Trump Hysteria, Left Hypocrisy and the Four Drivers of the Deep-State / Overworld Part III

By M.K. Styllinski


© infrakshun

Setting aside the possibility that Trump was “allowed in” at the eleventh hour once Killary was found to be a liability and hot on the heels of DNC vote rigging, [1]  there can be no doubt that he had a substantial platform of ordinary support. [2 ]Regardless of the complexities of the path Trump must now follow, in order to understand why so many voted for the man we have to a) understand the international and domestic background to his popularity b) whether or not he is going to be a significant impediment to the shadow government.

The intense dissatisfaction with government in both the United States and Europe was sourced from a decades long bubbling resentment against the Powers that Be and their corrupt, criminal enterprise we call the White House, Congress, its federal agencies and the European Union’s endless unelected bodies of Eurocratic corruption. Both perpetuate a neo-liberal economic monster the likes of which culminated in the sub prime housing crisis in the states encouraging a form of financial warfare between banks and corporations all due to a huge popping of a financial bubble the shock waves of which had serious repercussions in Europe. Hello austerity measures. Thanks very much said the banking cartels. It was to result in the further consolidation and centralisation of this economic model and a return to business as usual on a higher and more risky turn of socio-economic resource extraction (people being the ultimate resource).

This led to a massive financial bonanza for the rich whilst the poor and middle classes shouldered the cost producing a sharp rise in mental illness, poverty and hardship. Americans, who were already reeling from the Bush-Cheney era, unnecessary foreign wars and the commensurate rise of the police state bore the brunt of this cynical exercise in propping up a dying banking system. Most importantly, such obvious criminality gave rise to complete disillusionment, anger and fury against the Establishment and politics.  A large proportion of the American public saw through the veil and responded to Trump as a relative outsider who appeared to speak their language, appealed to traditional right wing America as well as Libertarians and those in between.

In one sense, the reasons why Trump found himself as president is not the point. Trumphobia is a side show and a distraction. What the new president elect is up against – indeed everyone who truly has a conscience set afire by our brother and sister’s suffering – are the engines or drivers of psychopathic infection which create our present Official Culture, its pathological enculturation and adjustment to a false normality. Moreover, these drivers encourage us to fuel our institutions, governments, military, and socio-economic infrastructures largely by default and with an alien perception of the psychopath and narcissist, spreading like a psycho-virus from the trusted but entirely broken model of statism – a belief in the state as both provider/enforcer and from which all our ills are created.


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]


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]


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

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.”



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]


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 law 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.


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?


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?


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.



[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.

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 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]


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.


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


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]


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.


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.


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).


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:


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?


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.


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?


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]


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.


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.



[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.
(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
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
‘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.

Technocracy XI: Social (SMART) Grid and “Cognitive Infiltration”

“A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.”

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

thSocial networking websites like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Yahoo! and others have offered new ways to chat, make friends, speed-date and keep in touch with family wherever you are. It has revolutionized information in ways which we are only just beginning to understand. The networks have become such a normal part of our daily lives in such a short time that it is only recently that serious questions about privacy and surveillance have filtered through to the MSM. But ethical questions are being left behind as the Information Age surges ahead. Indeed, if you don’t have a Facebook account then you have already consigned yourself to the hinterlands of suspicion and abnormality. According to some, this may even be a red-flag for suspected terrorist or paedophile. Such is the power of social networking websites on society and the ridiculous assumptions now circulating. [1] $billion companies like Twitter and Facebook have become the largest database on the global population, representing a free and easy resource for intelligence agencies to data-mine. With over 900 million active users it is not difficult to see how useful data catchment could be.

Growing awareness that social networks are being used by intelligence agencies to monitor citizens’ activities prompted cyber-consumer advocate Electronic Frontier foundation (EFF) to file requests in October 2009 to provide records about federal guidelines on the use of social networking sites for investigative or data-gathering purposes. Among other issues related to surveillance as discussed previously, they sued the CIA, the US Department of Defence, Department of Justice and three other government agencies for allegedly refusing to release information on their involvement in social networks. The cases are on-going.

There are so many dubious aspects to Facebook aside from its intelligence connections and origins it is hard to know where to start. We will pinpoint a few however.

