Humint Events Online: September 2004

Thursday, September 30, 2004

9/11 Strike on the Pentagon

9/11 strike has a very well-done, logical overview of the Pentagon hit. It is easily the most clear-eyed and realistic analysis of the Pentagon hit I've seen so far.

Basically, they point out the many anomalies, then also point out that a 757 could have made the hole after all. And I must admit that this is my opinion at this time on the Pentagon hit.

Key quote:

A significant problem with the Pentagon crash, as a motif for use in general public outreach, is that such a wide variety of evidence comports with the conclusion that a 757 impacted the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Many eyewitnesses reported seeing a 757 approach the Pentagon, and some claimed to see that same aircraft impact the facade. A C-130 cargo plane is also reported to have been flying close behind, which might account for some of the confusion in other eyewitness testimony, or allow for the spawning of ever more alternative scenarios to cover the tracks. Contrary to much of the Internet analysis, the impact hole is also quite possibly consistent with a 757 -- even though it superficially appears to be too small, and if specific questions about the problematic aspects of the damage can be neglected. The light-pole evidence is consistent with a 757 aircraft (if the poles were rearranged by passers-by within seconds of the attack, or if some other reasonable explanation can be found for the odd distribution of the poles) and the "engine fingerprints" appear to require an impact by a twin-engine aircraft with the exact engine spacing of a 757.

On the other hand, the insufficient debris, the official evasiveness and prevarication and the shifting "official story", the eyewitness inconsistencies, the quantum flight path, the shoddy "movie set" appearance of the Pentagon facade, the missile plume and the appearance of explosives (rather than a kerosene fire) in the "security video", and many other aspects, all point to the likelihood of a hoax. Much of the observed physical evidence in the photographs also comports with full demolition, which would have provided orders of magnitude better operational surety of proper completion without the undue risk associated with an impact plane missing its target, either using terrorist hijackers or domestic agent provocateurs.


Although we believe the complexities of such a sham are well within the capabilities of our government's intelligence agencies, with their annual budgets of $70 billion or more -- we must also acknowledge that for most people, the idea that a government bureaucracy could conceive and then carry out such a plot is simply beyond hilarious. Politically, there is a possibility that an emphasis on Pentagon questions will simply be taken as evidence of insanity on the part of the "conspiracy theorists". Is it wise to focus more attention on this Pentagon topic, while there are so many clearly proven, indisputable grounds to show that the US government is acting as a criminal enterprise? There's plenty of room for activists to disagree about issues of emphasis, even among those who would argue that the Pentagon attack was definitely a fraud.

We do hope that we have given our readers an appreciation of the subtle complexities of this case -- and that the possibility of a pyrotechnic "magic show" at the Pentagon will be increasingly recognized by 911 skeptics.
Bookmark and Share

Hijacker Pilots or Remote Control?

While remote control of the planes on 9/11 certainly seems like the most likely explanation for what happened, unfortunately there is no way to prove this with what is in the public record.

I do know that over ten years ago, I was getting on a commercial plane and somebody was telling me the airlines had the technology to fly commerical aircraft by remote control. And the question was why did they have pilots, and we all thought the pilots were a human safeguard, and that people wouldn't feel comfortable flying with only a machine keeping us safe.

And certainly with the global hawk and predator drones, there is ample reason to believe remote control flying is possible.

By all accounts, all of the hijackers, with the possible exception of Mohammed Atta, were very poor pilots. Unless this is disinfo (which we can't rule out but seems unlikely). If someone like Hani Hanjour really couldn't fly, couldn't pass his pilot's exam-- then there is every reason to think someone else was flying flight 77, especially given the tricky maneuvering that plane did. But who else would have flown a plane into a building if not a suicidal muslim fanatic?

This is why remote control flying is a powerful explanation.

It is also not clear how the CIA would recruit and train muslim arab pilots with the pilots knowing they would die in their mission. This is possible of course, but somehow it doesn't seem very likely.

The problem is that there just isn't enough known about how the hijackings worked. There is not enough data to make firm conclusions, and I'm sure that's the way the planners want it.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Criminally Stupid or Criminal Disinfo?

Reading through some of these stories I posted recently got me thinking about Miss Condi Rice. Remember her wonderful little statement?

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." (exact quote)

In other words, she is either the fuckingest stupidest National Security Advisor ever, or she is fucking lying her ass off.

Sorry, but either way-- that statement is just so horribly wrong. It's a huge slap in the face to people who think and worry about national security for their job as well as to the victims of 9/11.

And what got my goat some time back, after this appalling episode (roughly in the spring of 2002), Newsweek magazine did a cover story on Condi, basically a puff piece. Never once noting how fucking stupid her statement was and how lame she was overall.

So is Condi that fucking stupid? My guess is no.

I think she was playing a nice little disinfo game-- that no one had ever thought of something like 9/11, basically as a distraction. And lots of stupid journalists (e.g. Tom Friedman ate it up: "9/11 was a failure of imagination"). Either they were fucking stupid or they were in on the disinfo. And probably the latter for some. It fucking worked, didn't it? Most people thought 9/11 was such as amazing unprecedented event-- they never realized that the US government had been thinking about this scenario for years, and was even running "hijacking drills" on 9/11 itself!

Sorry for the language, but this episode just makes me so incredibly angry.

If we had a real fucking media, Condi would have been blasted out of the water the day after she said that and she would have had to resign in disgrace. But any response from media was very muted. "Can't criticize the government in times like these".

The fucking NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, after the most horrendous terror act in US history, acts totally clueless about what happened, and no one in the major media bothers to call her on it.

But really, it's just another in a long series of disgraceful and appalling events that have occurred in this country since 9/11.

Bookmark and Share

Good Overview of the Wargames Being Run on 9/11

Bookmark and Share

Washington Post Article Confirming Burlingame Story


"At Dulles Airport, Capt. Charles Burlingame, who had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon, was steering his 757, American Airlines Flight 77, down the runway for the long flight to Los Angeles. Plenty of empty seats in his cabin, like several other cross-country trips at that hour."

I really wanted to confirm this incredible coincidence with a more mainstream source.
Bookmark and Share

NRO Plane Crash Simulation on 9/11

Here's a link to the original AP article.

Also a similar article in the Boston Globe.
Bookmark and Share

Bombs in WTC1 and WTC2?

Many people seem to think the idea of bombs planted in the WTC towers on 9/11 is completely crazy.

The fact is that the '93 WTC attack was carried out by means of a van stuffed with explosives parked in the basement of one of the towers.

Thus, is it so hard to fathom the 9/11 plotters could have planted similar bombs?

Moreover, look at it this way-- if you really wanted to bring down the WTC towers, would you really count on it happening from crashing jets into them?

Frankly, I am unconvinced about bombs being used in the WTC on 9/11. But apparently some of the firefighters heard reports of bombs going off before the towers collapsed. Moreover, I saw a video of three firemen discussing the tower collapse and two of the guys described a timed series of explosions before the towers came down. There were news reports on the morning of 9/11 talking about bombs in the towers going off. There are pictures and videos which seem to show exploding puffs of smoke coming out from the towers from regions away from the plane crash sites. I haven't really been able to comb over this data with a real critical eye, but I am saying on first glance, there is some significant reason to think bombs were used to help bring down both towers.

