September 2003.
[21] The New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin (2004) (1st edition)
[22] 9/11 Commission: ‘Final Report on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States’ (p.305). | Ibid. NIST Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers Washington D.C. Govermment Printing Office; September 2005.
[23] Heller, David, 2005. ‘Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center,’ Garlic and Grass, Issue 6, November 24 (www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm).
[24] op. cit. Roberts et al.
[25] ‘29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11’ Gregg Roberts and Staff June 17, 2009.
[26] ‘Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnic In Debris From the Twin Towers’ by Jim Hoffman.Version 1.00, http://www.911research.wtc.7.net, April 3, 2009. | ‘Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe’ Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31The Open Chemical Physics Journal ISSN: 1874-4125.2008.
[27] ‘On the Manipulation of the 9/11 Research Community’ by Jim Fetzer – “The Dynamic Duo” radio show of 17 May 2007, Genesis, communications Network, http://www.gcnlive.com, Channel 2. Transcribed by Jeannon Kralj http://67.15.255.19/~c911sch1/media/0517071.mp3 / http://67.15.255.19/~c911sch1/media/0517072.mp3.
[28] 9/11 Deceptions By M. P. Lelong Published by XLibris 2011. (pp.118-119)
[29] See http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=906
[30] ‘Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11’ 2005; http://www.11syyskuu.net/evidence.htm
[31] ‘The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons’ (DEW) (A focus of the Star Wars Program) by Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds ,October 17, 2006.
[32] Ibid. | See also: ‘US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights’ projectedcensored.org
[33] ‘Pete Santilli / Dr. Judy Wood January 13, 2013 via Before Its News www.americanfreedomradio.com/
[34] ‘29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11’ Gregg Roberts and Staff June 17, 2009.
[35] $elling Out the Investigation By Bill Manning January 1, 2002 http://www.fireengineering.com
[36] ‘Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers’ Fall’ By James Glantz and Eric Lipton, The New York Times, December 25, 2001.
[37] ‘Death by Dust – The frightening link between the 9-11 toxic cloud and cancer’, by Kristen Lombardi Village Voice, November 28, 2006.
[38] ‘Dishonorable Non-Mention: Juan Gonzalez and the Daily News’ 9/11 Pulitzer’, by Keach Hagey Village Voice, April 24, 2007. | ‘Buildings Rise from Rubble while Health Crumbles’, By Anita Gates, The New York Times, September 11, 2006, reporting on the documentary by Heidi Dehncke-Fisher, Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11.
[39] EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement, Report No. 2003-P-00012, August 21, 2003.
[40] ‘Lost in the Dust of 9/11’ By Ellen Barry, Los Angeles Times, October 14, 2006.
[41] op. cit. Lombardi.
[42] ‘Ground Zero Illness Clouding Giuliani’s Legacy’, By Anthony DePalma, The New York Times, May 14, 2007.
[43] Ibid.
[44] ‘New York’s ex-mayor Giuliani leaves a legacy of corruption and racism’ By Bill Vann WSWS.org, 24 May, 2002.

The Terror Industry (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

 If you’re submitting budget proposals for a law enforcement agency, for an intelligence agency, you’re not going to submit the proposal that ‘We won the war on terror and everything’s great,’ cuz the first thing that’s gonna happen is your budget’s gonna be cut in half. You know, it’s my opposite of Jesse Jackson’s ‘Keep Hope Alive’—it’s ‘Keep Fear Alive.’ Keep it alive.”

former FBI assistant director Thomas Fuentes


twin-towersIt took over 35 years for the majority of Americans to realise that factions within their own government assassinated John F. Kennedy. Not exactly a hopeful premise from which to start. It was at this juncture that the ground was laid for a more serious threat to the freedoms of not just the American Republic but to the stability of the whole world. More than 14 years have passed since the September 11 attacks and more people than ever are studying the official story and coming away with many more questions than answers.

Opinion polls on 911 vary greatly, both in terms of the questions asked and the size of the number of respondents. Back in 2006 more than a third of the American public suspected that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East. [1] One in seven people in the UK believe the US government staged 9/11 and a recent poll sponsored by the German magazine Welt der Wunder resulted in 89 percent of the respondents saying they don’t believe the US government has told the whole truth about 9/11. [2] Interestingly, for the purveyors of State protection, a 2012 online poll by The Franklin Centre Library revealed that 77 percent thought 11 years after 9/11 that we were all less safe than before. [3]

With 75 top professors and leading scientists claiming  9/11 was ‘inside job’ in 2014, it appears academia is catching up with the public, though at a snails space. A more respectable 2,322 architects and structural engineers have also expressed their disbelief in all or some of the aspects of the official story over at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth (ae911truth.org/). There are hundreds of other 9/11 website organisations and non-profit educational charities who take issue with the governments version ranging from grassroots to academic.