The company makes no secret of is its drive to know everything about its members. It wants to extract and mine as much the data from them as is humanely possible and then make it available to all kinds of interested parties. The implications of their drive to happily make your social life – including information you might not ordinarily reveal – fully integrated into the net experience is of course, never discussed. Facebook has been busily creating “Shadow Profiles” in a bid to extract even more information. Using various functions on the software interface which encourages users to share personal data of other users and non-users of Facebook such as mobile phone synchronization, search queries, friend invitations, email-provider imports and instant messaging means that even if you don’t use Facebook you may have a profile nonetheless. [2]

Since Facebook is such a fan of being “social by default” then it shouldn’t be concerned when the tables are turned. Since Facebook revealed in 2012 that more than 83 million Facebook accounts (8.7% of total users) were fake accounts, ongoing controversies with privacy issues, class action lawsuits and litigation as well as the virtual ownership of members’ profiles, it is hardly surprising this was reflected in the stock value which dropped below $20 in the same year. [3]

th“You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.”

– Facebook Terms of Service. (It has since been updated yet protests groups claim little has changed).

When independent software developer Pete Warden crawled all the data that Facebook’s privacy settings changes had made public, the company sued him. This occurred before the Open Graph API system which means they were planning to make the data publicly available anyway. As Vice President of Engineering at Border Stylo Dan Yoder comments: “Their real agenda is pretty clear: they don’t want their membership to know how much data is really available,” stating further: “It’s one thing to talk to developers about how great all this sharing is going to be; quite another to actually see what that means in the form of files anyone can download and load into MatLab.” [4]

In 2010, a Canadian security researcher Ron Bowes created a specific crawler script which he then used to take information from Facebook’s open access directory. He managed to download 2.8Gb of personal details including credit card numbers, account names, profile URLs and contact details; names of those users’ friends, (even with hidden profiles) and more intimate photos of over 100 million Facebook users. This cache of private information gold was then dumped on P2P file-sharing service BitTorrent, which was subsequently downloaded by scores of major corporations many hundreds of times. The point was not the relative ease by which such data was “stolen,” though this is an important issue, it was the fact that the data is already publicly available, provided Facebook members have not chosen to hide their profile from search results. [5]

As of 2012, there are now a raft of members, celebrities, underwriters and advertisers all taking a cut of Facebook profits. On the management board is co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg with the largest ownership percentage of an individual at 28% (he is worth $33.1Billion) with co-founders Eduardo Saverin, Dustin Moskovitz, Sean Parker taking between 6-4%.  Venture capital company Accel Partners, Russian internet firm Mail du Ru take 10% repsectively and former PayPal CEO and venture capitalist Peter Thiel 3%. Thiel sums up Facebook’s history of double-dealing and entrepreneurship very well.

mark-zuckerbergCEO Mark Zuckerberg

The first lump sum from his venture capital funding amounted to $500,000 – a tidy sum no doubt drawn from his £3bn hedge fund Clarium Capital Management and a venture capital fund called Founders Fund. Thiel is the Author of an anti-multicultural missive The Diversity Myth and on the board of VanguardPAC a radical internet-based Neo-Conservative pressure group that was apparently set up to attack MoveOn.org, a left-liberal pressure group website. VanguardPAC’s mission is to “reshape America and the globe” according to Neo-Conservative values – the type of values which are still carving up the Middle East. Thiel is certainly not the shy and retiring type and promotes a New World Technocracy laced with transhumanist and right-wing conservatism. The Guardian’s Tom Hodgkinson summarises Thiel’s curious mélange of fascist views: “… since the 17th century, certain enlightened thinkers have been taking the world away from the old-fashioned nature-bound life, and here he quotes Thomas Hobbes’ famous characterisation of life as ‘nasty, brutish and short’, and towards a new virtual world where we have conquered nature. Value now exists in imaginary things.” [6]


Peter Thiel: Technocratic Neo-Conservative

From where did Theil obtain his inspiration? Stanford’s University’s René Girard and his mimetic theory that states all cultures and ancient societies were built on the victimisation and an eventual sacrifice of the innocent, even though they believed they were guilty. Mythology was used to legitimise and rationalise the fact that society was founded on violence. If Girard believes that people are sheep and will follow the one strongest in the herd then according to Hodgkinson:

“The theory would also seem to be proved correct in the case of Thiel’s virtual worlds: the desired object is irrelevant; all you need to know is that human beings will tend to move in flocks. Hence financial bubbles. Hence the enormous popularity of Facebook. Girard is a regular at Thiel’s intellectual soirees. What you don’t hear about in Thiel’s philosophy, by the way, are old-fashioned real-world concepts such as art, beauty, love, pleasure and truth.” [7]

Perhaps this is something that may be said for much of the neo-feudalist collectives currently infiltrating our social systems?