I think one strong argument for me is that flight 175 shot out most of its fuel outside the tower when it crashed into the south tower. Thus, it is difficult to see how this limited amount of burning jet fuel could have heated the steel supports to such a degree to cause buckling and eventual collapse. Particularly, if this were the mechanism, you would think the north tower would have collapsed earlier since all of the fuel went into the building with the plane, which should have resulted in hotter fires. I know there is a difference for where the planes hit the structural components of the tower, but it is not clear how this would affect the buckling model. In any case, the south tower collapsed first, despite the fact that most of the jet fuel burned up outside in a massive fireball.

By far, the biggest reason to think there were bombs in the WTC towers is because there clearly were controlled demolitions in WTC7. If someone had them set up in that building, there is no reason to think they couldn't have been put into the WTC as well.
Bookmark and Share

Back to Skepticism about Flight 77

Well, not exactly. I think it is most likely that flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.

However.... I am now a little skeptical of the article I linked to two posts down, by John Judge, where gives the story of an American Airlines flight attendent who toured the Pentagon wreckage and saw identifiable debris from the plane.

Here's the reason I am skeptical-- she toured the crash site 11 days after the crash! Are we really suposed to believe there were so many recognizable pieces of the plane that were still lying around?


"Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site."

Didn't the building collapse on top of the crash site? How could she have walked around in there? This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Then she claims "She also saw charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts."

Is this really believable workers wouldn't have taken human remains away by Sept. 22 if they were readily recognizable?


"She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white."

Are we to believe that carpet and upholstery and drapes didn't burn in the massive fire that raged inside the hit building?

Finally, Judge links to a Rense story that gives some accounts of plane wreckage in the Pentagon, and shows a bunch of pictures, some of which I hadn't seen before. The problem is that this Rense story says: "(1) Much of the debris was burned and torn beyond recognition, (2) Most FEMA photos in the public domain were taken on 9/14/01, after much of the debris was cleared out of the building."

So most of the plane debris, which was mostly unrecognizable, was taken away before 9/14-- yet eight days later, we are to believe this stewardess really saw multiple recognizeable parts of the plane as well as human remains?

I'm not saying she's lying, but this story just seems a little too neat and tidy. It's all very believable of course, with lots of personal touches and details. Hard to know how someone would make it up, but still it is awfully neat and tidy.

She was a regular stewardess on flight 77, but missed it unexpectedly on 9/11. They throw in the nice tidbit that this stewardess is a researcher and skeptic of the government, and thus should be trusted completely. However, this stewardess remains anonymous.

Why can't we have her name?

Finally, Judge tries to dispell the cell phone problem saying that lots of stewardesses hear them in flights all the time. Isn't that nice that they put that in there?

----File this under disinformation?

Bookmark and Share

And Now Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Conspiracy...

Let's go back to Charles Burlingame, the pilot of flight 77.

As I quoted below-- Burlingame "had, as his last Navy mission, helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon."

Okay, assuming this is true (which I must say I can't find any other source for it using Google), this is quite astounding.

Basically, this is too much of a coincidence. I think Burlingame knew too much and he was eliminated as the others were in the Pentagon who were running some of the wargames that morning.

It's all too weird. You could say it's all just coincidence except for the fact that Flight 77 took a very peculiar and extremely tight path specifically to get to that part of the Pentagon. Clearly, somebody was going out of their way to hit that part of the building. Moreover flight 77 may also been targeted becuase of its pilot (as well as a large number of passengers who were working on secret government projects).
Bookmark and Share

Flight 77 Myth Put to Rest

Okay, I was always more-or-less undecided about whether flight 77 actually hit the Pentagon, but I think I have finally concluded it did.

I was leaning in this direction for a couple of weeks, but this piece has basically put my doubts to rest.

Key quote:

She saw parts of the fuselage of an American Airlines plane, a Boeing 757 plane. She identified the charred wreckage in several ways. She recognized the polished aluminum outer shell, an unpainted silver color that is unique to American Airline planes, and the red and blue trim that is used to decorate the fuselage. She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white.

She saw other parts of the plane and engine parts at a distance but they were familiar to her. She did not see any galley supplies, which she would have recognized as well, nor any jump seats. All the parts were charred but colors were still visible. She also saw charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts.

One area of fuselage had remaining window sections and the shape of the windows, curved squares not ovals, was also distinct to the 757's she had flown. She also saw parts with the A/A logo, including parts of the tail of the plane. Smaller A/A logos and "American" logos are also on the planes and she saw parts of those. One website shows pictures of wreckage inside the building, including sections of the fuselage with bright lime and yellow coloring, which is distinctive to Boeing parts. My friend confirmed this, having visited a Boeing plant where she saw the bright colors on the production line marking the inside of fuselage parts. She did not notice this coloring at the site, but the photos show it in some pieces of the plane.

She spent approximately 15 minutes in the crash area looking at parts of the wreckage, all of which she recognized as coming from a Boeing 757 American Airline plane, the same planes she flew regularly. She did not see any rubber, only metal pieces of fuselage, engine parts and sections of the inside of the plane.
My friend is therefore a credible and very knowledgeable eyewitness to the fact that American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. She has been vilified by those who refuse to believe the obvious, as have the many witnesses to the event. We lack clear footage of the event, some of which was confiscated by the FBI, or pictures showing all the wreckage and plane parts. Working from a few un-timed photographs, others have speculated that not only did AA77 not hit the Pentagon, but that a cruise missile or smaller plane did.

My friend is herself a researcher for many years into government misdeeds and cover-ups. If she did not see the parts, she would say so. She has no reason to lie about it. Nor is she confused about what she saw. She is a professional and is used to looking at evidence.

I think the piece is legitimate and therefore is fairly conclusive.

I guess the only doubt one might have is that the person didn't identify specifcally flight 77, but rather an American 757. But I guess I can say with confidence it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

I imagine lots of people are going to say, big deal-- you finally saw the truth. And maybe some 9/11 skeptics will still not believe this. But I think it is important for people to think these things out for themselves. The Pentagon hit was defintiely strange, and as the piece points out, there are many unanswered questions about the hijacking.

Note-- this piece also makes the claim I haven't seen before that cell phones work fairly well on flying planes. So maybe this is something we can disregard as an anomaly.

Certainly the more issues we clear up, the more we can concentrate on other important issues.

p.s. I need to add something important here. If the US government would be more forthcoming in showing picutres and other evidence relating to 9/11 (such as the flight 77 crash site), then there would not be so many conspiracy theories.

You almost get the impression that the government WANTS to propagate conspiracies.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

The US National Reconnaissance Office 9/11 Drill

This is just fascinating:
" US intelligence agency [NRO, National Reconnaissance Office] was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 [2001] in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings."

The same morning. As. The 9/11 attacks.

According to the NRO, their exercise was canceled when the real thing began. Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

The pilot, Charles Burlingame, an ex- F4 Navy flyer, had, as his last Navy mission, helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Pilot drafts plan for response to Pentagon hit. Pilot winds up on plane that hits Pentagon.

Honegger states that Dick Cheney was ultimately in charge of the NRO exercise on the morning of 9/11. He was in the White House Situation Room for that purpose.

Read the whole assemblage of pieces from a new site I just found.