The online encyclopedia of Wikipedia, (censored and guarded by suitable official story gatekeepers) provides the best summary of the US government and media-led “conspiracy theory” which has lodged itself in the public mind. The following represents the standard synopsis which is constantly wheeled out from media outlets and taken as the consensus.

Once upon a time…

“The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11) were a series of four coordinated suicide attacks upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. areas on September 11, 2001. On that Tuesday morning, 19 terrorists from the Islamist militant group Al-Qaeda hijacked four passenger jets. The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours. The hijackers also intentionally crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and intended to pilot the fourth hijacked jet, United Airlines Flight 93, into the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C.; however, the plane crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after its passengers attempted to take control of the jet from the hijackers. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks, including all 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. At the time of the attacks, media reports suggested that perhaps tens of thousands might have been killed, and the total number of casualties remained unclear for several days.

Suspicion quickly fell on Al-Qaeda, and in 2004, the group’s leader, Osama bin Laden, who had initially denied involvement, claimed responsibility for the attacks. Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives for the attacks. The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored Al-Qaeda. Many countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. In May 2011, after years at large, bin Laden was located and killed.” [4]

So, let’s get this straight…

… What we are being told is that a handful of mostly Saudi Arabians without military or intelligence training, acting independently of government or Intel agencies, managed to outsmart the whole Anglo-American Intelligence network, Israel’s MOSSAD and NATO; as well as the National Security Agency with its massive surveillance of connected networks spanning the globe. Let’s add to this the so-called “failures” from the National Security Council; US Airport security; NORAD, Air Traffic Control and the US Air Force. Let’s not forget the world’s most powerful defence system overseen by the world’s greatest superpower which just happened to allow a handful of Arabs with minimal pilot’s training, armed with box-cutters fly two jumbo jet airliners into the financial heart of downtown New York exploding into the most famous icons of world trade, whilst another employed an impossible flight manoeuvre in order to crash into the military defence centre of the most powerful nation on earth. Then, just before Obama’s election time, Osama Bin Laden, a known CIA asset and a former close business associate of the Bush family is conveniently found after over a decade of being “on the run”. Despite being the most wanted terrorist on earth, he is not questioned – like so many in Guantanamo Bay who appear to be mostly innocent yet tortured nonetheless – he is assassinated and promptly dumped at sea. Mission accomplished.

dreamstime_s_21682504

© Rkaphotography | Dreamstime.com – US Wars Are State Sponsored Terrorism Photo

That has to be the worst conspiracy theory ever to insult the intelligence of a sixth grader.

Yet, that is the official story we are expected to accept – without question. Most shocking of all, that’s exactly what so many people do: accept a story that simply cannot be true. Moreover, to add insult to injury and the memory of the dead, no proposal for an independent investigation into why the most monumental “failure” in National Security could have happened has arisen from the President, Congress, the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the MSM; nor has anyone been reprimanded, let alone prosecuted. The reality has been constant resistance, stone-walling, disinformation, propaganda, threats, suicides, and murders. Add to the mix are the corrupted commissions and inquiries whose only remit is to push the official story that must be made to fit into official culture. Of course, such a coup d’état could never have been accomplished if societies hadn’t been suitably tenderized by decades of social engineering. Part of that success has been due to the global War on Terror, or “overseas contingency operations” as Obama likes to call it.

Al-Qaeda and the global war on terror is the continuance of a “Strategy of Tension,” which refers to a period in Italy from 1969 to 1974, which suffered a series of terrorist attacks with heavy civilian casualties. It was an offshoot of what has been called Operation Gladio and their state-sponsored terror teams in Europe. [5] The strategy had its roots in fascist beliefs of Synarchism within government, military and intelligence networks. Their objective was to ruthlessly exploit underlying fears and grievances in European nations so that people would believe that the attacks were carried out by a communist insurgency within Europe. Many of these terrorist organisations went underground and resurfaced to be periodically stimulated by their masters for bespoke objectives. They do not just arise out of the blue. Much like the ebb and flow of paedophile and sex abuse networks, terrorist atrocities are given the required camouflage so that the perpetrators and their handlers remain in the shadows.