Consider the other board member of Facebook, Jim Breyer a partner in the venture capital firm Accel Partners who put $12.7m into Facebook in April 2005:

“…. On the board of such US giants as Wal-Mart and Marvel Entertainment, he is also a former chairman of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA). Now these are the people who are really making things happen in America, because they invest in the new young talent, the Zuckerbergs and the like. Facebook’s most recent round of funding was led by a company called Greylock Venture Capital, who put in the sum of $27.5m. One of Greylock’s senior partners is called Howard Cox, another former chairman of the NVCA, who is also on the board of In-Q-Tel. What’s In-Q-Tel? Well, believe it or not (and check out their website), this is the venture-capital wing of the CIA. After 9/11, the US intelligence community became so excited by the possibilities of new technology and the innovations being made in the private sector, that in 1999 they set up their own venture capital fund, In-Q-Tel, which “identifies and partners with companies developing cutting-edge technologies to help deliver these solutions to the Central Intelligence Agency and the broader US Intelligence Community (IC) to further their missions”. [8] [Emphasis mine]

With significant lobbying costs totalling over $41,000 in just one quarter of 2010 the focus of their expenditure was primarily intelligence agencies such as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA). It was the only internet company to do so out of Google, Amazon, eBay, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple. The DNI is an umbrella office founded in the wake of 9/11 synthesizing intelligence from 17 agencies (including the CIA) and advises the President on privacy and federal cyber-security policy.

Which begs the question: Is Facebook lobbying merely to keep their operations free from interference for their Intel handlers?

Meanwhile, Facebook, Blogs, newspapers, radio TV channels, and internet chat rooms are poured over and monitored by the Open Source Centre or “vengeful librarians” – even the constant “tweets” from the Twitter network reaching over 5 million per day. Information is gathered by an army of analysts to find the low-down on the emotional level of a certain city demographic or whether a country is ready to be invaded or …”Democratised.”


 “Facebook is not your friend, it is a surveillance engine.”

– Richard Stallman, software freedom activist

It is now common knowledge that The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s command centre monitors blogs, forums newsgroups and message boards on a daily basis. Scores of popular websites, including Twitter, Facebook, WikiLeaks, Hulu, and many alternative and left-leaning news sites also come under the umbrella of US surveillance.

Among the many examples that the Obama Administration has provided and which go above and the beyond the Neo-Conservative crimes of the Bush-Cheney cabal is President Obama’s regulatory Czar and legal scholar Cass Sunstein. Just before his appointment as Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, this gentleman managed to add to the grand façade that is American democracy by writing a 30-page academic paper co-authored with Adrian Vermule entitled: “Conspiracy Theories.” In the paper he suggested the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. This “cognitive infiltration,” according to Sunstein, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.” This ban would be imposed on such heresies as anti-anthropocentric global warming; the World Trade Centre attacks on 911 were an inside job; Al-Qaeda is a US government-created mercenary unit for hire and a range of other proven conspiracy facts, most of which feature on this blog. By “conspiracy theory” Sunstein defines it as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

Heaven forbid we should try to expose that …

And of course, Sunstein implies that that there are no conspiracies operating in government, banking and corporate activities and if you are one of the mentally deranged few that believe so, then medical help and a good psychologist is the only path open to you. It seems everyone is a potential extremist if you are aren’t giving the government a virtual back-rub. He further suggests: ““… a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” [9]

Cass SunsteinCass Sunstein 2011, (AP Photo)

