It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


9/11 Emergency Research Project

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2004 @ 02:56 AM
Hi there superfreak, welcome to the group. Some of the 'highjackers' are still alive, some spoke out to try and clear their names after these people were named. Cases of stolen identity. Although it's hard to know for sure who was really on the flights.

posted on Sep, 28 2004 @ 01:29 PM
I spoke with a friend of mine and he thinks that only four out of the twenty-four pilots survived, he thinks one survived from the World Trade Centre crash one from the Pennsylvania crash and two from the Pentagon crash.
Just a bit of an opinion from the public, He also thinks that the U.S government knew about the attacks before they happened. (Whether affects the project or not, I have to say I agree with him about the U.S already knowing.)

Anyway, the pentagon crash didn't go too well, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was supposedly planned to reinforce the pentagon attack.

Only one terrorist on the pentagon definitely survived and one is rumoured to be alive, the rest are dead.

There wasnt really that much damage to the pentagon because most of it is underground and it was only three out of several sections that were actually damaged by the Boeing. (Although there is a lot
of controversy about whether the plane actually hit in the first place.)

Im going to start of with a man named Khalid Almihdhar, an alleged hijacker on flight 77 (The flight that crashed into the pentagon), He is on a U.S Intelligence watch-list after officials received intel that he was meeting with known terrorists. Below is the best mug-shot I can find:

Next up is Majed Moqed, it seems he was asked for a state identity card when he tried to board the plane but somehow managed to get on by using a fake one that he managed to get his hands on at Department of Motor Vehicles on Aug. 2. Heres the photo:

Next is Salem Alhazmi, This one is definitely alive, he is currently in Saudi Arabia and works at a government owned petroleum plant in the city of Yanbu, the following is the best photograph I can find:

After him is Nawaf Alhazmi. It is known for a fact that he is dead, There isnt much information on this one apparently he was living in Fort Lee at the time, as I said there isnt much on this guy but I found a picture:

Next is Hani Hanjour, this man is a very interesting case, hes definitely dead but apparently he owned a commercial airlines licence and there was no record of him boarding the plane as a passenger, so could it be that he was a pilot and thats how he got on the plane? Anyway, he paid a speeding fine before the flight so it could also be possible that he was expecting to survive. Heres an image:

Im not One Hundred Percent sure about these facts no-one really knows what went on inside those aeroplanes and I dont anyone will ever find out. (I dont think anyone will want to find out, I know I dont)

posted on Oct, 10 2004 @ 06:32 AM

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

Waleed Al Shehri

In terms of this, the starnge part was the discoverry of Satam al-Sugami's passport in the rubble. How this object is supposed to have survived the inferno of the aircraft crash is anybodys guess. It is claimed that isreali agents were watching or maybe even came into contact with the hijackers before 9/11. I highly suspect that the passport was put there. I just cannot see it surviving that crash, let alone hte collapse.

"Investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying ... is considered career suicide." Carl Cameron, as quoted in The Spies Who Came In From The Art Sale,

posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 01:38 PM
Here's an article on what actually flew into the Pentagon. Excellent points made and hard to find photos included. I've interviewed the author myself. He knows quite a lot of inside stuff.

From Pop Goes the Bush Mythology, Part V.

We have been told by the Bush administration that American Airline Flight 77 was flown into the Pentagon by a "crack pilot" who was a marginal car driver. Hmm, I did not buy that story for even a second. That the Pentagon fire was so hot it vaporized most of a 60-ton airplane including cobalt jet engine parts that would not evaporate in the temperatures of a normal building fire, but they got enough human DNA to prove who was on the flight. Hmm, if it were hot enough to melt a plane including a cobalt heat resistant jet engine, human DNA recovery would have been impossible so I don't buy that fable either.

So, how do we prove that the "Official Bush Story" is actually the "Official Bush Lie?"

That has not been easy and we have had many working on this night and day for three years to get to the bottom of the matter.

After the Pentagon attack, the video cameras and tapes at a nearby CITGO, the Sheraton Hotel along I-395 and Virginia DOT cameras were all confiscated by the FBI and they have yet to disclose any of the contents that were recorded by those cameras. Those cameras would have recorded what came in to hit the Pentagon and if viewed by the public, all the world would know that it was not a Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77, as we were told. All the world would know that Bush's assertion is in fact a huge lie.

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:22 PM
Here's some more information I came across. I thot I'd share..

Lots of links..

9-11: Holes in the Radar
Frank Levi and Team 8+ (Feb 2005)

They cunningly exploited vulnerabilities in the radar that only the US Military and the FAA should have been aware of.

Read more about:
Flight 77 Did it reappear to the West?

Flight 11 Was it in two places at once?

Flight 175 (COMING SOON)

Flight 93 (COMING SOON)

US Military please note: this text is not intended to offend the good people in the US Military. The implications of the article are that 9-11 was staged by elements of the US Government/Military but it is very unlikely that it involved the normal people in the military whose only intention is to protect their country.

Since 9-11, many people have wondered how it was possible that the four hijacked planes on 9-11 were able to cause such confusion and chaos without any significant response from America's air defences (NORAD). Even more amazing is the fact that a hijacked plane was able to both penetrate and attack within the protected air space around Washington DC.

It is already well established that the planners of 9-11 were aware of and possibly taking advantage of the military exercises and terror drills taking place on and around that day. (See War Games and Terror Drills under additional reading)

What we have discovered is that whoever planned and implemented 9-11 must have had detailed knowledge of both the NORAD and FAA radar coverage. They cunningly exploited vulnerabilities in the radar that only the US Military and the FAA should have been aware of. The 9-11 commission only skimmed the surface of these issues, using them as a means to draw blame away from the FAA and NORAD.

Another important question is why the hijackers took such long illogical routes to get to their targets. Why, for example, was Flight 93 not crashed into the World Trade Centre, which was in sight of the airport?

Analysis of the flight paths reveals the possibility that the planes were switched for substitute "drone" planes, operated by remote control and loaded with explosives to cause maximum damage. Although this is somewhat speculative, it is important to point out the anomalies in the flight paths that might lead us to consider this scenario. If you are unfamiliar with "plane-swapping" and "remote controlled plane" theories, please refer to Appendix C (Operation Northwoods and Remote Controlled Planes)

Before reading on, you may wish to review the appendices for an explanation of technical terms and some notes on the graphical techniques used throughout this piece.

It is also well worth reading the following article from the Washington Post. They explain in detail about why Flight 77 disappeared from the radar screen, leading the air traffic controller to believe that this flight had crashed.

Sources showing radar sites and coverage

(Click thumbnails for a larger image)

Surveillance Implications of 9/11 is an FAA analysis of the radar coverage on 9-11 and ways of dealing with future potential threats. The document contains a map of the United States showing internal ATC primary radar coverage (orange) and NORAD radar coverage (maroon)
Flight Explorer Personal Edition. A demo version of this flight tracking software is available to download from the Flight Explorer site. It allows you to view various map overlays including the locations of radar sites, ATC centre and sector boundaries and the locations of airports. Notice the different types of radar site e.g. ALB-T is an Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) used for Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON). Sites starting with Q are Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR). Some of these ARSR sites do not appear on the FAA map above. These are low power secondary only (or beacon only) sites that depend on a plane's transponder signal to show its location.

Sources of Flight Path data

Chapter one of the 9-11 Commission Report gives some diagrams showing the reconstructed radar data from the hijacked planes.
Flight Explorer is a publicly available program for tracking commercial flights. The data comes directly from the FAA and shows any commercial flight being tracked by Air Traffic Control as it progresses. The paths of the hijacked flights were automatically archived and the results made available to the mainstream media. (USAToday - animated Flight paths)
Flytecomm is another flight tracker. They also released archived footage of the hijacked planes but this time in the form of AVI video clips. Read the press release. These video clips show an EST clock in the bottom right hand corner. They feature some radar footage ignored by the other sources. We originally discovered the AVI clips here:

Jack Locutus of recently confirmed their authenticity by contacting Flytecomm support. They forwarded the same video clips back to him.