There are many populist and academic sources that will prove the phoney nature of Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Of particular note is the acclaimed UK documentary The Power of Nightmares by Adam Curtis Top where CIA officials openly admit that the creation and history of Al-Qaeda as a terrorist network is a fabrication. [6] As former French intelligence officer Major Pierre-Henry Bunel confirms:

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.” [7]

The CIA has used this ghost to buttress the fantasy that is Al-Qaeda (and the new proxy private army called ISIL), employing fake media reports and video appearances clearly from persons other than bin Laden himself which have fed into the aftermath of the new pearl harbour that was 9/11. [8] Even the name of “Al-Qaeda/Al-Qaida” has produced confusion, even dark amusement in Arab circles as one commentator wryly observed: “You have heard before that ‘Al-Qaeda’ roughly translates into ‘the base,’ but were you aware that ‘Ana raicha Al Qaeda’ is Arabic colloquial for ‘I’m going to the toilet’? Would hardened terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west name their organization after a euphemism for taking a shit?” [9]

A fair point.

The common tactic that has been referred to before is known as the Hegelian Dialectic, though in truth Hegel described social changes rather than pointed manipulation in this context. However, it serves a suitable framework for the thinking behind state-sponsored terrorism which goes something like this:

1. The government creates or exploits a problem then attributes blame to others.

2. The populace react by asking the government for protection and help.

3. The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis.

4. Outcome: Rights and liberties are exchanged for the illusion of protection and help.

This is the geopolitical paradigm of our times largely unknown by the public, though thanks to the internet this is gradually changing. Government and military agencies at the mid to lower levels are equally unaware of this old formula which writer G. Edward Griffin described as: “… not a war on terrorism to defend freedom, but a war on freedom that requires the defense of terrorism.” [10] Meantime, the PR from the MSM and academia is still pushing the idea that America and Europe are overrun with teeth-gnashing terrorists hell-bent in renting asunder the fabric of our Western way of life. Since what is left of any civil rights in Europe and the US constitution has been eviscerated by the very same authorities who peddle these myths then might there be some mileage in the idea that they have something to gain from it all? For anyone who has taken the time to research the genesis of terrorism and the present-day nonsense passing for terrorist laws in the United States it is beyond doubt that the only thing American and European people need to fear is their governments.

According to a basic statistical analysis from 2013 the actual percentage of the US population who may be classified as a terrorist is around 0.00016%, or about 1 in 624,297 people. In this context, the writer Marc Salvo makes a pertinent observation about this topsy-turvy terror game when he said just a few months ago: “We’re not suggesting that terrorism doesn’t exist, but considering that 1 in 1000 Americans in 2010 were the subject of police misconduct ranging from excessive force beatings and murder to sexual assault and false arrest, perhaps the government should turn its surveillance on itself, rather than the 99.9% of Americans who want nothing more than to be left alone.” [11]

That is not to say there are not genuine terrorist plots, but the key issue here is what prevents terrorism from occurring and what actively encourages it? We know that invading Syria or Iraq has provided a massive surge of terrorist cells in those countries as a result and a bleed-through must have occurred in America and Europe. However, like some police trawling and entrapment operations in the UK, the lines between what is a genuine terrorist plot and creating home grown fanatics is more than blurred, it continues to stoke the needed fear and high profits necessary to sustain a terror industry.

As Al-Qaeda is wound down, ISIS takes over, funded with billions of dollars: a new brand with new bloody atrocities to market …

 