Sunstein’s objective is to raise: “… doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action,” which places a whole new angle on some of many trolls and trouble-makers who periodically appear on website forums to sow seeds of discontent in ways which follow distinct patterns of emotional programming indicative of paid disinformation agents. Indeed, PSYOPS targeting the web have been in operation for several years, possibly since the internet’s inception in some form or another.  Sunstein’s suggestions are merely an updating of the US Dept. Defence’s Information Operations Road Map of the future. [10]

To make sure such a future – and the mass mind – is firmly where it should be DARPA means to keep biometrics and the internet connected to the same port (which, one day soon, may be located at the back of our skulls). Pentagon scientists are helpfully creating a program to use biometrics as a platform for creating a “cognitive fingerprint” which would dispense with all those passwords building up in our little black books. Which means, according to their website: “… validating any potential new biometrics with empirical tests to ensure they would be effective in large scale deployments.” Named the Active Authorisation Program (AAP) it offers deep analysis of the user’s cognitive processes and thus their online behaviour in the hope of inventing new forms of biometrics so that your identity can be ascertained.

Parallel to this grateful assistance in making our lives so much more efficient and safe, online tech journal Security Ledger reported in April 2013 on one time hacker and DARPA’s cyber chief Peiter “Mudge” Zatko heading to Google Inc. Joining Google’s Motorola Mobility’s Advanced Technology & Projects (ATAP) group, it has a mission to deliver “breakthrough innovations to the company’s product line on seemingly impossible short time-frames.” While Microsoft continues to track users of the Windows phones which have a unique ID that interacts with Wi-Fi locations and GPS to know anyone’s longitude and latitude. Customer privacy isn’t a big issue for Microsoft and really any of the big internet companies. Google knows the password of every Android device (phone or tablet) which has ever logged on to a particular Wi-Fi network. (Android accounts for 79 per cent of phones shipped worldwide).

Business Insider’s article of August 14th, 2013 alerted us to the fact that if you are one of 400 million persons who chose Gmail then you can also expect no privacy at all. In a class action complaint of 2013 Google responded by claiming “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” So, be warned, even though it is unlikely you’ll be able to avoid Google even if you wanted to.

It seems Google and DARPA are courting each other for good reason.



[1] Is not joining Facebook a sign you’re a psychopath? Some employers and psychologists say staying away from social media is ‘suspicious’ Daily Mail, 6 August 2012.
[2] ‘Facebook Is Building Shadow Profiles of Non-Users’ October 18 2011, http://www.slashdot.org
[3] “Facebook: About 83 million accounts are fake”. USA Today. August 3, 2012.
[4] ‘Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook’ by Dan Yoder http://www.gizmodo.com May 3 2010.
[5] ‘How 100 million Facebook users ended up in a list on BitTorrent’ Jemima Kiss, The Guardian, 29 July 2010.
[6] ‘With friends like these …’ by Tom Hodgkinson, The Guardian May 2010.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] ‘Conspiracy Theories’ by Cass R. Sunstein (Harvard Law School) and Adrian Vermeule (Harvard Law School) January 15, 2008, Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03, U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199 U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387. [ During my own experience in working for several alternative news websites there was no question that persistent problems from site “trolls” on the relevant forums fell into this category. Some exhibited high knowledge on certain specialist subjects and exhibited a standard formula for contouring ideas and concepts which included the very same “cognitive infiltration” tactics cited by Sunstein and often in a highly elaborate form. Once “outed” they were gone but often the damage was already done].
[10] As part of the “Information Dominance” strategy of the Pentagon, ‘The Information Operation Road Map’ was a paper commissioned in 2003 and declassified in 2006. It was personally approved by the then Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. It included details of major PSYOPS disinformation campaigns to place false stories in newspapers and the internet as well as the kind of beginings of “cognitive infiltration” that Sunstein was so keen to see materialise.


The Psychopath: A Different Species? IV

“The ultimate cause of evil lies in the interaction of two human factors: 1) normal human ignorance and weakness and 2) the existence and action of a statistically small (4-8% of the general population) but extremely active group of psychologically deviant individuals. The ignorance of the existence of such psychological differences is the first criterion of ponerogenesis. That is, such ignorance creates an opening whereby such individuals can act undetected.”

