9-11: Operation Pearl

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2003 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Here's a new analysis of how 9-11 could have gone down. It's somewhat lengthy, but worth the read. I'm curious to know what our resident experts think of it...

Operation Pearl
A. K. Dewdney, September 2003
Version is 1.0, 20th October 2003. Please note text is subject to revision.
1 Summary
It is possible to produce the appearance of a terrorist attack on the United States by means that do not employ terrorists, as such, but by the simple substitution of one aircraft for another, particularly when the transponders of the aircraft involved are turned off. The only people who need to be deceived by such an operation are the radar operators at air traffic control (ATC) centers.

The scenario explored here, called Operation Pearl (after Pearl Harbor), has been described in sufficient operational detail that sound judgments can be made about a) feasibility and b) consistency with evidence on the ground. At the time of this writing it is probably the best available description of what probably took place on September 11, 2001.

The whole article: physics911.org...

Mod edit: All caps title.

[edit on 24/11/2006 by Umbrax]




posted on Oct, 20 2003 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Just as a point of info, A Google search by entering "Operation Pearl" lists about 334,000 results...It's going to take a while to sort through this...

However, just the sheer volume of info listed seems to suggest that it was all planned & orchestrated by the US Government right from the start...



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 04:08 AM
link   
There are to many signs that 9-11 was a government job. Too many people are turning their cheek and refusing to see the light.



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I admit I didn't read the entire study, but I did sit and skim it for about 10 minutes. It was really well done. It didn't change my opinion, rather, affirmed it. That's what I've believed all along anyway.

I think that there needs to be an independent inquiry into our government, it's amazing how corrupted they've become. I'm truly surprised at how easily we all bought their story as truth. I'll tell you, I'm going to have a much harder time trusting the gov't in the future.



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 04:42 AM
link   
The writing is high quality and frightening. The way a few of the unanswered questions are accounted for by this "alternative" is quite compelling.

The scenario, to me at least, is less plausible.

I just don't buy into passengers from three jets happily marching on board their new plane from Harrisburg to Dulles without making some quick on-the-ground cellphone calls, at all.

Remember, it is written up as an "alternative". I rate it an exceptional piece of research and creative writing, much better than any French writer's commercialisation of the missile into Pentagon theory.



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 04:47 AM
link   
I am afraid that on my first reading I missed the "Leave cellphones on board, don't make calls they could trigger explosives" scenario.

But I would not obey such an instruction, besides which most people carry their cellphones on them.

It's bull#.

[Edited on 21-10-2003 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Interesting read. The story to me seems slightly unbeleivable although it is a terrifying idea. I didn't think the evidence was all that great though. All the stuff about the air traffic control 'blip crossing' thing seems a little hard to swallow. It is however a possible idea s to what happened at the pentagon becuase I still think that the damage and rubble at the Pentagon crash site where completely inconsistent with a plane crash.



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Loki
I admit I didn't read the entire study, but I did sit and skim it for about 10 minutes. It was really well done. It didn't change my opinion, rather, affirmed it. That's what I've believed all along anyway.

I think that there needs to be an independent inquiry into our government, it's amazing how corrupted they've become. I'm truly surprised at how easily we all bought their story as truth. I'll tell you, I'm going to have a much harder time trusting the gov't in the future.


As Reagan said, TRUST but VERIFY.



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I am afraid that on my first reading I missed the "Leave cellphones on board, don't make calls they could trigger explosices" scenario.

But I would not obey such an instruction, besides which most people carry their cellphones on them.

It's bull#.


Remember MA, in a situation of that nature, when people are frightened and at the mercy of the government, they might not be so apt to question. Out of fear, they usually trust whatever leadership appears. Afterall, remember, our government would never do anything to hurt us...
Bad # happens in throes of trauma. The controllers play that to 9's.



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
Interesting read. The story to me seems slightly unbeleivable although it is a terrifying idea. I didn't think the evidence was all that great though. All the stuff about the air traffic control 'blip crossing' thing seems a little hard to swallow.


For anyone who wants to further understand the art of aircraft piggy-backing/swapping read
"Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA" Terry Reed, a pilot, Vietnam Vet and CIA asset describes in detail the art of making airplanes invisible by piggybacking. It's an incredibly frightening and eye opening book, not to mention nausiating to the politically naive. And remember, these are theories. It's better to discuss theories than swallow a pile of Bu#.




posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Here's more from Dewdney:

The Missing Wings
A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting
from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building

A. K. Dewdney and G. W. Longspaugh
Version is 1.0, 20th October 2003. Please note text is subject to revision.
Abstract
Detailed analysis of the debris field, physical damage, and other factors in the alleged impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001 reveals an almost complete absence of debris expected from such an event. (Elliott 2003) The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit an entire Boeing 757. In order to decide whether or not a Boeing 757 (or aircraft of comparable size) struck the Pentagon on the morning in question, a comprehensive review of all the debris and other physical evidence is hardly necessary. It turns out that a study of the wings alone suffices for the purpose.

physics911.org...



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Very compelling and informative, and I do believe that something along these very lines is what happened. But yet there seems to be not much interest of the public in general to want to investigate something like this. Or is it just to far-fetched for them to believe or comprehend?



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracer
Very compelling and informative, and I do believe that something along these very lines is what happened. But yet there seems to be not much interest of the public in general to want to investigate something like this. Or is it just to far-fetched for them to believe or comprehend?


I think ya hit it on da head, partner. The mainstream media ain't tellin' the folks to think it. Remember? Don't get off message, now. Remember the OFFICIAL story.


QUIT BEING FEEDERS PEOPLE! THINK FOR YOURSELVES!
QUESTION EVERYTHING!



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 10:42 AM
link   
This particular theory left out the WTC7 building falling and thus missed out on describing what was likely either one explosives laden building or three. Its a sound theory, but one that leaves out a couple of important and glaring anomalies of that day.



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
This particular theory left out the WTC7 building falling and thus missed out on describing what was likely either one explosives laden building or three. Its a sound theory, but one that leaves out a couple of important and glaring anomalies of that day.


Would you mind sharing what you feel was left out? (I'm definitely no expert on physics!)



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I believe heel is saying that no mention of wtc7 was made in the theory...and have to agree with him on that.



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by tracer
I believe heel is saying that no mention of wtc7 was made in the theory...and have to agree with him on that.


I guess I just wasn't thinkin of that 'cos I believe the TRUE cause of those buildings coming down was by charges placed within. JUST LIKE OKC. (Murrah building)



posted on Oct, 21 2003 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Here's a site on wtc7:

911research.wtc7.net...

I havn't had a chance to look at it yet, but it comes recommended by a solid source. Lemme know whatcha think.



posted on Nov, 21 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Hmmm, no replies since 2003. Need a bump, I believe...


Here's a link to a word document - "Operation Pearl". I think the opening link in this thread is no longer valid.



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Thanks for posting an updated location of this document Hellmutt. I've read it twice so far and think it's an amazing look at what could've actually happened.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join