And this part at the end is just bloody mind-boggling:

Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's counterterrorism 'game' exercise, killing most, if not all, of the 'players'. We know this because Army personnel from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey were on special duty assignment at the Pentagon that morning for an emergency response exercise and were killed when Burlingame's plane hit. Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey also happens to be the headquarters for White House/Presidential communications, including therefore probably also for Air Force One (this is discoverable) -- and recall the warning "Air Force One is next" and the 'secret code' which was called into the White House that morning which WH press secretary Ari Fleischer revealed as a means of explaining why Pres. Bush left Florida for a military base and did not return to the White House. This 'warning' was probably called into the White House, if true, by either the Ft. Monmouth White House communications headquarters and/or the Ft. Monmouth counterterrorism exercise 'game' players temporarily at the Pentagon that morning.

This is very similar to what they did to Paul O'Neill, who was in the WTC and was very likely part of putting the 9/11 actors together.

They killed off the same people who knew most about the plot and would know what really happened.
Bookmark and Share

CIA Assets

When you read things like this:

For instance, what should we make of the fact that, less than three weeks after Atta and Marwan Al-Shehi enrolled at Florida's Huffman Aviation, a Lear jet owned by school financier Wally Hilliard was seized by DEA agents with 43 pounds of heroin onboard? It was the biggest seizure of heroin ever in central Florida, and yet Hilliard was not charged.

...and knowing the intimate relationship between the CIA and the drug trade--- I think it is fairly safe to say the 9/11 hijackers were CIA assets or were under CIA control in some way.

Assuming the CIA was handling the hijackers prior to 9/11, exactly what plans did the CIA have for the "hijackers"?

This is a really critical question.

--Was the CIA simply watching the hijackers?

--Were they setting them up in some kind of sting operation that went awry?

--Were they setting them up to be fall-guys when somebody else was doing the real hijacking?

--Were they actively helping them commit the hijackings?

The first possibility seems least likely and I think the last possibility is most likely. However it is not clear that they could recruit these men knowingly to be suicide hijackers. So there was clearly some double-crossing somewhere-- either by the hijackers or by the CIA. It's hard to know at this point without understanding the plot better. However, again my tendency is to think the CIA was using the hijackers, and not the other way around.
Bookmark and Share

Crossing the Rubicon

Last night I ordered Ruppert's book, "Crossing the Rubicon", and I am quite eager to see what his grand theory for 9/11 is. I'll post it as soon as I get the book and look it over.

Also, I am working on my own unified 9/11 theory, but mostly I haven't had a chance to sit down and type it all out. I do work for a living, and I also have young children who need a lot of attention. Thus, I certainly can't post as much as I'd like.
Bookmark and Share

Woody Box's New Article

I read over Woody Box's new article How To Steal An Airliner *AND* Fake A Hijacking, and basically my response is "eh".

My biggest problem with his story is "what's the point?". Why would they hijack a plane without passengers, swap it with a drone and then land the plane at DC National? Does this make any sense? Not to mention that Mr. Box, although his stuff is fun to read, never tries to pull it all together and explain everything that happened with flight 11, though he demeans people who promote the remote control piloting theory. Most frustratingly, Mr. Box never tries to explain what happened to the OTHER flight 11-- the one with all the passengers. That seems to be a glaring hole in his story.

Mr. Box seems to be an honest researcher and does a lot of work, but what the heck do his stories mean?

Frankly, I would prefer an open theory with some holes, to something like this, which dwells on too many trivialities.
Bookmark and Share

9/11 Uncovered

I just looked over the 9/11 Uncovered site. The person running the site has a good in your face attitude, and must be a web whiz, becuase there are so many movies on the main page with several running. The oddest thing about the site is that they have an ad for CNN at the top. It's hard to believe CNN helps sponsor the site, so it must be generic to the hosting service.

In any case, the site promotes fully the bombing of the WTC as well as missiles coming from the planes. I am quite skeptical of the missile theory, though they have one movie that (assuming it is not altered) shows very clearly something shooting out of flight 175 causing an explosion-- just before the planes hits.

I don't know how much to believe this or not. Although I am leaning towards the idea that neither flight 11 not flight 175 hit the WTC-- rather some drones hit the WTC and these flights were blown up elsewhere.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Top Anomalies of 9/11

1) Lack of normal air defenses

2) Hijackers taking over cockpits on four planes without any of the pilots alerting ATC of hijackings

3) Conflicting calls from stewardesses on flight 11

4) Improbable cell phone calls from flight 93

5) Debris field from flight 93 indicating plane exploded before hitting ground

6) Unbelievable flight path taken by "American flight 77" prior to hitting Pentagon

7) Rapid and controlled demolition-type collapse of WTC 1 and 2 towers

8) Obvious controlled demolition of WTC7

These are just the most clear-cut anomalies that defy the official story. There are others as well.

While we have good ideas to explain some if these anomalies, the major point is that these oddities demonstrate the official 9/11 story is utter hogwash.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 24, 2004

The Airlines

It sure would be interesting to know what the airlines knew about highjacking drills and exercises using live planes on 9/11. Could what they know about the wargames be the reason they have avoided lawsuits so desperately? The official reason for avoiding lawsuits was because they were liable for letting the hijackers through with banned weapons because of weak security. I always thought this was a little far-fetched myself. I still don't buy the idea that the "hijackers" had any serious weapons. Of course I also think the whole idea of the hijackers taking over the planes without the pilots alerting ATC is ridiculous.
Bookmark and Share

Hijacker Navigation

Another important question about 9/11 is-- how did the hijackers navigate the planes to their targets? Did they learn to operate the navigation equipment on the plane? This would seem to be prohibitively complicated. Did they all just have really good senses of direction? That stretches the limits of credulity.

Certainly it seems unlikely that the hijackers convinced the pilots to navigate most of the way, otherwise you would think that the pilots would have been able to alert ATC there were hijackings going on.

This is yet another reason to think the planes were taken over by remote control.

Another oddity is the flight pattern of flight 11 after the hijacking occurred. Go to "The Movement" and click on "Flight 11 Goes Site-Seeing".

The hijackers fly in the wrong direction for fourteen minutes after apparently taking control of the plane (the point when the transponder goes off). All in all this trip out of the way takes up over thirty crtical minutes. Weren't they in a rush? Were they confused? Or is there a more sinister reason? Could this have to do with swapping planes?

Check out some of the other data in this piece, and definitely read the other two parts to this series. Some screwy things happened with the flight paths. What they all mean, I don't exactly know. But they aren't consistent with the official narrative either.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Well this is interesting...

Stanley Hilton's lawsuit web site.

He lays out his theory for 9/11, which is pretty wild, but fits what many web-sites have speculated on. He also says Osama bin Laden has been dead for six years.

Either this Hilton fellow is really bonkers, or he really is on to something big.

UPDATE 9/24/04: Hilton has retracted his 9/11 theory, saying he's not sure about some of it. Bottom line-- the guy appears to be a rather large flake. I will be amazed if his lawsuit goes anywhere.
Bookmark and Share

New Products

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card in 2003, explaining why the Iraq war plans were introduced in September.

Gee, I wonder: is this why 9/11 happened when it did?

The timing for 9/11 was always interesting to me.

Was 9/11 their new product roll-out for 2001?

Bookmark and Share

Media Mea Culpas

The media has to some extent reviewed its record on the run-up to the Iraq war, and found its coverage overly credulous and underly skeptical of administration claims. While this is true, and to the extent they have apologized, it isn't enough. And of course they won't take any real blame for their part in the war.