Notes

[1] ‘New National Poll: 36percent of Americans Believe 9/11 Was an Inside Job’ By Thomas Hargrove, Scripps Howard News Service Seattle. August 2, 2006.
[2] ‘One in seven believe U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks in conspiracy’- The belief is more common among younger people, with a quarter of 16 to 24-year-olds subscribing to the theory By Alanah Eriksen, Daily Mail, 29 August 2011 | ‘German Poll: 89percent Question 9/11’ Welt-der-Wunder, January 24, 2011, 9/11 Truth News.
[3] ‘9/11 Online Poll’ The Franklin Center, September 11, 2012. http://www.franklincenterblog.wordpress.com
[4] ‘September 11th Attacks’www.wikipedia.com ( A far better starting point for an alternative “wikipedia” version of 9/11 can be found at wikispooks.)
[5] “Operation Gladio is undisputed historical fact. Gladio was part of a post-World War II program set up by the CIA and NATO supposedly to thwart future Soviet/communist invasions or influence in Italy and Western Europe. In fact, it became a state-sponsored right-wing terrorist network, involved in false flag operations and the subversion of democracy.
The existence of Gladio was confirmed and admitted by the Italian government in 1990, after a judge, Felice Casson, discovered the network in the course of his investigations into right-wing terrorism. Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti admitted Gladio’s existence but tried to minimize its significance.
The main function of the Gladio-style groups, in the absence of Soviet invasion, seems to have been to discredit left-wing groups and politicians through the use of “the strategy of tension,” including false-flag terrorism. … The aim was to instill fear into the populace while framing communist and left-wing political opponents for terrorist atrocities.” – Operation GladioNATO/CIA “Stay-Behind” Secret Armies/ Truth Move / International Truth Movement, http://www.truthmove.org/content/operation-gladio/
[6] A partial listing for your own research follows: The Power of Nightmares BBC documentary by Adam Curtis. This is freely available to watch from various sources on the internet. ‘Al Qaeda and the ‘War on Terrorism’’ By Michel Chossudovsky, January 20, 2008. The Centre for Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7718 and read the updated version of his 2005 book: America’s War on Terrorism by Michel Chossudovsky,| ISBN 0-9737147-1-9 2005. wwwglobalresearch.ca.: “…new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy. According to Chossudovsky, the ‘war on terrorism’ is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex. September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.” | See also: ‘Divide and Conquer: The Anglo-American Imperial Project’ by Andrew G. Marshall, Global Research, July 10, 2008 and ‘The Myth Of The Palestinian Suicide Bomber’ By Joe Quinn, Sott.net, 29 Jan 2007.
[7] ‘Al Qaeda: The Database’ by Pierre-Henry Bunel, Wayne Masden report November 18 2005. “In yet another example of what happens to those who challenge the system, in December 2001, Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel was convicted by a secret French military court of passing classified documents that identified potential NATO bombing targets in Serbia to a Serbian agent during the Kosovo war in 1998. Bunel’s case was transferred from a civilian court to keep the details of the case classified. Bunel’s character witnesses and psychologists notwithstanding, the system “got him” for telling the truth about Al Qaeda and who has actually been behind the terrorist attacks commonly blamed on that group. It is noteworthy that that Yugoslav government, the government with whom Bunel was asserted by the French government to have shared information, claimed that Albanian and Bosnian guerrillas in the Balkans were being backed by elements of “Al Qaeda.” We now know that these guerrillas were being backed by money provided by the Bosnian Defense Fund, an entity established as a special fund at Bush-influenced Riggs Bank and directed by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith.”
[8] ‘Researcher: Bin Laden’s beard is real, video is not’ – Digital evidence supports the theory that Al-Qaida is recycling old footage to create new messages. Cnet.com September 12, 2007.
[9] ‘Existence of ‘Al-Qaeda’ Is Crap; Quite Literally’ – Did Osama really choose to name his terror network after potty humor or was it a computer database he used to chat with his CIA handlers? By Paul Joseph Watson, PrisonPlanet.com| October 6 2006: “The origins of the name “Al-Qaeda,” and its real arabic connotations prove that every time the Bush administration, Fox News, or any individual who cites the threat of ‘Al-Qaeda,’ as a mandate for war and domestic authoritarianism, they are propagating the myth that such a group ever existed.
An organization by the name of “Al-Qaeda” does not exist and has never existed outside a falsely coined collective term for offshoot loose knit terror cells, the majority of which are guided by the Pakistani ISI, Mossad, the Saudis, MI6 and the CIA, that were created in response to America’s actions after 9/11 – as the recent NIE report shows. According to the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, the infamous footage of Bin Laden marching around with armed soldiers was a ruse on the part of Osama himself, graciously propagated by the lapdog press, in which actors were hired off the streets, given uniforms and guns and told to look aggressive.” […]
[10] ‘The Chasm: The Future Is Calling’ (Part One) by G. Edward Griffin 2003, Revised March 17, 2011.
[11] ‘Odds That You Are a Terrorist: 1 in 624,297’ By Mac Slavo, SHTFplan.com, October 18th, 2013.

Save

9/11: The Point of No Return?

By M.K. Styllinski

 “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty.”