The Scenario

This map shows the 9-11 flight paths copied onto part of the FAA radar map (see above). The orange areas are FAA primary radar coverage, the maroon areas are NORAD radar (also used by FAA).

The areas with no primary radar coverage are emphasised in white. The "hijackers" clearly knew where the vulnerabilities in the radar system were. How?

Unless otherwise specified, the times and events in this sequence are taken from the 9-11 Commission Report or directly from the Flight Explorer/ Flytecomm data.

7: 59 Flight 11 takes off from Logan airport
8:14 United Airlines Flight 175 takes off from Logan airport
8:14 Hijacking of Flight 11 apparently begins. It may have been a staged hijacking or part of a terror drill.
8:21 Flight 11 switches off its transponder at the edge of an area that just happens to have no primary radar coverage. Two "drone" flights (remote controlled plane bombs) fly in from this no-radar zone and creep into the radar shadow above Flight 11. These drone flights may have been using Operation Vigilant Guardian as additional cover. Operation Vigilant Guardian was a huge military exercise taking place that week featuring Russian planes flying over the Arctic Circle to attack America. Meanwhile, Flight 11 begins to reduce its altitude.
8:27 Flight 11 appears to turn very close to Schenectady county airport. What really happens is that Flight 11 flies down towards the Mohawk river valley towards Griffiss Air Base (6) and the two drones, still flying in formation, continue down the Hudson river towards New York City.
Flight 11 either lands at Griffiss Air Base (home of NEADS, the North Eastern base for NORAD) or flies on to be shot down or destroyed over the great lakes.
8:39-8:43 At this point, Drone Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 come very close together. The remaining drone peels off from formation to rendezvous with Flight 175 over Stewart International airport.
8:46:40 Flight 11(drone) crashes into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.
8:42 Just before the crash, Flight 93 is taking off from Newark, around 42 minutes late.
8:47 Flight 175 switches off its transponder, right at the same time that Flight 93 makes a little unexplained detour to meet it. Both these planes are in the same place at the same time and Flight 175 disappears. Coincidence? No, Flight 175 flies West in Flight 93's radar shadow. Flight 175 goes on to land, possibly at Cleveland or Pittsburgh airport under cover of diversion. 8:51 Flight 175 deviates from its assigned cruising altitude.
(Time not available) Air traffic controllers spot an "intruder over Allentown" (Washington Post, Sept 17th 2001). This is a plane flying with an unidentified transponder code and is later assumed to be Flight 175.
9:03 It is, in fact, a drone flight that goes on to crash into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.
9:41 Flight 93, also in the midst of a staged hijacking or terror drill turns off its transponder and drops down low. A drone plane flying in through another hole in the primary radar coverage slips in to take its place on the radar.
10:03 Just before it is shot down, flight 93 is approaching Johnstown Airport. Coincidentally there was a meeting of the Local Emergency Planning Agency (LEPA) in the control tower of Johnstown Airport the day before (See The Johnstown "Terror Team" Cover-up). Was this plane supposed to be part of a terrorist attack drill? The drone, a white unmarked plane, is seen by numerous witnesses circling the crash site. Its presence is never properly explained
8:20 Flight 77 takes off from Dulles Airport (Washington D.C.)
8:39 Flight 77 makes a small detour to the north in an area with no primary radar coverage. At this point it meets the drone, which has flown down from the north through an area with no radar coverage.
8:51 Flight 77 makes its last radio contact. 8:56 It then switches off its transponder and disappears from ATC radar scopes. This is due to the fact that the radar tracking it at the time is a "Secondary only" radar site that depends on responses from the plane's transponder to give a location for the plane. The plane also turns at the weak centre-point between the two primary radars.
9:07 The Flytecomm video shows Flight 77 reappearing again and flying onwards to the west. The presence of this plane was confirmed by Col. Alan Scott at the 2nd hearing of the Commission (9-11 commission hearing, 23rd May 2003). It still appears to be in the air after 10:00.
(Time not available) Once again the plane exploits vulnerabilities in the radar coverage to avoid being shot down as it enters restricted D.C. air space. Dulles controllers raise the alarm that an unidentified plane is approaching Washington at about 9:29 (Washington Post, Nov 3, 2001)
9:37 The official time that Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon
Notice the precision timing involved. We frequently see two or more events happening at the same time, like a magician distracting the audience.

8:14 Flight 11 is hijacked; Flight 175 takes off.
8:39 Flight 11 and Flight 175 nearly meet; Flight 77 deviates from its path.
8:46/47 Flight 11 crashes; Flights 175 and 93 meet each other
8:51 Flight 77 makes last radio contact; Flight 175 deviates from its assigned altitude
The Witness

Did Bolivar man spot Flight 93?

By RENEE BROWN, T-R Staff Writer

A Bolivar man thinks he saw the ill-fated fourth hijacked airliner Tuesday morning shortly before it crashed south of Pittsburgh.

Tim Hacquard, who lives in the Hunter’s Green allotment off county Rd. 92, said he was watching the television coverage of the terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. and stepped outside.

“I witnessed a large plane that seemed to be flying low, very loud and not level,” Hacquard said. “I didn’t think there were supposed to be any planes in the air and I couldn’t understand why this plane was flying.

“There is not a plane in sight and then there’s a big old plane over my house. On an average day you don’t see those types of planes near Bolivar.

“If it’s a large plane, you can’t hear it or make it out because it’s too high. If it’s a normal plane, it would have stayed at a local airport.”

According to aviation officials, United Airlines Flight 93 was a Boeing 757 that left Newark, N.J., at 8:01 a.m. en route to San Francisco.

It crashed about 10 a.m. southeast of Pittsburgh, presumably killing all 45 aboard. Flight 93 was the fourth plane to crash Tuesday.

“Now I am wondering if this was the plane,” Hacquard said. He said he has some experience with planes, having served in the Air Force – but not as a pilot - for several years.

“It was way too low for that size plane,” he continued. “I was scratching my head. It wasn’t level and was flying somewhat erratic.

“I was thinking maybe it was a plane that had been directed to land, but then I found out a plane crashed in Pennsylvania and I saw the flight plan on the news. How far south did he come?”

Hacquard admitted he didn’t look at his watch to check the time, but he said he watched the large, commercial jet for 15 to 20 seconds.

“I just couldn’t tell if it was a United plane,” he said. “I was thinking, why would it be over Bolivar, why would it be in Ohio? Someone else had to see that plane.”

An FBI spokesperson in Washington D.C. said Wednesday she could not confirm or deny what Hacquard saw.

“I have no specific information on specific flight patterns,” she said.

However Fred Krum, director of aviation at Akron-Canton Regional Airport, acknowledged that the plane could have been close to the area at that time but he doesn’t think it was Flight 93 that Hacquard saw since “it would have been fairly high at that time.”

Another representative of the airport said Hacquard may have seen a military plane or a commercial plane ordered to land at the nearest airport.

Hacquard said the plane seemed to be flying away from the Akron-Canton airport, heading in a more easterly direction. He now also wonders whether the plane was being tracked by government officials.

What happened to the passengers?

Now the tricky part, if plane swapping took place, what happened to the real planes and the passengers? Unfortunately this is where we currently have to resort to educated speculation.

In Operation Northwoods we saw the original "plane swapping" scenario. In this case, the military planners at the pentagon were confident that they could fabricate passengers by creating non-existent IDs for the people on the plane. They were also noticeably confident that no-one would blow the whistle.

However, you can be sure that the 9-11 passengers are not on a desert island somewhere.

Perhaps a number of planes were shot down that day. This is where you get "layers within layers" of the cover-up. Picture this fictional officer speaking: "Listen guys, we accidentally shot down another plane that was conducting an emergency drill today. What really hit the North Tower was a jet that the hijackers chartered from Schenectady County Airport. You understand that the public don't need to know about this, right?"