– ponerology.com

To reiterate: the main qualities that distinguish the psychopath from normal persons include the absence of a sense of guilt for antisocial actions; an inability to love authentically; a tendency to be verbose and talkative in a way that is inevitably subjective and self-referencing. Manipulative, insincere, confident, egocentric, cynical, quick to anger, dominating, sensation-seeking, vindictive, and aggressive and above all, wholly lacking any indications of empathy or fear. These are some of the common and wide ranging personality characteristics which conform to the conscienceless individual. Their sole preoccupation is to deceive with the accompanying charisma and magnetic charm that disable all but those who are not armed and ready with the requisite knowledge.

Yet, Those of conscience routinely underestimate the primal depths to which psychopathic individuals may plum.

Łobaczewski states:

… our social, psychological, and moral concepts, as well as our natural forms of reaction, are not adequate for every situation with which life confronts us. We generally wind up hurting someone if we act according to our natural concepts and reactive archetypes in situations which seem to be appropriate to our imaginings, although they are in fact essentially different.  As a rule, such different situations allowing para-appropriate reactions occur because some pathological factor difficult to understand has entered the picture. Thus, the practical value of our natural world view generally ends where psychopathology begins.

Familiarity with this common weakness of human nature and the normal person’s “naïveté” is part of the specific knowledge we find in many psychopathic individuals, as well some characteropaths. [1] [Emphasis mine]

The complexity of ponerology is deep, with variation upon variation creating rich hybrids of pathology that science has yet to just fully recognize, not least to counter. Their expert manipulations and “masks of sanity” are always one step ahead, whether at the heart of the family or the higher echelons of shadow executive governments. What is also problematic are the effects resulting from exposure to a psychopath or psychopathic grouping. “If someone has personally experienced such a nightmarish reality,” says Dr. Łobaczewski, “he considers people who have not progressed in understanding it within the same time frame to be simply presumptuous, sometimes even malicious.” “This experience,” he continues, “[is] unceremoniously rejected by … [people and] becomes a psychological burden for him, forcing him to live within a narrow circle of persons whose experiences have been similar.” When one has interacted with a psychopath and been lucky enough to escape it usually means you are changed for life. [2]

Once again, it bears repeating: the raw truth regarding psychopaths and their unqualified success stems from their absence of conscience. Their total inability to understand and experience empathy and higher emotional feeling, rather than an impediment, fuels their innate desire to consume, extract and deceive. The depths to which essential psychopaths will go to achieve this end is another reason why they can be so successful in corporations and the police or military where high levels of endurance and authoritarianism are required. It also explains why the results of their actions have such catastrophic effects: they will never give up on their selected objective … unless they meet another psychopath with a bigger pedigree.

If we understand that no treatment has ever been effective in curing the psychopath we may then begin to comprehend the pathological results of our society as listed above.

Quoting Łobaczewski :

Approximately 6 percent of the population constitute the active structure of the Pathocracy, which carries its own peculiar consciousness of its own goals. Twice as many people constitute a second group: those who have managed to warp their personalities to meet the demands of the new reality ….

This second group consists of individuals who are, on the average, weaker, more sickly, and less vital. The frequency of known mental diseases in this group is at twice the rate of the national average. We can thus assume that the genesis of their submissive attitude toward the regime, their greater susceptibility to pathological effects, and their skittish opportunism includes various relatively impalpable anomalies.…

The 6 percent group constitute the new nobility; the 12 percent group forms the new bourgeoisie, whose economic situation is the most advantageous. …Only 18 percent of the country’s population is thus in favor of the new system of government. [3]

Think again about the prevalence of schizoidal propaganda and how easily people project their own values and beliefs onto pathological material. Without sufficient discernment we can be bamboozled into believing the most outrageous lies. The average number of character disordered individuals may be as high as 20 percent of the population. That means that 80-90 percent of the population has the potential to awaken to the reality of macro-social manipulation. Factoring in recent discoveries of Severe Attachment Disorder, [4] autism and Asperger’s Syndrome which may also have in some cases psychopathic symptoms, the overall figure of psychological deviants may be higher. We may also add a quota of the global population who have had their innate creativity and emotional sensibilities eroded from mass education and post-modern culture of apathy and nihilism along with the speculative umbrella of HAARP and ionospheric experiments of mass mind control. From an equally bizarre contribution and unexpected source we can further include the incidence of potential psychopathy or related subset through the condition of toxoplasmosis. This involves the presence of brain parasites altering the personalities of up to half the world’s population, thus making them more susceptible to manipulation and control. This includes the inclusion of data on suicides, schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. [5]

Many factors are undoubtedly at play.  That being so, any in-depth research on their effects are likely to bump up the percentage of pathologically compromised individuals to levels which exceed present estimates.

henry-kissingerHenry Kissinger – Sociopath?

tonyblair3Tony Blair – Pathological Narcissist?