The reason I bring this up is because there has been absolutely NO review of administration claims about 9/11. The media happily gobbled everything up the administration said without any hesitation. The media willfully ignored several oddities of the events of 9/11, and in their moment of great national importance-- EVERYONE was watching them-- gleefully sold the official 9/11 story to a shocked and gullible public. And, to me this is much much worse than the Iraq war coverage, becuase the crimes of 9/11 started it all--- this vast nightmare we find ourselves in with regard to the Bush administration and their ill-conceived and mis-begotten "war on terror".

I can only wonder if the media will EVER review their coverage of 9/11, because surely they have taken us down a dark and dangerous path.

UPDATE: via Atrios, I see the Bush guard memo story mea culpa is EVEN more important than the Iraq WMD mea culpa by the NY Times.

So to our media, in order of importance is: 1) CBS screwing up, 2) the NYTimes screwing up on the rationale for the Iraq war, and far far down 3) 9/11.

No wonder we are so screwed.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Is Ptech Connected to 9/11?

The software company Ptech was in the news a couple of years back as having terrorist links and possible connections to 9/11. Indeed, the company is owned by a Saudi national, Yasin al-Qadi, named by the Bush Administration as a financial backer of the al-Qaeda terrorist network. The company is a military contractor, and apparently has clearance to work on classified material. Most strikingly, Ptech had access to FAA computers, which in theory means they could have had inside information about wargames that were run on 9/11, since the FAA must have been alerted at some level about these exercises. Thus, Ptech could have known about the wargames, and then passed this information onto the hijackers.

So-- is this a major part of what wrong on 9/11? In theory, the Ptech connection could explain how the hijackers managed to hijack so four planes and encounter such a confused response from the FAA and NORAD-- because the hijackers knew of the ongoing wargames. This theory would validate the official story to a large extent, right?

On the other hand, this story would clearly be a major embarrassment for the US government-- to have a such a fatal security breach. Is this why the stories and investigation into Ptech have been essentially muted? Or is there some covert aspect to this story-- is this company a CIA front, and the CIA used this company to help plan the 9/11 attacks? Or is this some sort of disinformation-- a new cover story in case the official 9/11 story springs a major leak? Or is it a combination of these things?

Questions, questions, so few answers.

I'm interested to see if Mike Ruppert has anything to say about Ptech in his book, or if anyone else really knows what Ptech was doing.
Bookmark and Share

Why Do Recent Home-Grown Terrorists Have Military Ties?

Tim McVeigh

The Anthrax Mailer (used US military anthrax)

John Allen Muhamed (the DC Sniper)

Has their military background turned them into indiscriminate killers, or are they intelligence assets of some sort?

Other major recent domestic terrorists were the Unabomber and Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber. I don't know about their military background, although interestingly, their terrorism never generated the same level of attacks and the same type of headlines as the three listed at the top.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 20, 2004


If only the media would spend even half the amount of time worrying about whether the official 9/11 story is phony compared to the amount of time they have spent on the CBS memos talking about Bush's guard service.

Seems to me this forgery is far more important than anything we could ever learn about Bush's service.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Foreshadows of 9/11 in the '93 WTC Bombing and the '95 OKC Bombing?

These subjects have largely been the realm of right-wing groups such as Free Republic and others, in the same way 9/11 critics have come from the left. Generally partisans will disbelieve scandals or conspiracies coming from their own president, and will tend to believe dirt coming from a president of the opposing party. Thus we have Clinton critics talking about conpsiracies with the '93 WTC bombing and the '95 OKC bombing.

The important point is that because these conspiracies have a partisan nature, doesn't mean they are wrong. I will grant that there is some substance to charges of government conspiracy in the '93 WTC bombing and the '95 OKC bombing. But, in the same way I find it hard to believe President Bush actively knew about the 9/11 plot, I find it hard to believe Clinton knew of the '93 WTC bombing and the '95 OKC bombing plots.

The point is that there seems to be something relatively non-partisan here-- almost institutional in the FBI and CIA. That is, these agencies frequently conspire to "make things happen"-- another term for this is sting operation.

There are reasons to think that there were elements of a sting operation in the 9/11 attacks, just as there clearly was a sting operation involved in the '93 WTC bombing. There is similar evidence for a sting operation with the '95 OKC bombing.

What is highly disturbing is that the "sting" type of operation allows the government to essentially have a hand in perpetrating terror attacks, but have an obvious patsy and also have some deniability in any wrong doing since they were trying to "catch the bad guys".

I don't have time to go much further on this topic, but a key question I have is who controls these "sting operations" and what exactly is their goal? I have a strong suspicion these operations are less about catching criminals than about putting on a show for the public and manipulating news for political ends. Moreover, I have a strong feeling the these operations are often allowed to "go bad", letting attacks occur-- on purpose.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 18, 2004

The Movement

This site called "The Movement" has some nice pieces on 9/11.

I had seen the site before but hadn't really checked it out until now. The site is apparently run by Frank Levi who wrote the INN World Report piece I referenced just below. My only beef with the site is that it has a large banner that narrows the space for the articles to a very small size. Otherwise, it is a very useful site.

Most interesting to me was a story about Flight 93 that I hadn't heard before. Basically, almost everyone who was on Flight 93 was originally scheduled on another flight, flight 91, that was to leave the same morning but there was a problem with the plane on flight 91 so they moved everybody over. It sounds like flight 93 may have been some sort of ghost flight that was originally to be used only by hijackers, but unexpectedly got a bunch of passengers from another flight. Kind of like the second flight 11, maybe. I bet this fits in somehow with the highjacking wargame that was going on...
Bookmark and Share

Where Did Flight 77 Really Go?

This INN World Report article by Frank Levi does an interesting analysis of Flight 77.

Three things strike me from this piece.

1) This analysis adds doubt to the idea that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

2) Since the "highjacked" planes turned off their transponders, we really don't know where they went for sure , we can only surmise by non-specific radar signals.

3) finally they hammer on a point I have been stressing:

"Can you think of a scenario in the cockpit
where the hijackers could break into through the cockpit door, disable the
transponder and the radio before the pilot could get any sort of warning
signal to Air Traffic Control? With plastic knives and box cutters?"

Either there were no hijackers (!) or the pilots knew the hijackers and thought they were friendly (perhaps part of a planned highjacking exercise?).
Bookmark and Share

Maybe If the Government Didn't Come Up with Such Stupid-Ass Official Cover Stories for Catastrophes, There Wouldn't Be a Need for Conspiracy Theories

... is all I'm sayin'.
Bookmark and Share

Why Concentrate on 9/11 So Extensively?

Becuase 9/11 is the keystone for everything that the Bush administration has done. Everything they have done politically and military has been aided greatly by the 9/11 terror attacks. 9/11 is their excuse for everything that has gone wrong (besides Clinton).

Interestingly, while 9/11 is so central to the Bush administration, and has given them so much power, 9/11 is also their weakest and most vulnerable spot. My goal is to shed light on 9/11 as a way of gaining leverage into toppling this shocking administration. Of course this will become most important if Bush gets put back in office, because another four years of Bush could be pure disaster on so many levels. And the fact is, if Bush does win again, it will be for only one reason: 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

On 9/11 Skepticism

On the one hand, I sometimes worry about the fact that I believe in a 9/11 government "conspiracy". However, I just can't deny the the facts I know.