There are many other possibilities, perhaps the passengers were killed before the plane landed at some remote location.

Conclusions and Summary

These are absolute facts that cannot be ignored:

Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight 93.
We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked)
Question 1: How did the "hijackers" know exactly where these huge breaches in air defence were located?

Question 2: Why go to all that trouble when you can take off from nearby airports (Dulles/Newark), hijack the plane and crash it straight away?

Appendix A: Technical Information

What are Primary and Secondary Radar? What is a transponder?

Read a detailed technical explanation

A primary radar site simply detects the location of a plane. Air traffic control systems can calculate the direction and speed by measuring its movement over time.

Commercial flights (and most others) use a device called a transponder that relays back detailed information about the flight when it detects a radar sweep. The transponder provides the controllers with additional information such as altitude and flight number. If the transponder is switched off, the flight effectively becomes an unidentified blip on the radar, although ATC can place a data tag (or block) on the blip for easier identification.

How do Flight Trackers work?

Microsoft provide a simple explanation:

Several years ago, the FAA made radar feeds available to commercial users. These feeds track the status of all aircraft under positive control from FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) centers throughout the United States—including both scheduled airline flights and business jets.

Simply put, the radar data received by Air Traffic Control can be seen in a slightly more visually pleasing format on a flight tracker.

Appendix B: Graphical techniques

Macromedia Fireworks was used to convert flight path graphics into transparent gif format. All background colours were changed to transparent leaving only the state boundaries and plane icons as opaque.

These transparent gifs can then be pasted as a new layer onto another map. The transparent layer is stretched, rotated and skewed as necessary to align the state boundaries. This gives a very accurate representation of a flight path on top of an alternative backdrop.

Appendix C: Operation Northwoods and Remote Controlled Planes

Operation Northwoods is a document discovered through the Freedom of Information Act which proved conclusively that high ranking members of the US military have planned in the past to use fake terror attacks to justify war. This particular plan was to justify an invasion of Cuba by carrying out numerous acts of violence and trickery.

A full scanned copy of Operation Northwoods can be seen at:

The matter-of-fact way in which this memo is presented is quite shocking.

"We could blow up a ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba"

"We could develop a communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities or even in Washington".

For the purpose of this article we will be focusing on one particular section:

This section deals with a mock shoot-down of a passenger plane with the intention of blaming Cuba. The basic points follow:

A plane at Eglin Air Force base would be painted up to be an exact replica of a registered plane belonging to a "CIA proprietary organisation" in Miami.
This painted plane would be secretly swapped with the real aircraft and loaded with passengers using fake identities. The real craft would be converted into a remote controlled drone. During the flight, the real aircraft (drone) would rendezvous with the fake aircraft. The plane with the fake passengers on board would fly very low and land in the base.
Passengers and plane would then return to normal and the drone flight would continue on its way
As the plane flew over Cuba a fake distress message would be broadcast indicating an attack by a Cuban MIG fighter. This would be interrupted by the remote detonation of explosives on board the plane.
A few other points to note: casualty lists in the US papers would create a wave of righteous indignation "(10) Sabotage ships in harbour; large fires--naphthalene." Naphthalene is used by Hollywood special effects people to create enormous "fuel-tank explosion" effects. Frequently used for plane crashes. deals with a fake shoot down of USAF plane and the distribution of fake plane parts in that location
Modifying planes to be flown by remote control is not a new idea. Read about Operation Aphrodite which goes right back to WWII.

NASA have also test-crashed remotely controlled passenger planes

Appendix D: The BTS data is the website for the "Bureau of Traffic Statistics". There is a searchable database which shows, for example, the departure times of all major passenger planes in USA. You will see listed below the conflicts between the official story and the data on this site.

7: 59 Flight 11 officially takes off from Logan
airport, though BTS database notes that it didn't
depart at all. (no wheels-off time)

2. 8:14 United Airlines Flight 175 officially takes off
from Logan airport, though BTS notes it departed at
8:23 (wheels-off time)

9. 8:42 Just before the crash, Flight 93 is officially
taking off from Newark, around 42 minutes late, though
BTS notes that it actually already departed at 08:28

15.8:20 Flight 77 officially takes off from Dulles
Airport (Washington D.C.), though BTS notes that the
flight didn't exist at all on that day.

Further Reading

Some very interesting reading about radar and Air Traffic Control by Tom Lusch.

This will give you a better understanding of why Flight 77 disappeared from the radar screen.

War Games and Terror Drills

Here are some sample articles on this subject

The lost "terror drill"? Pt.11 (A) (Nico Haupt)

The lost terror drill- Pt.11 B

Additional notes by Nico Haupt

Michael Kane: "9/11 War Games – No Coincidence"

Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11


posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:24 PM
Here's a link to the site..

posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:13 PM
Here's another analysis of the 9-11 commission report. I decided to list it here, for all consideration. It speaks of pre-meditation and precadent (damning BushCo. quotes - pre-9-11, OPERATION NORTHWOODS) He also mentions my main issue: Those jets being flown by REMOTE CONTROL.

9/11 Commission Report
With Alternative Recommendations
for Positive Change
by Stephen M. St. John
A Citizen Of The USA

From the southwest corner office of the 37th floor of a building four tenths of a mile NNE from the World Trade Center I saw the twin towers burning about ten minutes after the south tower was hit. A colleague who earlier had been standing at the window of an adjoining conference room saw the second jet as it approached the south tower from a distance much further out than is commonly seen on videotapes shown on TV. He told me with great emphasis how at first glance the jet's port wing was pointing almost straight down to the ground while the starboard wing pointed almost straight up. As the jet homed in on the south tower it leveled its wings horizontally just before impact. Thus the jet was in a sharp turn as it was aimed at the south tower in the final moments of flight. It was traveling at a very high speed normally reserved for cruising altitude. What all this means is that the gravitational pull inside the cockpit was such that lifting one's hand, let alone flying the jet, would have required prodigious effort on the part of the pilot - even an experienced pilot. How is it, then, that a novice hijacker-pilot could pull off this stupendous feat of daredevil aerial acrobatics when his experience at flying big jets was limited to routine training on flight simulators? Beginner's luck? Hardly. A more realistic explanation is that the plane was flown by remote control in its unerring high speed arcing path to destruction. The very same circumstances apply to the craft that hit the Pentagon. Again, the 9/11 commissioners did not delve into these circumstances at all, but kept to dubious newspaper accounts.

Harking back to the Zionist-Neo-Conservative principals of the PNAC, I note that one of them, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, was the Chairman of the International Division of System Planning Corporation (SPC), which designs, manufactures and distributes highly sophisticated technologies for remote control of aerial vehicles. Rabbi Zakheim left his position at SPC in early 2001 when President George W. Bush appointed him Under Secretary of Defense and Chief Financial Officer at the Pentagon. Thus, as Comptroller, Rabbi Zakheim had command of the Department of Defense's labyrinthine, bottomless accounts for six full months before the attacks of 11 September 2001. As a Zionist, Rabbi Zakheim had an interest in putting American muscle on Mesopotamian patrol. As signatory to a document including a psycho suggestion that "a new Pearl Harbor" would quicken Zionist-Neo-Conservative designs for global military dominance, Rabbi Zakheim had a motive to bring these plans to fruition by finding or even creating such a pretext for war. As a former corporate executive with a background in technologies for remote control of aerial vehicles, Rabbi Zakheim had a way - remote control of aircraft - to create "a New Pearl Harbor" which would launch the USA into invasion and occupation under false pretext. Again, the 9/11 Commissioners failed to take these circumstances into account and to weigh and consider them.