Benjamin-Netanyahu_2641034kBenyamin Netanyahu – Essential Psychopath?

GTY_barack_obama_2_dm_130902_16x9_992Barack Obama – Schizoidal?

It is clear there is still much to learn regarding the true percentage of pathological deviations. It is also no coincidence that under any oppressive regime or form of covert/overt control “psychology is the first discipline to suffer from censorship and incursions on the part of an administrative body which starts claiming the last word as to what represents scientific truth.” [6] We saw this process only too well in downtown America where the Bush-Cheney administration was busy reordering and eliminating scientific thought that did not align with its own principles. This perception remains in place under Barack Obama and in some cases even expanded. Psychiatry with its history as a political tool against dissident oppression and its links to Big Pharma may be an exception to this rule. If it can be used as a way to give medical justification for imprisoning “terrorists” i.e. ordinary activists and citizens who disagree with the government – then it may form a crucial part of front line pathocratic rule.

The herd instinct is strong within humanity and is perhaps one of the most useful ways in which the Pathocracy and its cohorts shape the world towards its own ends. By subverting the networking principle of group consciousness to obliterate independent and creative thought, it becomes easy to erode the positive intuitions and instincts which could contain and isolate evil. Indeed, our lack of knowledge about its presence in politics means we work for it and sustain it, rather than calling it out. As Łobaczewski states: “Our zeal to control anyone harmful to ourselves or our group is so primal in its near-reflex necessity as to leave no doubt that it is also encoded at the instinctual level. Our instinct, however, does not differentiate between behavior motivated by simple human failure and behavior performed by individuals with pathological aberrations.” [7]

As we saw in our snapshots of Official Culture there are presently few opportunities for populations to cultivate the necessary discernment both in the psychological appreciation of their fellow man, the requisite internal observations and crucial environmental indicators. For instance, our ability to achieve silence and contemplation is negligible in the urban world. Our minds are seldom afforded the chance to step off the treadmill of sense-fixated production. Economic hardship is a result of an accumulation of wealth by the psychopathic few, or as cultural political scientist Michael Parenti explained:

We are told that wife-beating, child abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse, and other such pathologies know no class boundaries and are found at all income levels. This is true but misleading. The impression left is that these pathologies are randomly distributed across the social spectrum and are purely a matter of individual pathology. Actually, many of them are skewed heavily toward the low-income, the unemployed, and the dispossessed. As economic conditions worsen, so afflictions increase. Behind many of these statistics is the story of class, racial, sexual, and age oppressions that have long been among the legacies of our social order, oppressions that are seldom discussed in any depth by political leaders, news media, or educators. [8]

Our psychological survival and ability to live meaningful lives depends on our capacity to see these psychological differences in our local, daily life and adopt creative solutions to counter them. Yet, our culture is structured in a way that prevents any focus and attention toward the problems even while so many intuitively recognise and understand that: “in each society on earth contains a certain percentage of individuals, a relatively small but active minority, who cannot be considered normal.” The actions of this minority leave a disastrous psychic footprint upon the world. Our innate ability to retain subjectivity and to cling to comfortable reasons to deny this reality is reinforced by the very same ‘humanoids’.

Psychological ignorance is perhaps the greatest deficit within the field of human awareness, the knowledge of which remains the greatest threat to the minority of psychopaths’ intent on holding onto power. And like a rabbit in the headlights, we are habitually disabled when trying to operate on simplistic assumptions that all of us operate on similar humanistic principles, or as Łobaczewski mentions: when “… some unidentified psychopathological factor comes into play, the natural human world view ceases to be applicable.” [9] In other words, when human values are projected onto narcissists and psychopaths as a result of a standard barometer of a moral and ethical worldview, this is guaranteed to offer faulty judgments and reinforces the predator’s security. The original ideology or manifested group, business, or initiative – whatever it may be – can be imbued with the highest intentions though harbouring the pathogenic infection of its demise.