 – President G.W. Bush, at the United Nations, November 10, 2001


9-11_Truth_2Note: Let it be said right at the start: I am no 9/11 scholar. This is merely an attempt to refresh our minds about the nature of the September 11th attacks in the context of an emerging Pathocracy and the subjects previously discussed. Therefore, what follows in this series is in no way a comprehensive analysis of what is, after all a vast topic. That said, as part of an exploration of why humanity stands at the threshold of massive change, it would be foolish not to include a summary of the key elements involved in such a global marker. I hope the following posts help to at least clarify the subject for those beginning to take a serious look at the nature of our reality in this context.


September 11th 2001 and the World Trade Centre attacks are a signpost in the fortunes of social control. It was the day – perhaps more than any other in the last two hundred years – that saw geo-strategy and our societies change for the worse. With any major act of synthetic terror there is a window of opportunity to perceive the objective reality behind the noise and smoke before Official Culture brings the shutters down once more. Since 2001, anyone who has taken the time to carefully sift through the discrepancies, distortions and obvious lies of the official conspiracy theory will have to navigate through the minefield of individual and collective belief as to how the world works. We bridle at accusations that our thinking is often just second or third hand opinion lifted from mainstream radio, T.V., newspapers or blogs. Seldom do we truly question what we are being force-fed through the constant osmosis of “news”. What the mainstream media (MSM) and most of current academia believe doesn’t just impinge on our own evaluations but very often exclusively determines the quality and direction of our opinions. This is why the media has such a crucial role to play in the correct presentation and dissemination of information.

Unfortunately, we cannot trust the MSM to provide unbiased and objective analysis due to a variety of conflicting interests from corporate, government and Psychological Operations teams (PSYOPS) embedded in media institutions for decades and the internet since its inception. Our news is layered over with self-censorship and journalistic pride that will not touch subjects deemed taboo for fear of losing their job or even worse, losing respect and prestige so coveted in their respective fields. As a result, there are well-known journalists and academics for which the subject of 9/11 is off-limits because it is has evolved into such a “hot potato” of controversy that to address it would mean the end of their social standing.

It is also true that certain persons still operate from a hopelessly juvenile dictionary which they still prefer to use when appraising personal and external realities. They derive comfort in overly simplistic versions of national and international events, despite the apparent expertise and erudition in their chosen field. Their beliefs come first and reality is tailored towards it. They cannot and will not sanction the idea that a coup d’état could have taken place on September 11th and no amount of reasoning will alter such a position. The often smug, post-modern denials and ad hominem attacks are used as a battering ram against those wishing to find the truth and if you start to make some headway in connecting the dots you will likely be on the end of carefully targeted character assassination by the fearful and ill-informed.

Official Culture determines what is or isn’t possible regarding the nature of governments and the military-intelligence apparatus, which means an almost impenetrable wall preventing critical analysis and reasoned discourse. What is now labelled the 9/11 Truth Movement is no exception, having been thoroughly infiltrated by paid CoIntelpro agents tasked with sowing the seeds of in-fighting and disinformation.

Talk show host and “king of conspiracy theory”, Alex Jones is a prime example. Famous for his cringe-making rants and bombastic behaviour and extremely commercial internet websites, he manages to switch off anyone interested in discovering the objective truth about our world, though he naturally appeals to those of high school age just waking up to the world.  Jones exists to hoover up any and all information pertaining to conspiracy-related topics and thus helps to tarnish these subjects by association. If he happens to get invited on mainstream television he is so over the top and reactionary that any rational conversation is impossible. This is how CoIntelpro works: whether a conscious or unconscious agent, both will assist to deflect, distort and disinform.

alex_jones

Alex Jones Talk show host and “conspiracy king”.

Similarly, Go to the internet pages of the very popular encyclopaedia Wikipedia and search for the pages on 9/11 and you will come away thinking that the 9/11 Truth Movement is inhabited only by delusional nerds, that the official story is beyond repute and supported by cast-iron facts. Wikipedia is visited by millions of people every day who might be persuaded by the obviously skewed presentation; where voluminous pages expound on the official story, affording little time for critical appraisal and alternative arguments.

In reality, there are many well qualified, experienced, rational and sincere persons for whom the official story of 9/11 does not and cannot possibly be anything but a fictional account. Anyone who approaches the subject with an open but skeptical mind and are able to think critically about this issue will inevitably come away with the disturbing conclusion that something is very wrong with the narrative we have been sold. Yet, there is a constant maintenance of the official story by the MSM and governments world-wide.