Such a "false flag" intelligence operation, in which the perpetrators artfully place the blame for their criminal act on their enemy, would surely have enough ready, able and willing facilitators in the Command/Control/Communications structures of the military, where Zionist-Neo-Conservatives have very great influence. Moreover, James Bamford, in his book Body of Secrets, gives a precedent for such outrageous, psychopathic criminality. "Operation Northwoods" called for the killing of fellow citizens of the USA in a false flag intelligence operation so as to create a pretext for the invasion of Cuba and restoration of Meyer Lansky's casinos under the guise of retaliation. Approved unanimously by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, their "Operation Northwoods" was immediately rejected by JFK. But this disturbing groupthink in the highest levels of the military and intelligence communities apparently persists along with drugs, tattooed profanity as well as anti-Arab and anti-Moslem sentiment. The 9/11 Commissioners, having not learned from history, did not even look here, even though the elements of motive, means and opportunity clearly converged between the ears of Rabbi Dov Zakheim.

Whoever this guy is, he knows his stuff.. He mentions a supposed airport security tape in the custody of Motley Rice Law Firm (from South Carolina). I know one of those lawyers personally. I never liked his politics. How did they come into possession of that tape, anyway?
Very curious.

an excerpt..

For nearly three full years prior to the release of The 9/11 Commission Report the fourth estate remained strangely silent about the lack of video surveillance evidence at the major high- security ("Category X") international airports from which the ill-fated flights departed on 11 September 2001. Journalists were content with repeated television broadcasts of two Arab men passing through a security checkpoint at Portland Maine International Airport for a flight to Boston earlier that morning. The same dumb silence of the news media persisted after the recent release of video surveillance tapes showing the alleged hijackers passing through a security checkpoint at Washington Dulles International Airport. The public broadcast of this Dulles Airport tape was nothing other than a media event timed to precede by 24 hours the official release of The 9/11 Commission Report. Yet few have noticed that this tape, which was provided to the Associated Press by the South Carolina law firm Motley Rice LLC, lacks a time stamp, which fact alone raises doubts about its authenticity. An Australian researcher claims that the pattern of sunlight and shadow in the background just outside the terminal door indicates mid-day rather than early morning. Moreover, the camera selects from other passersby two young Arab men, then follows them and zooms in on them, which indicates human agency and motive going beyond the normal operational parameters of airport video cameras. How can this be explained? Why is a private law firm the custodian of such evidence properly belonging to a government investigation?

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 05:47 PM
So, this project seems to have stalled. A lot like the whole 9-11 Skeptic Movement. You have the No planers vs. the planers, the radio/tv/web site hosts & writers attacking each other over motivations and you have some excellent former leaders who have all but turned their backs, in pursuit of more achievable objectives... like being ready for when all hell breaks loose on planet earth. Forget about trying to tie it all together and bring those who are REALLY responsible to justice.

I recieved an email today from a guy I'm sure many of you have heard of. I don't agree with some of what he says, and I do agree on some of what he says. In his latest rant (links included) I most definitely agree with his ending statements on what we need to do from this point forward. I am posting it in its entirety b/c I can't offer a link. Please read it. Consider it. And let us renew our effort in uncovering the truth behind the most dispicable crime in American history.

Agents provocateur?

How the hell can you really tell
valid criticism from clever deception?
By John Kaminski

Honesty is a tricky business. What happens when an honest assessment of the situation actually works against your ultimate objective? What do you do then, when one of life's little riddles sneaks up and bites you on the butt?

Well, first you examine your long term objectives. What is your ultimate purpose? What is it you are trying to do? And finally, what the heck are we here for, anyway?

Then you review the short term goal. What is it I was trying to accomplish? And does that immediate achievement justify sitting on facts you suspect to be true, but don't dare say? And ultimately, will aspiring toward the short term goal actually work against your long term objective?

I could at this point veer into the murky territory that both links and repels men and women, but in the dull interests of decorous propriety, I will not, except to say the classic male example of this conundrum typically is a confession of undying love in pursuit of minimally sincere sexual activity, producing a result where one’s long term objectives are inevitably polluted by the short term goal. (Ooh, I can just hear those speculative wheels spinning crazily in the minds of voyeuristic cybergossipers, but let me stress this I am only using this as a hypothetical for-instance.)

More to the point — and in fact exactly on it — is my perspective on the events of September 11, 2001, the day the world changed. Or, as I have said in the title of my booklet, "The Day America Died."

I remember that day all too well. I was standing in front of my TV. I had just awakened and flipped it on, intending to zap the clicker to ESPN to catch the latest sports news, a typical daily habit that occurs just before I stumble into the kitchen to make my coffee. By chance, the tube was set to NBC, where the plastic Today show commentators were talking about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center. So I never changed the channel. I just stood there, eyelids glued apart, and watched as plane number two glided into the south tower, and into history.

I just stood there, I don't know for how long. Eventually I turned around, made the coffee, and listened to the aghast commentary of the NBC crew. I don't remember now what it was triggered my next verbal outburst, whether it was Katie Couric reporting the government saying it was Osama bin Laden who was behind the attacks, or some vaguer speculation about Arab terrorists.

I only know I turned around, stalked into the living room, and then with the most certain self-assured vehemence I have ever shown in my life, started bellowing: "No way! No freaking way!"

I knew then, right then and there, that 9/11 was an inside job. That this was not the work of Arab terrorists, unless they played some minor diversionary role in a complex and deliberately confusing cast of characters. That this was done at the behest of the people who control our lives, who wanted to create a stultifying example that would be branded into the minds of the muddled masses in order to create a war mentality to justify their criminal intent to make war on the whole world, and make a handsome profit from it.

Nothing I have seen, heard, or read since has caused me to feel even the merest shadow of a doubt about what I felt at that moment. All those millions of words, mostly written by people who have no stake in anything media-related or politically purposeful, have only reinforced my conviction.

The highest, most important leaders in our land, and other countries as well, were behind the scheme to kill thousands of American citizens in order to justify an intensified assault on the oil-producing countries of the Middle East and elsewhere. Time and the telling of hundreds of more lies have only deepened my conviction, and proved it far beyond a reasonable doubt. The plans for these wars were drawn up BEFORE 9/11, and the lies utilized to execute them have become well-established in the public eye, at least for those interested enough to take a look.

So I began to write about it, firing thought cannons into cyberspace that were read by thousands of readers but which had little or no effect on the world at large. Gathering every fact I could from each mind who cared to comment on these matters, I soon amassed an array of speculative evidence from a variety of researchers that convincingly confirmed my initial emotional impressions.

I always thought the government's lies were the best piece of evidence, what with Cheney, Rice, and Myers all saying "we had no idea something like this could happen" and then the FBI announcing the names of ALL the hijackers later in the day. When Bush announced the invasion of Afghanistan as a response to 9/11, it soon became evident that this demonic target-shoot has been planned years before the towers had been hit.

But more tangible evidence quickly followed: Why did the FBI quickly confiscate that videotape from that gas station across the street from the Pentagon that would have clearly shown exactly what hit the Pentagon? Because it would not have verified their story — that is the only reason it could be.

And that is legitimate probable cause for a thousand prosecutions, if we had a law enforcement apparatus that actually tried to enforce the law.

Why is there no evidence of the so-called hijackers actually being on the supposedly hijacked airliners? Or even if they were, of having no snowball's chance in hell of executing the impossible aerobatic maneuvers necessary to do what the government said they did? There were no hijackers. And no reason to invade foreign countries.

The time the towers took fall is what I consider the smoking gun. There is no way structures of that mass and complexity could have free-fallen the way they did without the 47 core columns of each twin tower being expertly severed by explosives. The minimal fires supposedly caused by the plane crashes were neither hot nor widespread enough to cause the buildings to fall at all, never mind the way they did, conveniently and neatly into their own footprints.

No way! No freaking way!

However, it wasn't long before I dared verbally venture into these matters when I ran afoul of people with different opinions as to what actually happened.

And as it stands today, the 9/11 skeptics movement is in total shambles, with the dominant personalities far more interested in pushing their own personal view of things and advancing their own interests than they are in convincing the public they need to focus on the American criminal politicians who were behind the whole caper in the first place.

And this is a truly tragic twist, because now that the American public, weary from the continued flimsiness of government lies about current events, is ready to confront the biggest lie of them all — 9/11 — the 9/11 skeptics movement has deteriorated into trivial bickering that serves no purpose at all other than reveal the shallow, selfish motives of many of its participants.