On the other hand, I am shocked, saddened and somewhat amazed more people in this country aren't skeptical of the official 9/11 story. I am basing this lack of skepticism primarily on President Bush's polling numbers for the upcoming election. My assumption, which I think is reasonable, is that if a person supports President Bush, they basically buy into the whole 9/11 mythology, including the whole pile of crap called the Iraq war. I see these people as either complete idiots, or people who are not dumb but are woefully misinformed.

Yet if someone really studies the evidence with an open mind, they will essentially have to conclude the official 9/11 story is at least partially wrong and there was very likely some government conspiracy to allow the attacks.

The odd thing is so many Bush supporters are happy to use 9/11 as a justification for everything crappy that has happened in the last three years, yet for something so very important, these people are remarkably incurious about the attacks themselves. It is almost as if 9/11 was just branded into their minds as some kind of circuit where 9/11 emotions can be turned on and off, but this circuit will not allow any other thoughts about 9/11.

The question is if significant numbers of people can be swayed to think more about what happened that day. I supose we can make an analogy to the Kennedy assassination-- where everyone was shocked and horrified as soon as they heard of the killing-- but forty years later, a majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill him and the Warren report was wrong.

I just hope we don't have to wait forty years to get to that point for 9/11, and I think it is likely things will move more quickly for 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Wargames on 9/11 are a Major Breakthrough

This Prison Planet article I cited a few posts back has even more significance after reading some of Mike Ruppert's latest work. While I haven't read Mike Ruppert's whole book, the chapter (pdf here) I cited a few posts back is very enlightening.

Essentially, the air defense war games that were ran prior to and during 9/11 were a major hindrance to intercepting and/or stopping the 9/11 "hijackings". What is particularly interesting is that according to Ruppert on 9/11 there were live highjacking drills going on, suggesting that perhaps the famous 19 Arab hijackers were specifically planted on the planes by whoever was in charge of the drills.

I think it is very clear that these wargames and hijacking drills were used as cover for the 9/11 attacks, and the attacks had some level of government complicity, most likely with the CIA.

I think there is no doubt that this is how 9/11 was engineered. Details beyond this are hard to fathom at this point (and maybe Ruppert has some facts on this)-- whether the famous flights 11, 175 and 77 really impacted the WTC towers and the Pentagon, or whether planes were switched and the real flights destroyed elsewhere, or a combination of these possibilities. Also we want to know whether all the flights had real hijackers, or whether only some of the flights truly did.

The story of flight 93 is certainly compelling, but since the phone calls made from this plane are in question, we just can't be sure there really were hijackers. The story of this flight also seems to be "manufactured" as part of the overall legend of 9/11.

The WTC demolition was likely part of the overall plot. In one Alex Jones interview on Prison Planet (I believe with von Bulow, the former German defense minister) there is a claim that the CIA set up the WTC demolitions and ran them from WTC7, and then this building was later destroyed to cover this up. This seems plausible, but obviously is going to be hard to prove unless somebody confesses.

Bookmark and Share

Stanley Hilton

I should say that although Stanley Hilton's interview discussed below is very interesting and entertaining, we have to take what he says with some skepticism. I personally have no reason to doubt his word, but overall his story is hard to believe as much as we might want to believe his version. Certainly it is very hard to believe there is any paper trail for Bush ordering the 9/11 attacks. More likely he has found orders for the military exercises, but I can't believe Bush and company are stupid enough to plan something like 9/11 and have obvious links back to them.

The key will be to see if his lawsuit goes anywhere, and if he really has incriminating depositions.

What is plausible is that the military has serious doubts about what happened on 9/11 and how the wargames on that day fit in. There has to be somebody willing to spill the beans if there was a clear inside plot.

On that note, Mike Ruppert's book will be very enlightening-- I hope!
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Bush Did Know?

According to this Alex Jones interview with Stanley Hilton, Bush not only knew about the 9/11 attacks but he personally ordered it!

Obviously, if what Hilton says is at all true, it is a bombshell of the greatest magnitude.

What Hilton says also dovetails quite a bit with what Mike Ruppert is saying now in terms of the overall 9/11 story. That 9/11 was essentially a military/air defense highjacking-response drill, using live planes, that came to life in a horrible way.

As Ruppert says in the book chapter I link to below, if this story ever comes to life, I'm sure the administration's fall-back position will be that Al Qaeda somehow penetrated these drills, and that is why there was so much confusion about hijacking. However, that story just won't hold up for long.

If what Hilton saying is true about what he's been hearing from military personnel, this 9/11 inside-job story is beginning to catch some major momentum.

The major worry, of course, is that in order to cover their tracks in case this story really breaks, the administration will set off some new even more horrible terror attack and declare martial law.

God help us, and let's hope true patriots will stand up for their country before such a thing happens.

(thanks to anonymous in comments for pointing me to the Hilton interview)
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, September 14, 2004


The 9/11 attacks clearly succeeded to an amazing degree.

Of course, the official story is completely ridiculous-- that 19 Arabs could:

1) take control of four commercial aircraft armed with only box-cutters (and perhaps mace)

2) gain conrol of the cockpits without the pilots alerting air traffic control of a hijacking

3) fly the planes for over 30 minutes without any air defenses being mounted

4) pilot the aircraft perfectly into three key structures, despite having very limited flying training

5) cause complete demolition of two of the tallest buildings in the world.

Did the "terrorists" ever seriously think the attacks would work this well?

Of course they didn't, because the official story is complete baloney.

But how did these attacks succeed so well?

One word: redundancy.

The 9/11 attacks were planned to an amazing degree and clearly had several back-up plans.

This redundancy can therefore explain several of the oddities of the 9/11 attacks.

The redundancy shows up as:

1) two flight 11's-- one was flown into the WTC, the other disposed of (crashed) at an unknown location;

2) a companion to flight 77-- a small American Airlines jet that was used in the ongoing military exercises-- this small jet was likely what hit the Pentagon (the real flight 77 was crashed or disposed of elsewhere);

3) the two scenarios for what happened to flight 93-- passenger revolt or hit by a missile from a late-arriving Air National Guard jet (set-up by different faked cell phone calls-- depending on what scenario the planners wanted to push first);

4) some planes with real hijackers others hijacked by remote-control;

5) explosives set in the WTC towers for demolition to amplify the damage from the planes;

6) ongoing military exercises with the Air Force and NORAD to ensure that air defenses would be compromised.

(Originally posted 9/13, edited for clarity on 9/14)

Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 13, 2004

Would 9/11 Have Happened Under a President Gore?

This is a question I have to ask myself and it is one of the hardest I have to deal with becuase it challenges my personal biases.

If you believe the official 9/11 story that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11, and that Bush had warnings of the attacks, then I have to say that I don't think 9/11 would have happened under a President Gore.

UNFORTUNATELY, I don't believe the official 9/11 story, so where does that leave me?

I will essentially dismiss the idea that either Bush or Clinton (hence Gore) knowingly and cynically planned terror attacks for cynical reasons. Clinton and Gore, after all, were no strangers to terrorism, after the '93 WTC bombing and the '95 Oklahoma City bombing. But I do not buy the idea that Clinton (hence Gore) were directly behind these episodes. Moreover, the '93 and '95 bombings were much more plausible than what we are being asked to believe for 9/11.