In Official Culture various domains such as agriculture, art, business and science had within them the initial seed of inclusive desire and group cooperation. Similarly, the peoples behind such ideas and those still adhering to the original principles may not be aware that the institution, government or agency has long been ponerised. After all, as  Łobaczewski observes: “The greater and truer the original ideology, the longer it may be capable of nourishing and disguising from human criticism that phenomenon which is the product of the specific degenerative process. In a great and valuable ideology, the danger for small minds is hidden; they can become the factors of such preliminary degeneration, which opens the door to invasion by pathological factors.” [10] 

It is probable that the Pathocrats (those members of a Pathocracy in key positions of power) believe they must maintain their control on the populace by either keeping us all in survival mode, embroiled in wars or drowning in sensation in order to ensure their genetic traits are perpetuated. To continue and extend their species they must incorporate fail-safe plans that reduce the populations of normal people and the ability of the affluent middle classes to sharpen their awareness and think “outside of the box”. Nonetheless, being a minority and therefore vulnerable, the Pathocrats’ dominance will inevitably weaken as normal people strive and obtain a more balanced playing field. For the psychopaths in all walks of life this would be a catastrophe. For those at the top of the military-corporate complex this is the worst case scenario because: “… the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the Pathocrats, a ‘biological’ necessity.” [11] This may give us some idea as to the source of eugenics and depopulation theories which have made an unwelcome resurgence of late. [12]

The massive PR machine is now tasked with keeping us locked into a media-led “social proof” and societal programming that keeps crime and abuse from being discovered. It has grown into an impenetrable barrier of fear where the herd instinct for self-preservation wins over any moral or humanitarian imperative.

As psychologist Professor Robert B. Cialdini points out:

To discover why canned laughter is so effective, we first need to understand the nature of yet another potent weapon of influence: the principle of social proof. This principle states that we determine what is correct by finding out what other people think is correct.

The principle applies especially to the way we decide what constitutes correct behavior. We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it.

Whether the question is what to do with an empty popcorn box in a movie theater, how fast to drive on a certain stretch of highway, or how to eat the chicken at a dinner party, the actions of those around us will be important guides in defining the answer.

The tendency to see an action as appropriate when others are doing it works quite well normally. As a rule, we will make fewer mistakes by acting in accord with social evidence than by acting contrary to it. Usually, when a lot of people are doing something, it is the right thing to do. This feature of the principle of social proof is simultaneously its major strength and its major weakness. Like the other weapons of influence, it provides a convenient shortcut for determining the way to behave but, at the same time, makes one who uses the shortcut vulnerable to the attacks of profiteers who lie in wait along its path. [13]

The Pathocrats profit from this self-organised instinct and the carefully selected path they have set before us as the only way – their way. A win-win situation develops as we become inured to the widening distances between what is and what is assumed. This social proof is applied to all areas of academic and media discussions and is a mighty barrier against obtaining true knowledge on the issues of social engineering and control. In the same way, while we decry the erosion of freedoms and the cloak of censorship, we are all self-censoring for the State. “Egotistic thought-terrorization is accomplished by the society itself and its processes of conversive thinking. This obviates the need for censorship of the press, theater, or broadcasting, as a pathologically hypersensitive censor lives within the citizens themselves.” [14]

Did you get the implications of that?  Are we able to see this viral influence in ourselves?

And what of a whole society?

Psychologist Anna Salter’s research into criminal psychopathy is also instructive regarding the stages of deception. Using interviews with psychopaths in US prisons she was able to illustrate why so many of the staff had been seduced by these individuals, not necessarily sexually, but where some form of compromise took place through sometimes highly subtle manipulations. She gives the psychopath’s formula for sniffing out their prey that can not only be applied inside the prison walls, but in the world at large:

Selecting a Targetkey factor: Vulnerability. Weaknesses are ruthlessly exploited via information gathering that appears to be just polite and friendly conversation. In reality, it is the stalking process.

The Law of Reciprocity – key factor: A reliance on a reciprocal response to ostensibly innocent requests, where the psychopath has already obliged the person to respond in kind. Cultural norms tailored to conscience are perfect for the psychopath’s armoury of manipulation.