I receive about 2,000 e-mails per week, most from people who are intensely interested in solving this problem. One recent one from the indefatigable story forwarder Sally Chrisinis in Texas contained a link to a 2004 story by Gerard Holmgren that I consider the single best overall roundup of what really happened on 9/11 that I have ever read, titled "Manufactured Terrorism: The Truth About Sept. 11." Read it here:

Holmgren, an award-winning, Australian blues guitarist, has distinguished himself as the 9/11 researcher with probably more amazing discoveries than anyone else (especially that two of the supposedly fatal flights on 9/11 never showed up in FAA records, and that the passenger lists are riddled with inconsistencies).

He is also at the center of, and chief spokesman for, the single issue that most divides the 9/11 skeptics movement — the assertion that there were no planes, or at least no passenger jetliners — used in the attacks.

Just for a moment, savor this enigma. The best researcher says there were no planes. Or, more precisely, not the planes we thought we saw.

Try to view this as a perfect parallel to the overall 9/11 dilemma. A majority of Americans, trapped as they are in media manufactured images for the entirety of their lives, simply cannot bring themselves to believe that their elected officials could ever even contemplate such a dastardly deed, never mind actually commit it.

So imagine how hard it would be to convince the public, which did not want to believe their leaders killed 3,000 of their own people, that on top of that, the whole charade was pulled off without the planes we thought we saw. This was always my chief objection to the no-plane theory. It would be met by guffaws (and has been). No one would believe it. Hell, it was hard enough to try and get people to believe their own government would actually do this (even though I never found it hard to believe, because there are simply too many similar historical precedents of self-inflicted wounds to justify aggression).

But then, from various nooks and crannies of the Internet, reality began to intrude.

First, there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon, except a couple of apparently seeded parts that may or may not have matched up to the specifications of the plane that was supposed to have hit it. Add on top of this the government's assertion that the DNA of each passenger was later identified after a fire that was so blazingly hot that it vaporized an entire jetliner into complete invisibility. And on top of that, remember that this was the plane that supposedly flew for an hour and 40 minutes in the most secure airspace in the world without being intercepted by our crack Air Force. And finally there was the impossible aerobatic maneuver the pilot of Flight 77 was supposed to have executed — a 270-degree diving turn at 600 mph — that not even Neil Armstrong could have pulled off, and this was done by a guy, a wacked-out Arab terrorist named Hani Hanjour, who from all reports had trouble driving a car.

So you begin to suspect there's something wrong with the Pentagon story (to say the least).

OK, then you consider the crash in Pennsylvania, on which the passengers supposedly staged a valiant attempt to wrest control of the plane from hijackers, and in the ensuing fight, the plane crashed to the ground. It isn't so much the fact that no one actually saw this plane crash, or that there was something curiously anomalous about the wreckage, or that many witnesses recall seeing an unmarked white jet cruising around the area.

My pal Brad sent me an interesting timeline about Flight 93 that included the evocative phone calls Deena Burnett supposedly received from her husband Tom as he struggled with the dire situation fighting the hijackers aboard the doomed jetliner.

Just after 6 a.m. California time, Deena Burnett called 911 (the number, not the day) and said she’d just received a cell phone call from her husband who was on a plane. Deena told the cops: “They just knifed a passenger and there are guns on the plane.”

Seven minutes later, or so the story goes, Tom Burnett called Deena again. She says he said: “The guy they knifed is dead.”

Greg Gordon’s riveting account in the Sacramento Bee of the Burnetts’ tragic morning , with Tom furnishing inside details meticulously enunciated to verify the government’s story, will bring tears to your eyes. It did to mine.

And then you remember that this was a cellphone call, and the plane at that time was flying at 35,000 feet (and climbing to 41,000). And you remember the words of Professor A.K. Dewdney (among others), who has proved conclusively that cellphones don't work at that altitude. See, for example,

So you begin to suspect that there's something wrong with this Pennsylvania story, and think, hmm, deja vu all over again?

OK, then you begin to think back about the events in New York City, and you remember the famous Naudet video, which showed the first crash of the day, Flight 11 slamming into the north tower of the World Trade Center. It's a crappy video, all fuzzy and jerky, supposedly because the Naudet brothers caught it by serendipitous accident while filming a documentary that day about firefighters.

If you've done any research into these matters, you've watched the blown-up, slowed-down version of that footage over and over, and you can't escape the nagging feeling that that plane's wings are perpendicular to the fuselage — not swept back at an angle like those on a passenger jetliner. And you can't help but begin to wonder — what kind of plane was that? And you remember the initial reports of a small plane hitting the tower.

So you begin to think to there's something wrong with this North Tower story. And by now it's a familiar refrain.

When I put these three thoughts together, I am ready to believe Holmgren's story. If three of the crashes have been grotesquely misrepresented, there no way the fourth one could have happened as reported. If you think it could have, then you have never placed a bet in your entire life, and should never.

But what really nailed it for me was George Nelson, the retired Air Force colonel who recently wrote a story about airplane crashes in general. Nelson said there has never been an example of an airplane crash in which the plane could not be identified because of an innocuous item called replaceable time-change parts, small components in the vastly complex array of machinery necessary to get these big machines off the ground.

Each airplane has numerous time-change parts that are all recorded in their meticulously kept maintenance logs, and each of these parts has serial numbers that are logged in as well, hence providing a certifiable record of part with plane. Many of these parts are too small to be destroyed in a crash. I mean, even in the worst crashes, if a plane is reduced to rubble the size of say, silver dollars, some of these parts are even smaller than that, so they don't get further reduced in size. They turn up in a search of the wreckage, a serial number is found, and the plane is identified by the connection recorded in its maintenance log.

Every crash that has ever happened, Nelson asserts, has been identified in this manner. See

Except on 9/11. No replaceable part that could link the planes said to have crashed to a piece of rubble that was examined on that day has ever been found.

Nelson’s conclusion? “The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised .... it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.” (And this guy’s a retired colonel.)

At that point, planes or not, I was ready to believe Holmgren's tale (after years of arbitrarily denying it was true, because I just could not believe it).

But one formidable hurdle remained. The major image seared forever into the minds of every person on earth is the crash of what the government says was Flight 175 into the South Tower. We’ve seen it over and over. It is etched into our dreams.

Holmgren, along with his allies in film analysis, The Webfairy, Scott Loughery, Nico Haupt, Marcus Icke and the whole “no-plane” movement, continue to insist it was done electronically — that there were no planes — because of anomalies they have observed in the videos of the event.

I had occasion to converse with the Webfairy (Rosalee Grable) recently, and I told her I was ready to believe Holmgren’s version of events, except for one thing — how do you explain so many different camera angles on that crash all recording essentially the same event, and how could eyewitnesses see it if it were all done with exotic film techniques?

This was the question that had always hung me up in this debate. Sure, most of us had only seen it on TV, but what about all those people who were running from the raining rubble — what had they seen? And what about the people in Queens who watched it on the Von Kleist video. And what were the suspicious Israelis filming from the New Jersey shore — only a video deception?

How could a hologram of jet crash been seen by so many people from so many different angles? I am no technical expert on these matters, but for all the reading I’ve done on the Internet these past three years, you’d think I would have run across the subject — since I’ve been looking for it.

Rosalee told me that Gerard and her friends no longer believe it was a hologram, and that they now believe it was all done in the ersatz movie studio of a flight simulator, and then that footage was somehow transmitted to the TV networks.

Holmgren responded forthrightly. “I can't give a definite answer. As with the Pentagon, all I can say for sure is what it was not. That is, it was not the "plane" which we see in the video. The illusory plane masks whatever it was.”

So there it was again — the difficulty of the story. In all four events on 9/11, we can’t figure out what happened, but the evidence that can be assembled indicates the official story is not true.