Once you start digging, the propaganda, blatant lies, fallacies and distortions are so painfully obvious to those who take the time, that it becomes truly shocking how deeply managed our culture truly is. And be assured, you don’t have to go very far before the central premise of the official story shows itself to be no more than a house of cards waiting to tumble. But fear is the cement upon which the bricks of belief can be constructed. And it is sometimes terrifying to have all that one thought good and true scattered to the wind. But it must be done if we are to have any hope at all going beyond an illusion of democracy.


“I Believe…”

Two words which have determined the course of history.

We humans have a curious predisposition to seek belief instead of facts. All actions or non-actions are based around either direct verification by experience and attention to supporting evidence or a preference for belief which includes neither. Belief systems set a demarcation line that cannot be crossed. One is happy in one’s belief and reality defines it.  Our wishful thinking tends to offer temporary comfort from the demons in our subconscious shadows. The wish to believe provides it with a formal structure which we can re-affirm in the outer world, surrounding ourselves with others who have chosen the same “consensus” through which to live their lives. Threats to those constructs are often resisted with logical fallacies and emotional reactions:

“Because the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of God.”

“I believe in Science. If there is no empirical proof then as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t exist.”

“You don’t believe in all that 911 conspiracy theory nonsense do you?”

Peer groups and tribal memberships provide a rich reservoir of socio-cultural knowledge offering a ready template for custom-made ideologies. This is gradually adapted to one’s own personality and conditioned by long-term memory. If it fits with our need to survive in society, perhaps buffering us from pain, fear and uncertainty, then our social position, values, and objectives will conform to it. Conformity – at whatever degree or level – is a defining factor accompanied by a dictionary of interpretation which must exclude other forms of knowledge. When such a dictionary becomes out-dated and in conflict with the facts – even though new knowledge lies alongside it – that interpretation becomes a juvenile one, locked into the past and resistant to change.

Change, as we all know, can be very painful.

dreamstime_m_20965675© Krutoeva | Dreamstime.com – Through Rose Colored Glasses Photo

When assumption and ignorance are chosen as a way to protect ourselves from uncertainty, responsibility and unpleasant memories then abstract ideas provide the tool for social engineering and the seeds for ponerological influences. It logically follows that one’s beliefs can facilitate directions which – though founded on good intentions and “Christian principles” – may not be in the individual’s, groups’ or societies’ best interests. Any belief tends to reduce the potential for creative choices by limiting the field of awareness and therefore the quality of consciousness.

Psychopaths, social dominators and authoritarian personalities cling to their beliefs as a confirmation of their chosen, highly subjective reality. They serve any figure of authority be it a new age guru, academic lecturer or any type of leader that confers rewards for obedience. They prefer fantasy rather than what is, especially if, in the authoritarian’s case, it provides certainty against the unknown, however simplistic.

The psychopath will create reality according to his instinctive, primal desires which exclude all else. He will bend and force life into his twisted conceptions, whatever the cost and whatever the stakes. He turns the world into a poker game with guns and aces up his sleeve. Our wish to believe lends him momentum to achieve his goals; the projection of his self-belief is willingly received by those whose inner nature is vulnerable and without foundation. Belief restricts an open system of learning, which often includes suffering. Suffering accompanies self-growth as we discover what is, rather than what we would like it to be.

The world is conspiratorial by nature though this fact has been successfully glossed over by a combination of wishful thinking and perception management. After all, if you want to suggest that the government and its agencies have our best interests at heart then the denigration of those who offer an unprejudiced search for truth outside of traditional corporate controlled media is a standard tactic. It is also pertinent to mention recent university studies which reveal that the 9/11 official story “gatekeepers” fit the profile of irrational and emotionally unstable individuals when exposed to an alternative view of reality, no matter how sensible or logical that reality may be.  In June 17, 2013 online journal 21st Century Wire included a post entitled: ‘New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane, while government dupes are crazy and hostile’. Psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent found that:

“The research … showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.” […] “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

In other words, the stereotype of the conspiracy theorist as lunatic, fringe-fanatic, in fact generally described those who defend the official conspiracy theory provided by the governments and their media outlets.

Political scientist Professor Lance deHaven-Smith’s book Conspiracy Theory in America (2013) published by University of Texas Press provides further insights into the term “conspiracy theory.”