The Demand and the Leverkey factor: Bonding and the Establishment of a “personal relationship” where the victim feels in control. Many Secrets are known about the victim and thus the psychopath has all the aces. Then the demand, which can be something seemingly minor in nature. But in one inmate’s words: “He’s crossed the boundary right there.” Once the request has been met the demands escalate until dominance is achieved.

Apply this to the home, school, or the family and it may be easier to see why pathologically compromised individuals are so slippery to prosecute, not least to identify.  What is even more disturbing is they can be superficially so likeable. That is, until they have extracted what it is they want from you, and like any arch-vampire, they leave you a shell of your former self – child or adult.

It is through widening our field of awareness that we can give hope to the children that are abused and sacrificed on the altar of psychopathy that continues to be built in our name. We must liberate our psychological awareness to free ourselves from a prison that has been forcibly erected deep inside our psyche. As Dr. Anna Salter stated so plainly: “why does it take thirty years of research for the rest of us to understand phenomena that inmates [psychopaths] grasp intuitively? It seems clear who the real experts are.” [15]



[1]  p.146-147; Political Ponerology.
[2] Ibid. (p.165)
[3] Ibid. (p.152)
[4] Severe Attachment Disorder in Childhood – A Guide to Practical Therapy by Dr. Niels Peter Rygaard authorized by D.P.A., Aarhus C, Denmark Translated from N. P. Rygaard, L’enfant abandonn6. Guide de traitement des troubles de I’attachement. 2005; Printed in Austria SpringerWien, NewYork; ISBN-10 3-211-29705-7.
[5] ‘The Return of the Puppet Masters’ by Carl Zimmer, January 17, 2006 | http://www.carlzimmer.com | ‘How Your Cat Is Making You Crazy’ By Kathleen McAuliffe, The Atlantic, March 2012 Issue.
[6] Lobaczewski (p.49)
[7] Ibid.
[8] Michael Parenti goes on to illustrate the full magnitude of this American Ponerogenic “infection”: “Conservatives are fond of telling us what a wonderful, happy, prosperous nation this is. The only thing that matches their love of country is the remarkable indifference they show toward the people who live in it. To their ears the anguished cries of the dispossessed sound like the peevish whines of malcontents. They denounce as “bleeding hearts” those of us who criticize existing conditions, who show some concern for our fellow citizens. But the dirty truth is that there exists a startling amount of hardship, abuse, affliction, illness, violence, and pathology in this country. The figures reveal a casualty list that runs into many millions.”
[9] op. cit. Lobaczewski (p.54)
[10] Ibid. (p.169)
[11] Ibid. (p.210)
[12] With a convenient mix of Malthusian and Darwinian Theory laced with a touch of eugenics, they have produced a perfect tool for the Pathocracy to decrease the numbers of the global population. While most of the problems of the world have been created by psychopaths in order to service their own needs they now intend to effectively “take out the rubbish” in order to survive. They intend to exploit the earth and what is left of normal well into their own grandiose eternity. For further reading see: The Inherent Rascism of Population Control by Paul Jalsevac (2004).
[13] “The psychologists speculated that, for at least two reasons, a bystander to an emergency will be unlikely to help when there are a number of other bystanders present. The first reason is fairly straightforward. With several potential helpers around, the personal responsibility of each individual is reduced: ‘Perhaps someone else will give or call for aid, perhaps someone else already has.’ So with everyone thinking that someone else will help or has helped, no one does. The second reason is the more psychologically intriguing one; it is founded on the principle of social proof and involves the pluralistic ignorance effect Very often an emergency is not obviously an emergency. Is the man lying in the alley a heart-attack victim or a drunk sleeping one off? Is the commotion next door an assault requiring the police or an especially loud marital spat where intervention would be inappropriate and unwelcome? What is going on? In times of such uncertainty, the natural tendency is to look around at the actions of others for clues. We can learn from the way the other witnesses are reacting whether the event is or is not an emergency.” Quoted from Influence: Science and Practice by Robert B. Cialdini, Published by Longman, 2004.
[14] op. cit. Lobaczewski; (pp.178-179)
[15]  op. cit. Salter, (p.152)