The dilemma of a difficult story that cannot be easily conveyed to the public is what made me reject it in the first place, but in the same way that people’s attitudes ultimately have no bearing on the veracity of what they’re saying, so the difficulties in comprehending a story have no relevance as to whether or not it’s true.

Where I began this reconsideration of a contentious dispute was by remembering that you can’t determine the veracity of information on the basis of someone’s reputation. And the reputation of the no-planers is horrible. They have savaged everyone who dared question their version of events, and left a trail of bad feelings wherever they’ve gone.

They have intimidated many into frustrated silence with a constant barrage of cantankerous contentions, and a result have attracted all manner of derogatory adjectives, including from me. And yet, we continue to use their information — that two of the flights may never existed, that the passenger list info is very suspicious — in our pursuit of the truth. So perhaps some of us have been too harsh in dismissing them as disruptive. After all, this is a very emotional debate, and the future of the world DOES depend on its outcome.

This emotionalism has spilled over into other principle schisms within the 9/11 skeptics movement. In my clumsy attempts to try and deduce the real story, I’ve received some of it myself, with the controversial Phil Jayhan (who lately has been saying he is receiving messages from God) accusing me of taking money from the government as well as not caring about the people who died on 9/11.

More recently I have been swept into a public roasting by Holmgren and the no-plane gang of 9/11 personality Karl Schwarz in which neither side has exactly distinguished itself by polite debating tactics. The Holmgren gang has torched Schwarz for specific inaccuracies in his very public attempts to get New York state law enforcement officials to bring legal action against the government for wrongful deaths in the 9/11 attacks. But Schwarz has only feebly defended himself by using empty ad hominem threats against the no-planers, and his apparently inflated claims about himself and his “companies” have taken a major hit with the publication of his background on Portland Indymedia (Karl Schwarz: Unfortunate Son at ).

Again, the upshot of this nagfest was to only drive more people away from the movement, disgusted with the level of personal insults obscuring the merits of the discussion.

The same kind of high-intensity emotion has been embarrassingly evident among Internet radio listeners of late, as they have watched, with increasing confusion and incredulity, the continuing attacks of WING-TV against several of the best radio hosts on the web: Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, and Fintan Dunne.

Miffed that they have been snubbed by their more experienced and more accomplished broadcasting competitors, WING-TV operators Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani have engaged an embarrassing juvenile tirade against three people who have perhaps brought more people to realistic political consciousness via Web radio than anybody else, especially with regard to 9/11.

It’s very difficult for me to write these words, especially since Thorn has published two of my books. More importantly, over the past year he had conducted a string of timely and valuable interviews with some of the most respected voices in the 9/11 skeptics movement, and at great personal sacrifice attempted to shed some light on the decade-old Oklahoma City coverup.

But since that attempt, Thorn and Guliani have ceased interviewing relevant guests and gone on a deceptive and underhanded campaign to ridicule Rense, Jones, and Dunne that culminated in them throwing underwear around their makeshift TV set and holding up a Barbie-doll to the camera in a pathetic attempt to besmirch the sexual proclivities of one of these radio competitors.

Whatever credibility they may have had among many in the alternative news community disappeared forever at that very moment.

A quick scan of their WING-TV website reveals that they made whatever reputation they had by castigating the competition. They started out with easy targets like braindead radio host Mike Gallagher, then graduated to easy target Mike Ruppert, whose blatant oil company propaganda and mutation from top 9/11 critic into just another leftie gatekeeper news outlet has been noted with disappointment by most facets of the genuine 9/11 skeptics movement.

But most people get the feeling that if Rense or Jones or Dunne had merely had them on their shows and let them pitch their own products, none of this would have happened. So their so-called revealing exposés of Rense, Jones, and the Genesis Communications Network, are little more than sour grapes at not being able to crack the big time.

That some of their criticisms are valid are beside the point. That Jones is a bombastic and aggressive Texan with a keen sense of his own profitability doesn’t diminish his many achievements in exposing many current events that need to be exposed. That Rense dabbles in arcane topics like UFOs doesn’t negate the formidable political guests he’s had on his show, nor does his continuing efforts to make clear the evils of Zionism are not perpetrated by all Jews nor all Christians.

That the owner of the Genesis network, Ted Anderson, makes money by selling gold doesn’t make him an agent of the Illuminati. Fact is, Genesis, with Rense, Jones and Jack Blood leading the way, provides a news service to the American people that is unmatched for relevance across the media spectrum.

Which brings us to another point about Thorn. His little booklet titled “Christ Killers.”

Thorn’s decision to align himself with the hardcore Christian right opens him up to legitimate charges of anti-Semitism.

Now I know some of you must be laughing about me using that term, since I have been branded with it myself. Let me make this clear. Jews are human beings, just like everybody else. The fact that many — or even most — of them have chosen to believe the lies told in the Talmud that they are the Chosen are better than everybody is certainly despicable and ridiculous, but no worse than the way Catholics feel about themselves as the only true church, or Muslims as the only true religion, or Hindus being the fathers of us all. It’s all hateful BS, and a movement among the Jews is growing that Zionism hurts them as much as it hurts everybody else.

So when I say somebody is anti-Semitic, you can count on it as being true, and not the same attempt at political intimidation as it is when used by fascist bozos like Abe Foxman, Jerry Falwell, or Richard Perle.

After all, I’m the guy who doesn’t believe the Germans gassed anyone during World War II (because Eisenhower never mentioned it) and that Israel is an illegal state that should not be allowed to exist because it is simply a mechanism for crime engineered by the Illuminati. Does that mean I hate Jews? No it doesn’t. Because I don’t. Though I believe that rich Zionist Jews were right at the center of the 9/11 scam and are guilty of treason and mass murder, I believe that Jews hold the key to both the destabilization of the Middle East by Israel and the great 9/11 coverup, because they have the insights and the connections to get to the bottom of both deceptions in the name of honesty and humanity.

Whether they will or not remains to be seen. But the key to accomplishing this incredible feat which is so essential to the continued survival of human society depends both on Jews rejecting the notion that they are superior to other tribes of homo sapiens on the basis of how they have been misled by their evil holy men, and also on non-Jews abandoning the perception by that Jews are out to enslave them because that is what is written in the Talmud.

Both of these things must happen. Both of these things will happen, when people finally realize the real hate crimes are written in the world’s holy books for the purpose of pitting one neighbor against another in the name of profit.

This needless arguments are typical of what has happened to the 9/11 skeptics movement. It has been betrayed by people more interested in their own financial fortunes than in unearthing the truth.

The truth is that we all make mistakes, we all believe things that with further study we eventually learn are lies, and we all like to condescend to people who don’t share our particular ideas about what is happening.

This is what I meant when I said at the beginning of this screed that honesty is a tricky business. By revealing all these petty grievances, I have probably retarded the search for 9/11 truth more than illuminated it, simply because of the number of people who have not read this story to this point, and abandoned it for some other activity they think is more rewarding.

But you don’t solve a problem by skirting its most contentious aspects. We must muddle through them, no matter how complicated or enigmatic they become.

In the case with honesty and the truth, if you don’t persevere, and seek it without involving your ego in its discovery, you’ll never find it. So those who didn’t stick around for the end of this story have missed the best part.

Among the thousands of e-mails I try to comprehend came this gem the other day from someone I seldom hear from, Christopher Brown.

Dissatisfied with what was available in the way of 9/11 sites, Chris constructed his own site, and while it isn’t quite accurate throughout (everybody gets bogged down in the debate about the temperature necessary to melt or buckle steel), it nevertheless contains two of the most pertinent modules available on the subject of the massacre at the World Trade Center.

The site is located at but let me synopsize the two parts I consider the most evocative. If you can read these two little stories and still believe the government’s story about what happened on 9/11, than you are either learning disabled or on the payroll of the oinks orchestrating the coverup.

Although there is no supporting link in his narrative, Brown theorizes in the section titled “How the WTC Was Secretly Demolished on 9-11-01” that the thick coatings on the rebar used on the cast concrete support core and foundation were actually made of the plastic explosive C4.