So-- one idea is that 9/11 was a Conservative/Republican special, designed to unify the country and to boost Bush's popularity after the massive disruptions to national unity caused by Clinton's impeachment and the election 2000 debacle. In this scenario, 9/11 may have been planned by Bush Sr. and Cheney, as way of propping up the fortunes of GWB, and reclaiming the Bush family name after the ignominious defeat of '92. These people appear to be such thugs I wouldn't put it past them.

But the other idea I have to put out is that 9/11 was essentially non-partisan-- it was engineered by the elements US National Security apparatus that are out of the control of elected politicians. These people have an agenda of various sorts (starting wars to maintain the military infrastructure, gaining access to oil, controlling the drug trade, and gaining more control over the US populace via things like the Patriot Act) for which nothing will stop them, even engineering a massive terror attack that kills thousands of US citizens.

Both theories seem equally plausible to me.

Of course, scenario one and scenario two overlap to some degree-- some of the same people are involved.

So, basically, my conclusion is that 9/11 could have happened under a President Gore, but I think it was much more likely to happen under President George W. Bush.
Bookmark and Share


As far as 9/11 and truth, I fear Democrats are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

This is probably for two reasons:
1) willful ignorance of problems with the 9/11 story, perhaps many are afraid of questioning the government;
2) institutional corruption-- they are in bed with the Republicans in terms of hiding national security "secrets".

I don't really know what John Kerry knows about 9/11. He is a smart man and has to wonder somewhat about 9/11-- especially since he worked on exposing the BCCI scam and drug rings. He has to know about governemtnal corruption as much as anybody. However, he is in an awkward position (with Iraq in the same way), where he can't deviate from the official line too much, or else he will get creamed. Especially in the case of 9/11, where he will no doubt be called a conspiracy theorist and so forth. Interestingly, the downfall of Howard Dean began shortly after he was accused of propagating conspiraciy theories for 9/11-- and his comment was only the fairly mild version of "the Saudis knew and warned Bush". In any case, Kerry CAN'T go after 9/11 right now.

I do think Kerry is an honest and principled man, and I hope that if he is elected he will oversee a real 9/11 investigation. But I am probably hoping too much.

The Democrats who have fallen quite a bit in my eyes are Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Of course Clinton as ex-POTUS has to maintain a certain official air, and since he wants Kerry to win (in my opinion), he can't go off the reservation about 9/11. Gore has been somewhat disappointing, because I thought he of all people might try to uncover the truth of 9/11. Gore was in a position to know the truth, and in his position now, has nothing to lose by promoting the truth. I suppose Gore, who also wants Kerry to win, can't get too "wacky" about 9/11. So I will cut a little slack for Clinton and Gore for now. But if they continue to perpetuate the official 9/11 story AFTER the Novemeber election, I will be even more disappointed in them. Unfortunately, I strongly suspect they will continue to perpetuate the official 9/11 story, so overall it will be a major (and pleasant) surprise if they deviate from the official story after November 2004.

No matter whether Bush or Kerry get elected in November, I think the Democrats have to go after the truth on 9/11. If Bush wins (which I think would be an absolute disaster-- especially if the Dems don't get control of at least one branch of Congress), my only consolation will be trying to expose the truth on 9/11 and I hope other Democrats will do the same.
Bookmark and Share

"Bush Knew"

In my current working hypothesis for 9/11, I have to say that reports that Bush knew about 9/11 are mostly disinfo. Moreover, they are probably disinfo with a point-- to keep Bush in line. If Bush ever started questioning the official 9/11, I imagine new data would surface that Bush knew very precisely of the 9/11 plot. In other words, "Bush knew" is a frame-in-waiting in case Bush goes off the reservation. This is likely the case for someone like Condi Rice as well. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, was probably in very deep.

This is not to say Bush had no idea. He HAD to have some idea of what was going to go down on 9/11. But operationally I'm sure he was kept out of the loop.
Bookmark and Share

Fantasy Land

Who is living in a fantasy land-- those who accept the official explanation for 9/11 or those who seek explanations for the many holes in the official 9/11 story?

Obviously I feel people who believe the official 9/11 story are delusional, and nothing is more maddening than hearing newscasters STILL go on about Al Qaeda hijackers flying into buildings, and huge structures collapsing as a result, and the huge threat of Osama bin Laden. By now the official 9/11 story is pretty much hard-wired into most media people's brains, after three years of constant repetition, and I'm not sure really there is much we can do to change this. It has always boggled my mind that the major media gobbled up the official 9/11 story and have not bothered to question anything. I don't know about the American public at large-- but clearly a significant fraction of New Yorkers are open to other theories, as judged by the Zogby poll. But the media is clearly a problem. Are they just idiots? Or are they being heavily pressured by their superiors not to ask questions?

But after three and a half years of seeing the blatant lies put out by the Bush administration, I am a little shocked that the media hasn't gotten the sense that these people in charge of the government are thugs and cheats and thus wondered if maybe they ARE covering up something about 9/11.

The NYTimes on 9/11/04 wrote a little editorial about 9/11 "Public Knowledge". I got excited thinking they might talk about some of the problems with the official story. No such luck. It was about people's responses to the tragedy. The closest they got to asking hard questions was "why so many first responders died" and "what was in the terrorists' minds" and "how the attack affected the long-term health of New Yorkers" (I'll grant the last is an important question). I sent in a letter pointing out to them the Zogby 9/11 poll and the 9/11 truth movement. They have not run the letter or any similar letter since then.

Clearly there is still a lot of work for us to do.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 12, 2004


How I feel when I think about this stuff too much.
Bookmark and Share

Ruppert: Crossing the Rubicon

I just found this pdf of a chapter from Mike Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon".

After reading it, all I can say is WOW. He does an amazing job of putting things together regarding 9/11 wargames and the attacks. Unfortunately, since it is only one chapter, he doesn't give out everything. But basically, he confirms strongly the conclusions I have been coming up to in the last couple of weeks.

War-games by NORAD and the Air Force were the cover for the 9/11 attacks and were also the means by which the US ran the attacks.

I would suggest anyone interested in this subject should read the piece.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 11, 2004

In Memoriam

Since today is the three-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I want to point out that this site is dedicated to the proposition that we honor the thousands of dead of that day by completely understanding what happened on 9/11 and finding the truth about the government's knowledge of the attacks.

My questioning 9/11 is in no way meant to bring disrespect to the people who perished on that day. Nor do I want to bring disrespect to the thousands of government workers (air traffic controllers, FBI agents, safety officers, military officers, etc) who faithfully and honestly execute their jobs.

I strongly hold that there is much more to the 9/11 attacks than Osama bin Laden and a band of fanatic hijackers. I think there is evidence of government complicity and government cover-up in the attacks.

The goal of this site is to try to work through the evidence, and find the clearest evidence that will help bring 9/11 into the light.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 10, 2004

9/11 Disinformation and What We Know

If we assume the official 9/11 story is NOT true, and that 9/11 was in fact a covert operation planned (and run?) by US intelligence agents, it behooves us to think that these planners put in place a set of false leads or built-in disinformaiton that will leave major road-blocks for those trying to uncover the truth about 9/11.