It is a matter of historical record, albeit widely unknown, that the CIA embarked on an illegal propaganda campaign to circulate the phrase so that it became a pejorative term. (See: “In 1967, the CIA Created the Label ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ … to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the ‘Official’ Narrative). So, when people began to question the 1963 assassination of J.F. Kennedy they would be ridiculed and defamed thus providing a psycho-social protection for the subject. As we know, there is nothing more powerful than the herd instinct for self-preservation. In the Professor’s own words: “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

WTC_smoking_on_9-11

September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers, 2001.

Studies have also shown cognitive dissonance and “confirmation bias” dominates the perceptions of those who prefer to believe in the 9/11 official story and many other official versions of historical conspiracies, despite many of those “theories” since proven to have been conspiracy fact. While hard-core skeptics and self-avowed debunkers tend to exhibit an absolutist  persona backed up by a militant belief in materialist science, what may be at the root of this apparent quest to find the truth is nothing more than an abnormal emphasis on the left brain, a neurological deficiency which limits the ability to see beyond their own authoritarian beliefs. This was revealed in spectacular fashion by Professor Bob Altemeyer’s studies on authoritarian followers.

There remains today a wealth of information on the internet and in published books regarding the events of September 11th 2001. You may be one of those people who consider themselves open-minded and well-read, willing to take on new sources of information in order to learn about our world in order to expand your awareness. Although there has been a sea-change in collective awareness you would still be in the minority. When we approach the subject with an open but skeptical mind, and sift through the media and US government’s official story of September 11th, then we will come up against a “conspiracy theory” that is logically inconsistent, defies the laws of physics, flies in the face of rational, deductive observations and fails to explain the reasons and causes of these events on so many different levels that we will likely suffer a change in our world-view. Depending how inured one is in Official Culture this will result in two emotional responses and the choices which must follow:

1) Shock and cognitive dissonance as a result of one’s cherished beliefs about the world coming under attack and the fear and stress induced. A shoring up of those beliefs may occur, calling a halt to any further research and a determined crystallisation of the official story. Depending on how deep the threat to one’s beliefs the information presents, the seeking out of groups and persons who can bolster and buffer those beliefs will take place where ridicule, disinformation and authoritarian precepts rule the day. No matter how illogical or irrational the stance, nothing must be allowed to penetrate these beliefs since they are bound up with identity.

2) A period of disbelief and sadness, perhaps even an initial rejection, followed by an interlude of reflection and soul-searching. This might lead to a re-visiting of the subject and the determination to find answers. The choice is made to seek a better understanding of the issues involved and arrive at more objective appraisal. The only way to do this properly is to network with others who have also recognised that something is seriously amiss.

That does not imply that all the answers are immediately forthcoming or even correct, only that the government story cannot be true and therefore a new, independent investigation must take place, however improbable such a possibility may be.

This brings us back to the idea that there are two types of people who will gravitate to either an a priori belief and the comfort it offers at the expense of truth, or the ability to think critically while maintaining an open mind – a healthy skepticism if you will. Authoritarians, drawn from both conservative and the liberal, function largely on emotions which are used to defend their worldview. The intent behind any assessment of new information is based not on the search for truth but the need to maintain that belief and thus to “feel good”. Unexamined assumptions inform the reality of fundamentalists or absolutists who prefer order and error to complex truth. Since irrational criteria is used for assessing facts which are filtered through the controlling belief, they cannot be aware of their own indoctrination and dogma.

9-11-2011A

Freedom lights anniversary (wikipedia)

Ideally, true critical thinkers, with a broad knowledge of many fields test the certitude of their conclusions. Experiential knowledge and networking without prejudice acts as the litmus test for evaluations. Lying to themselves does not feature and nor do manipulative appeals to the emotions. Impartiality and objective observation of each opposing camp is analysed while using their heads and their hearts to position themselves fairly, even if it leads to the break-down of a hidden bias or the discovery of a set of assumptions. They are aware of how easily it is to deceive themselves. This latter grouping is lacking in relation to the 9/11 inquiries and related fields – most especially ponerology.