“This would put enough explosive force in direct contact with the most concrete at high enough pressures and enable the instantaneous structural collapse of each floor consecutively to the ground that we saw, as well as the resulting particulate,” Brown writes.

“This was technology invented in the Cold War to make self-destruct missile silos and submarine bases, perfect for preplanned demolition. The C4 protected the steel from corrosion before the sea water was evacuated by the incoming concrete into the forms. The C4 was encapsulated in the concrete and its 10 year average shelf life extended by many times.”

On to the second story, which Brown clipped from the Danish website: READ THIS WHOLE STORY.

Here’s the excerpt:

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said

No walls, NO WALLS!!! Those were steel reinforced concrete walls, the centralized rebar of the walls coated with C4 removed the walls completely. The surviving engineers were protected by the efficiency of the blast which pulverized the concrete and filled the air with dust and high heat, floating the particles at the top of the room.

Gives you a new perspective on the comment by WTC landlord Larry Silverstein to “pull it,” doesn’t it? And it takes the planes/no planes brouhaha right out of the equation. Who cares what flew into the towers, or what radio show has what guest on his show, when the towers were built to be demolished, and blown up at their bases?

We can figure out the plane thing, if we like, during the treason and mass murder trials of Bush, Cheney, and thousands of others.

Agents provocateur? We can easily identify the shams posted by establishment shills such as Chertoff in Popular Mechanics, Jasper in the New American, and Shermer in Scientific American, or by other Zionist gatekeepers such as Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky who refuse to address central questions about 9/11, the Iraq war, and Israel’s extermination of the Palestinians and infiltration of the U.S. government.

But inside the 9/11 skeptics movement itself I cannot tell if anyone is deliberately trying to deceive or obfuscate (except for Michael Elliott of, who has suddenly disappeared, leaving a trail of debts and broken promises).

What I do see is people pursuing their objectives so ardently (and I myself am not immune from this) that they castigate competing theories as government subterfuge. When combined with the frustration of trying to defog government smokescreens, and competing theories that disagree with their own, fireworks follow. And they don’t help the movement. In fact, they play right into the hands of those who engineered the coverup.

The object of the 9/11 skeptics movement is not to gain personal fame and fortune, nor to disparage those who are not as expert as others in knowing all the trivial details of every aspect of the event.

It is perhaps a legitimate exercise to point out those who are deliberately trying to impede or distort a gathering of the facts. But identifying this activity must be weighed against the higher goal of inspiring a majority of Americans to recognize the capital crimes of their leaders. After all, even Mike Ruppert, before he revealed himself as an oil company shill, was of great value to the movement.

The object, ultimately, is to identify the true perpetrators of the greatest crime in American history, and perhaps on an even higher level, to prevent the world from being destroyed by rich and cunning white men who seek to profit from fomenting wars all over the world.

We need to stop the bickering, and press on in pursuit of the evidence, wherever it leads. Only then can we truly say we have led and are leading honest lives.

John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida. His essays have been posted on hundreds of websites around the world and have been collected into two anthologies, both of which are available on his website, Also available is the booklet, “The Day America Died: Why You Shouldn’t Believe the Official Story of What Happened on September 11, 2001,” which is still selling well. Don’t you wonder why?

posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 09:50 AM
You know, prior to reading this, I'd always considered myself a skeptic. An uber-skeptic, if you will. It's hard for me to accept allegations, conjecture, rumour, without having any evidence to back it up. James Randi would be proud of me. Anyway, I'd heard of 9/11 conspiracies since the day it happened; I've read the 9/11 Commission report, and I've heard from two women who were left widows after the Pennsylvania crash.

I've also read several decent books written before 9/11 relating to the Taliban, bin Laden, and the general state of affairs relating to the US and the Middle East. I'd thought there were certain threads in the 9/11 story which were left dangling, and that Joe Public hadn't been told the entire story - but I never had much time for conspiracy theories.

Until now.

This thread has been, at the very least, informative. I'm compelled now to research further and digest these reports, and conduct more of my own research.

And all I can do is thank you folks, for that

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:54 PM
Welcome aboard, Tinkleflower. There is much to look at. Much to digest. We welcome any help, too.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:17 AM
9-11 Vs. 7-7

Im making this thread to demonstrate that when comparing 9/11 and 7/7 the
similarities between the two are quite unreal. When you think about
the two together (and also events like the OC bombing) a pattern,
a seemingly devious method of operations, and conspiritorial
framwork emerges quite clearly my fiends.

I am going to attempt to not get into specific technicalities as much as I can
and just briefly compare the actions and reactions of the UK and US governments, and their agencies regarding both attacks.

It would be good if people could add more info on this top into the thread. There
must be more similarities out there.

For those who do not believe crazed paranoid wackos like myself, I can only
suggest taking a step back, ignore details of molten metal, UFO's
and explosive rigging techniques, take a deep breath and.. look at
the freekin'bigger picture godamit.

Anyway, lets get things rolling. Remember this is not even half of the information out
Look for yourselfs! Please!

Prior Intelligence - the 'attackers' followed before attacks / warnings

In both instances we have seen unusual occurances in the Isreali
department, and in both instances it appears that insiders had
warnings preceeding the attacks. We all know about the text messages
and the
dancing Israelis

U.K was warned

The biggest question of the day is
British Authorities knew and protected
Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu(from the bombings), then
why not common British citizens in London?

Remind you of 9/11 at all?

U.S was warned

"This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the
widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting
civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?"

Rumsfeld is apparently shaken by this young reporter's forthrightness.

First, he admits what few else dare:

"There were lots of warnings."

U.S. intelligence agencies provided "a modest, but relatively steady stream" of
intelligence information that terrorist attacks inside the country were a
possibility, a congressional investigator told lawmakers Wednesday

U.K Tracked suspects before attack

The four men who brought carnage to streets of the capital on July 7 were
watched by intelligence officers a year before they killed 52 people on Tube trains
and a bus.

But security chiefs called off the operation after it was decided the gang posed no
threat. Last week the Mirror revealed how 30-year-old ringleader Mohammed
Sidique Khan
was filmed with a terror suspect last year and spotted chatting to an al-Qaeda fixer.
No action was taken against him

U.S tracked suspects before attack

I feel at this point that I have to put my concerns in writing concerning
the important topic of the FBI's response to evidence of terrorist activity
in the United States prior to September 11th. The issues are fundamentally
ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement mission
and mandate......

During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened
to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation
to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question
was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't
be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had
to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen, who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden
to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.

In both cases higher ups stopped the tracking of thos envolved in the attacks.

The attacks - unbelievable drills

Stepping aside from reports in both attacks of different goings on and detailed analysis,
look at one of the most unbelievable and undeiable aspect of the attacks on both 9/11 and 7/7..

In both attacks the government was carrying out a "terror drill " of the exact same
scenario of what was actually happening, AT THE SAME TIME!

Now apparently the chances of a "terror excercise" happening at the precise time
as an actually "terror attack" are somewhere in the region of

One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


On 7/7, the supposed "drill" was not only at the same time, but on the same trains and

POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for
a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off
precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the
hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would
cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a
company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening
and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd
met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real
one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures
to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

(BBC Radio Interview, 7 July 2005)
Interview MP:

What in God's hell?

Of course this links up with 7/7 eyewhitnesses claiming that bombs exploded from under
the train, the strange fact that the Bus that exploded was directed off its normal
route by police before it exploded and the fact that For short while after the attacks
happened (I whitnessed this first hand as I waited for my train and none arrived. "power surge"
was the reason given over the station loud speaker).


1. CIA Sponsored Exercise on the Morning of 9/11

On the morning of September 11 2001, within minutes of the attack on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, the CIA had been running
"a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be
created if a plane were to strike a building". The simulation was held at the CIA
Chantilly Virginia Reconnaissance Office.