My sincere hope is that 9/11 does not get bogged down in what happened with people researching JFK assassination conspiracies. That is, the majority of the public believes that the official story is wrong, but nonetheless people are powerless to get answers for what really happened from the government. My impression for why JFK conspiracies have not uncovered the truth is: a) government secrecy and b) built-in false leads to stymie investigators.

Clearly, these things are happening with the 9/11 truth movement. We are stymied by government secrecy as well as false leads that are undoubtedly planted on purpose. I can only hope that the large number of people interested in the truth about 9/11, plus the large number of people who died, plus the wonder of the internet will help us crack open the truth for 9/11. I still worry the government will not simply open up, but will reveal layer of layer of false leads relating to 9/11, and we may not know what really happened for another generation.

Here are some of the things I believe are built-in false leads and false alternative leads (i.e. disinformation):
1) Osama bin Laden and the named hijackers
2) connections to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
3) the money trail to the 9/11 hijackers
4) the Israeli spy-ring story
5) the Pentagon surveillance video

Here are the things I think they don't want us to think about and therefore may represent true leads:
1) that none of the hijacked planes never officially reported hijackings to ATC.
2) the lack of info on the contents and status of the black boxes-- suggests the info they contain is something the government doesn't want us to know about
3) the damage to the Pentagon
4) the unlikelihood of cell phones calls from flight 93
5) the several air-defense exercises run on and before 9/11 and who was in charge
6) how WTC1, 2 and 7 collapsed

Here are things I am unsure about whether they are key data or disinfo:
1) discrepencies in airphone calls from the hijacked planes
2) the lack of flying ability by the hijackers

This is what I can think of for now. I'm sure I will have more to say later on.
Bookmark and Share

Betty Ong's Call from Flight 11-- More Evidence for Two Different Flight 11s?

A recording of the call made by Flight 11 Attendent Betty Ong and the transcript of the call can be seen here.

Simply put, and with all due respect to these two women, the calls from Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney do not fit together to make a coherent picture.

The largest discrepency is that Betty Ong, who appears to be in Coach Class says that mace was used in Business Class and no one can breath or get up there. However, Amy Sweeney, who apparently was in Business Class, because she allegedly gave the seat numbers for the hijackers, says nothing about mace. This is a major problem.

Ong's call also has none of the dramatics of the way Sweeney's call ended. Overall, both women seem somewhat stressed, but are also fairly calm. Both women talk about passengers being stabbed. Neither attendent refers to the other attendent making a call. Ong seems to give more detail, but also gives the highly improbable info that all the hijackers are in the cockpit. This simply can't be true if there are five hijackers, as were alleged for flight 11.

These discrepencies can be resolved by three basic possibilities:

1) both calls are fake. This does seem somewhat unlikely however, since you would think they would have gotten their stories together better if they were fake calls. But perhaps this is some built-in disinfo in the 9/11 legend-- more on this later.

2) one call is real and one call is fake. But why would they fake one call if they had a bona fide call? Again, this may be some built-in disinfo in the 9/11 legend.

3) there were actually two different flight 11's, and Ong and Sweeney are each on different hijacked flights. This would seem to resolve many if not all of the discrepencies in the two calls. It just leaves the big question of which flight 11 hit the WTC and what happened to the other?

Or both calls were from a single flight 11, which really was hijacked-- just that Sweeney got the hijacker's seat numbers wrong and didn't know smell the mace in business class, AND somehow the hijackers got control of the cockpit without the pilots alerting ATC of a hijacking-- even though was some commotion in the plane since allegedly there were stabbed passengers (who most likely were stabbed before the cockpit was taken over). Conceivably the hijackers could have taken control of the cockpit first, and then the passengers were stabbed when they went to investigate what was going on in the cockpit. Maybe. This still doesn't explain how the hijackers over-powered both pilots in the very small space of the cockpit, without the pilots alerting ATC. And we can't really explain how Sweeney's version doesn't fit.

Very odd, very very odd.

As odd as all this is, this data can be explained by the existence of two different flight 11's each with different hijackers. I'm not saying this is the answer, just that this fits the data best. And Woody Box (see previous post) has a somewhat compelling case for two different flight 11's.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 09, 2004

The Call from Flight 11 Attendent Amy Sweeney-- Two Different Flight 11's?

This BBC article from Friday, 21 September, 2001 gives some interesting details about Flight 11 and the call made (allegedly by Flight Attendent Amy Sweeney).

Things that stick out:

"When Ms Sweeney came on the phone to ground staff in Boston it was to report that a hijack was in progress.

Four attackers had cut the throat of a passenger in business class and stabbed two others, she said.

Three of the hijackers had been sitting in business class themselves and one spoke very good English.

As Ms Sweeney was giving their seat numbers, they reached the cockpit

Okay-- so why the hell weren't the pilots ready to meet these guys and stop them-- or why didn't they at least alert ATC!? It is not like the hijackers snuck into the cockpit. This makes no fucking sense.


"as the plane suddenly changed course, that she spoke her last reported words:

"I see water and buildings. Oh my God! Oh my God!"

Yes, that is very believable from a veteran flight attendent. She wouldn't recognize Manhattan. Just buildings and water. Right.


"Officials at American Airlines have been asked not to discuss the telephone call with the press"



"one unnamed member of staff praised the dead flight attendant.

"She was very, very composed, very detailed," he said.

"It was impressive that she could do that."

Umm, maybe because it was all an act?

Then here's the kicker:

"Ms Sweeney's account of the hijacking provides unique evidence of what took place but it also appears to conflict with previous information.

The FBI has named five hijackers on board Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four.

Also, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names.

Gee-- how on earth could this be possible?


Maybe the FBI just made all this crap up?

Maybe there were no hijackers on Flight 11 in the first place?

Or could there have been two different flight 11's, each with different hijackers?
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Electronic Control of 757's and 767's and More Evidence the Cell Phone Calls Were Fake

The following article is quite amazing and strongly suggests the hijackings were done electronically and this may have been part of the war-game:

Planes of 911 Exceeded Their Software Limits

"by Jim Heikkila
Saturday August 17, 2002

Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 9/11.

The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.

They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.

No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.

The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.

The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.

There is only one way this can happen.

As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.

Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.

Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank.

The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. There is only one way this can happen on a 757 or 767. When the aircraft are commandeered via remote control, the microphones that go to the cockpit voice recorder are re routed to the people doing the remote controlling, so that the recording of what happened in the cockpit gets made in a presumably safer place. But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running. The voice recorders use what is called a continuous loop tape, which automatically re passes itself past the erase and record heads once every half hour, so after a half hour of running with the microphones redirected, the tape will be blank. Just like the recovered tapes were. Yet more proof that no pilot flew those planes in the last half hour.

Eight of the hijackers who were on those planes called up complaining that they were still alive. I'd bet you never heard about our foreign minister flying to Morocco and issuing an official apology to the accused, did you? No, terrorists did not fly those planes, plastic knives and box cutters were in fact too ridiculous to be true. Any of the remaining accused have certainly been sought out and killed by now.

Our information IS controlled

The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened. I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist, and am qualified to say this. My official title: MOS33Q10, Electronic Warfare Intercept Strategic Signal Processing/Storage Systems Specialist, a highly skilled MOS which requires advanced knowledge of many communications methods and circuits to the most minute level. I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft.

It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural area for a number of reasons.

When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone's five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts.