This is what makes the events of 9/11 a highly controversial issue because it is not simply a matter of addressing the gargantuan holes in the government story; it is akin to peeling away the outer layers of an onion which can stimulate a parallel process to occur within ourselves. It is here that we find the crux of the challenge: this process of discovery is potentially more painful than simply pointing out errors in logical reasoning and scientific principles; far more sensitive than addressing social, cultural and geo-political justifications for why the official story doesn’t make sense. As you dig deeper you realise that what we considered to be truth and reality is turned upside down and that is akin to experiencing a form of withdrawal from our addictive, Official Culture. Our faith and trust in our valued institutions and the beliefs – so often based on a false interpretation of history – can be shaken to the core. So much so, that our world-view begins to unravel and thus our sense of self.

If you are one of those who consider themselves outside such cultural shocks then perhaps your particular belief hasn’t been discovered yet. The deceptions inherent in the 9/11 attacks may be easy for you to take on board but there are sure to be other “sacred cows” lying buried …We all have them. When we have not been suitably prepared and these revelations happen too quickly we can fall into loneliness, sadness and even depression as a result of knowing what we would rather not know, perhaps having shielded ourselves from what we knew to be true deep down. Or, we can go to the other extreme and become drunk on the new information, our intellect inflating to the extent it squeezes out emotional nuance and thus proper communication. We become trapped in that particular mirror and over identify with the subject in question, becoming fundamentalist in our quest. 

This is the greatest challenge to the uncovering of information and knowledge regarding 9/11 and other crimes, as it demands that we shine the light on the darkness in the outer world thereby highlighting our own inner complacency. Those factions within the Establishment who may have sanctioned and perpetrated the events of 9/11 rely on the fact that many will not go against a complex and tightly-woven set of beliefs and their societal constructs. This programming instinctively resists any attempts at disclosure and investigation in favour of the status quo. 

dreamstime_m_34143077

© Alphaspirit | Dreamstime.com – Businessman Like An Ostrich Photo

The events of 9/11 are unquestionably a rich field of discourse not just because the world changed into a more paranoid and dangerous place since that tragic event, but because the answers to so many questions about the role and function of government, the media and commerce lie within it. It is the central core from which various paths of deleterious influence fan out, and which can be traced back to providing tangible benefits to a select few. Machiavellian strategies are always in the shadows stimulating these collective traumas in the mass mind and suitably conditioned to accept the solutions proffered, however ridiculous. Qui bono always applies.

After the whitewash of the 9/11 commission, the still deafening silence of much of the MSM and infiltration of the 9/11 Truth Movement by CoIntelpro, it may be that researchers and investigative journalists have lost the initiative they might have had. Every year which goes by gives an advantage to those who perpetrated this ambitious crime. The dire consequences for the American people and for the world in general cannot be overstated. The present police state in the USA and geopolitical events in the Middle East and the Ukraine are testament to this fact.

Despite this, there is hope. More and more people are deciding to think critically about the events of that day and the surrounding geo-political narratives. It will be an arduous task to produce a consensus where it counts regarding the events of that day, let alone push for an independent investigation. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that our social systems have largely evolved to keep us compliant and docile and/or pathological and disturbed. The tranquility of mind and openness necessary to make informed choices on this subject must be hard won, especially when Establishment dynamics largely operate in secrecy along with policies in plain sight which require an understanding of their vocabulary and insider language. Thanks to independent internet journalism the blindfold might be slipping … slowly but surely.

As noted in previous posts, secrecy and conspiracy are the standard pillars holding up our Official Culture. A reminder from historian and researcher Richard M. Dolan will underscore the fact:

“Nearly everything of significance undertaken by the military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occurred in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years not a single member of Congress knew about it, although its final cost exceeded the then incredible total of $2 billion. During and after the Second World war, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.” [1]

Undue secrecy and manipulation on the part of Empire always fails in the end, albeit going underground. The trick will be to predict how and when those roots may rise again. Hindsight is after all, a wonderful thing. But thanks to pioneers in the fields of psychopathy and ponerology we are now seeing a return to ancient wisdom, which, down through the ages may have been alerting us to the evil in our midst. That’s where a finely-tuned psycho-social conscience is crucial in preventing the ascendance of psychopaths in power, and when it becomes a matter of soul survival for the individual and his culture.

So, with this in mind, how did it get to a state of affairs where the American public (and much of the world) could so easily accept the Hollywood version of 9/11?

To answer this question, we must take a brief detour back to Mr. Edward Bernays who contributed to a very modern psychological coup against the US population and the consequent systematic dumbing down of its education.

 


Notes

[1] p.23; introduction; UFOs and the National Security State Chronology of a Cover-up – 1941-1973 (2002) By Richard M. Dolan. Published by Hampton Roads Publishing Co.