The Bush administration described the event as "a bizarre coincidence".
The matter was not mentioned by the media.(AP, 22 August 2002)

The Attackers - known associates and agents


On FOX News Channel's Day Side, Terrorism Expert
John Loftus revealed that Haroon Rashid Aswat, the
suspect wanted by British Police for "masterminding"
the July 7th London bombings and July 21st attempted
bombings is in fact an asset of MI6, the British Secret
Service. According to Loftus, Aswat
has been under the protection of MI6 for many years.


The person who the government claimed masterminded the attacks also happens to be an old
asset of the CIA and a relative of a family the Bushes have had dealings with for years.

Linked back to the 80's and the CIA support of terrorists.

The program, reported the Independent, was part of a
Washington-approved plan
called "Operation Cyclone".

In Pakistan, recruits, money and equipment were distributed to the mujaheddin
factions by an organisation known as Maktab al Khidamar (Office of Services - MAK).

MAK was a front for Pakistan's CIA, the Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate. The
ISI was the first recipient of the vast bulk of CIA and Saudi Arabian covert assistance for the Afghan contras. Bin Laden was one of three people who ran MAK.
In 1989, he took overall charge of MAK..............

The Independent also suggested that Shiekh Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian religious leader also
jailed for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, was also part of Operation Cyclone. He entered the
US in 1990 with the CIA's approval. A confidential CIA report concluded that the agency
was "partly culpable" for the 1993 World Trade Center blast, the Independent

While he was hospitalised, bin Laden received visits from many members of his
family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the
local CIA agent,
known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to
go to bin Laden's hospital room.

A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin
Laden. Authorised sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned
to Quetta, the CIA agent was called back to headquarters.

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:17 AM
Response - release suspects

Again, in the aftermath, the responses of each Government is
very similar. Quickly the governments name the attackers.

Tony Blair announces the attackers are an 'unkown group claiming
the attack in the name of Al-Qaida.
George Bush announces shortly after the attacks that it committed
by Al-Quaida, and masterminded by nutorious figure Osama bin Laden.

So what does each government subsequently do after these comments?


where British citizens should be demanding of Prime Minister Blair why
SIS/MI6 was using Haroon Aswat as an agent, and why, as John Loftus claims,
was Aswat – who was on the British security services ‘Watch List’, allowed to
leave the UK, when the British Police were desperately searching for him?

THe U.K goverment does not even detain one of the main suspects Aswat, the man named also
as an MI6 asset. He is let go.


After naming Bin Laden as the key suspect, the whole Bin Laden family is allowed
to fly out of the U.S even though there is a strict no-fly policy in operation.

(CBS) Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's family were urgently evacuated
from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on
New York and Washington, according to the Saudi ambassador to Washington." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">[

What they do is let key people just slip away.

Identification - mysteriously convenient findings


ccording to ABC News and the Associated Press, the passport of hijacker
Satam Al Suqami was found a few blocks from the WTC. 1 2 The Guardian was
skeptical: "the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged
[tests] the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on
terrorism." 3 Note the passport did not belong to Atta, as is commonly

CNN is reporting that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah's visa was found
in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania


# Mohammad Sidique Khan: Aged 30, from Beeston, Leeds,
recently moved to Dewsbury, married with baby. ID found at Edgware
Road blast site.
# Hasib Mir Hussain (confirmed): Aged 18, lived Holbeck, Leeds.
two years ago. ID found in No 30 bus.'mastermind'_of_London_bombings_captured_in_Egypt

Manipulation - scare the people more


Blair also reiterated that another attempted attack in London
is 'likely', but added that 'it doesn't mean it's certain.
It doesn't mean it will inevitably succeed', he said.

What the flying flase flag is this supposed mean tony?
Likely, but not certain, expected, but not inevitable,
constant terror, yet state provided safety..........
at the expense of the [B]FREEDOM TO LIVE OUR LIVES[/B].
Double speak!

And of course in his speach to the commons after the attacks Blair
digs into what we all know is coming....

There is then the issue of further anti-terrorist legislation.
During the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act earlier this year we pledged
to introduce a further counter-terrorism Bill later in this session.

More legislation which allows the goverment more access to peoples lives,
less oppurtunity to protest, blanket bills eroding the human rights of 'terrorists'
in the custody of the government or police.


“a war against terrorism’s attack on our way of life” —
an attack coming from foes “committed to denying free people the
opportunity to live as they choose”

- rumsfeld

The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews,
to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians,
including women and children. This group and its leader, a person named Osama
bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including
the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

- George Bush

The outcome disappearing freedoms and unjustified war

In an statement given to his newly appointed lawyer, Mohammed has given an
account of how he was tortured for more than two years after being questioned by US
and British officials who he believes were from the FBI and MI6. As well as being beaten
and subjected to loud music for long periods, he claims his genitals were sliced with

Guantánamo Bay is a "shocking affront to the principles of democracy" and
a violation of the rule of law, the lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, said today.

Our freedoms are dissapearing, wars are being waged. This is the outcome of these events.
Funnily enough this is exactely what the governments have wanted to do for years, more
power, more resources to keep the machine on its feet. More money on weapons and defence,
less opposition, more fear.


"In this difficult hour, the people of Great Britain can know
the American people stand with you."

- George Bush after 7/7

Well, in the authors opinion, certainly Bush and Blairs administrations
were 'standing together' in the instances of these horrible
crimes which both have clearly furthered the shared agenda of the
neo-nazi swine who rule over us and our planet.

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 01:43 AM

posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 05:07 PM
In addition to the above, the below resources also include nearly recent/current conduct of the events leading up to Sept.

Inside al Qaeda
Global Network of Terror
Rohan Gunaratna
ISBN- 0-425-19114-1

[near recent]
The attack on bin Laden and al Qaeda
A Personal Account by the CIA`s Key Field Commander
Gary Bernsten
ISBN-13: 978-0-307-35106-7
ISBN-10: 0-307-35106-8

Charlie Wilson`s War
George Crill
ISBN- 0-8021-4124-2 (pbk.)
(Finished reading, this book is amazing, goes into detail of the full sponsorship of the CIA even after the suppossed withdrawl of US support.)

Those three books I have read, and am reading in the case of the last one.
Much detailed info is provided and I highly advise any one interested, to read them if they are serious about knowing what the situation is and was. They are true, non fiction, and in the case of Jawbreaker, some sections were classified and still are by the CIA screaning dept.

This material provided as an offline source for research.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by ADVISOR]

[edit on 4-3-2007 by ADVISOR]

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 03:12 AM
I'd like to point out the connection between our government and the enemies we were supposedly fighting.

We helped fund the Taliban in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, yet we seem to think they're evil.

We created Al Qaeda to help the Taliban around the same time.

Bin Laden was a CIA asset prior to 9/11. He's dead now, but still seems to be a main topic in the news.

There's also a distinct connection between Mossad, ISI, and the CIA (and MI5?) in regards to 9/11.

I am in the process of investigating the intelligence agency link to this terrible day.

The only 'terrorists' are the ones in power.

[edit on 2/22/2008 by biggie smalls]

posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 08:59 PM
I'm glad you bunped this, because I've been putting together some stuf for a second part to the 9/11RP. Since this is the "Emergency" the new one will be the "Evidence", once these two, well if these two are completed I want to compile them both into a 9/11 E&E RP.

This new Evidence aspect is to be strictly evidence and the hypothesis which supports said evidence. Theories with no logical foundation are to be avoided, and if within the goals of this "emergency" project to be presented here.

What the other brother project is to be is a twin aspect. Only it's focus is on a case file type of compilation, study and analisis of the "evidence" available. Perhaps it seems a little late for such, but honestly, we have just as much now as we did then, exept now there is more being released.

The FBI files for example, 1,700 pages of federal files, open to be read. That is and was my first contribution when I found out about it, and hopefully other facts can be utilized for augmenting this project, in corrolation together these will be perhaps the best ongoing research project to date.


All who are interested, please u2u me for any and all questions or comments.
Thank you.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in