I hope I made sense, if you have questions I will respond if possible. If I do not respond, please research this out yourself, search the boeing site, search the DARPA site, search were you have not searched before. Some of the information is classified and leaked by individuals, and it is also being scoured from the net. I have all of the original documents on my computer to safeguard against this.

Please do not ignore this, because only Norad has the flight codes for those aircraft, we did 911 to ourselves. Hitler had the Reichstag, we have 911. If 911 proves to not be enough to make the US citizenry set aside its rights for safety, the people who did 911 most certainly have access to nuclear material. 911 must be exposed for what it was before that material is used."
Bookmark and Share

War Games Gone Wrong?

This article is very interesting and gives us a good glimpse of what went wrong on 9/11.

So many war games were being run on 9/11 or had been run just before 9/11, that ATC and NORAD were totally confused and didn't mount the normal response to hijackings.

This can certainly explain some things, but not all. For instance-- were the hijackings real or part of the war-game?

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

More Thoughts on the Hijackings

The cockpit is a smallish place and the door to the cockpit is narrow. The door can fit one person at a time, who sort of has to climb in to where the pilots sit. I simply cannot see how the hijackers could have forced entry into the cockpit and disabled both pilots at once. One hijacker could get in, and then do what? Attack one pilot. Surely the other pilot could turn on the emergency alarm when he sees the other pilot attacked. Not to mention that many of the pilots were big men, Vietnam vets, and should have been able to put up a fight. I just don't see how the hijackers could overpower both pilots four out of four times. If you were a terrorist, would you count on this for your plan to succeed? Nor do I buy the idea that security was REALLY lax for the hijackers and they got guns, bombs and/or gas on board.

I still think the most likely explanation is electronic hijacking plus electronic jamming of plane signals going out.
Bookmark and Share

How Did the Hijackers Do It?

According to the official 9/11 story, on 9/11/01, four teams of hijackers, armed with nothing more than box cutters and knives, over-powered the flight crews on four different commerical aircraft and took over piloting of the aircraft. How they did this is not known at all. This is one of the most unexplored areas of 9/11 research, and also one of the most important.

The hijackers mission was all the more incredible in that none of the pilots of the four planes reported hijackings to air traffic control-- as far as we know. And frankly, if there were recordings of the pilots (or even one pilot) saying we have hijackers on-board, wouldn't the press and the 9/11 commission flog it endlessly as proof of the hijackings?

The closest thing we have to a pilot saying there is a hijacking (according to the Report from the 9/11 independent commission) is a transmission supposedly from the cockpit of flight 93 saying "mayday!" and then 35 seconds later someone yelling "get out of here! get out of here!" (This itself is a little odd, since you might think they would say "get out of here!" before "mayday!").

Something we don't hear about much is that pilots have a special emergency transmitter that can be turned on in case of a hijacking. However, not one pilot on the hijacked planes turned this transmitter on. Why didn't even the flight 93 pilots turn this on, since apparently they knew enough to say "mayday" and apparently were in a struggle?

In fact, it is EXTREMELY suspicious that none of the four planes officially reported hijackings to air traffic control (ATC). In particular, on flight 93-- where supposedly there was a struggle before the hijackers took control-- why didn't the pilot turn on the emergency transmitter?

Thus we are supposed to believe the hijackers on all four planes were able to force themselves into the cockpit and take over both pilots' seats without the pilots alerting ATC or turning on the emergency transmitter. The only way the official story could be true is if the cockpit door was not locked at all, and the hijackers were able to suddenly rush in and kill or subdue the pilots within seconds-- four out of four times! This feat, which strikes me and others as almost impossible, makes it very unlikely that the hijackings took place according to the official story.

So what did happen?

The only plausible alternative, barring some extremely strange scenario, is that the planes were taken over by remote control and electronic transmissions from the planes were jammed. Thus, in this scenario, the pilots were powerless to control the plane and they could not alert ATC. This theory might also explain how the transponders went off. This scenario would then account for several oddities about the hijackers, including their lack of flying abilities. The major problem with this theory is the apparent existence of phone calls from the flight attendants and the passengers. But, as I have already gone over in an earlier post, many of these calls are implausible anyway, and so they may well have been faked.

I will grant that the simplest hypothesis is the official story with fanatical hijackers taking control over the planes and flying them into infamy. The major problem with this idea is the fact that the pilots DID NOT ALERT ATC OF HIJACKINGS. Since this seems so unlikely, we must come up with another hypothesis.
Bookmark and Share

Pod Retraction

After further review, I have decided not to consider the strange bulge under flight 175 as a "pod": an added-on weapon of some sort. I think the "pod" is most likely just a trick of the light and angle of the plane. The "pod" was always quite unlikely anyway. Still unresolved, I think, is whether the plane that flew into the south tower was really flight 175. This is based on the proportions of the plane-- since the striking plane seems to look like a 757-300, not a 757-200 series.

I'm still working under the assumption that the plane that struck the Pentagon was not flight 77 (maybe a "plane-bomb" of some sort), and if I can make this assumption, then having flight 175 switched to another flight is not too hard to imagine. The key, really, is what happened at the Pentagon.....
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 05, 2004

The Israeli Spy at the Pentagon Story

I haven't commented on this story for one main reason:

is it really such a surprise?

I mean, it is disturbing and all, but heck-- what am I going to do about this? I'll let the government deal with this one. It'll be interesting to see who, if anyone, has the balls to take on the Israeli lobby.

I suspect there are some serious power games going on here, and I can't pretend to understand what it all means.
Bookmark and Share

The Pentagon Surveillance Video-- Disinformation?

This video, supposedly showing flight 77 hitting the Pentagon followed by a large explosion, is strange and has been analyzed by many 9/11 researchers. It can be seen at Eric Bart's site for instance.

The most obvious odd things about the video are:
1) the date is wrong-- 9/12
2) key frames seem to be missing
3) the lighting changes in some frames suggesting it has been altered digitally
4) the shape of the explosion, which should have emitted only from the entry hole, is very symmetrically placed over the top of the building, suggesting the explosion was added in digitally.

Why would the Pentagon release such an obviously strange video?

1) they are covering something up but very sloppily
2) the video is pure disinformation designed to throw 9/11 researchers off track

My tendency is to think the latter. I mean, why release it at all if it so obviously weird?

Bookmark and Share

Wild-eyed Lunatic Ravings

As I go about my daily life, it is often hard to imagine the 9/11 attacks as a massive government conspiracy. Not that I think it isn't possible-- just that it seems so detached from everyday life.

So how much off the deep-end have I gone when I think there were plane-bombs and switched flights on 9/11? Am I trying too much to imagine some deep evil plot from our government?

An interesting thing for me is reading about how some 9/11 conspiracy people like to talk about conspiracies involving SARS and the "mysterious deaths" of microbiologists after 9/11. As a professional biomedical scientist, I know that talk about engineering SARS is just a lot of hooey. And there is no mystery in the deaths of microbiologists that occurred after 9/11. There is a huge population of microbiologists in this country, and the fact that some of these people might die over a certain period of time is fairly predictable. Furthermore, microbiology is such a diverse and specialized field, it is hard to see how the people that died point to any conspiracy. For instance, Don Wiley, a "microbiologist" from Harvard who disappeared in Memphis was in fact a highly-regarded scientist who studied protein structures relating to viruses and the immune system. He wasn't a true "microbiologist", since he didn't work on bacteria. His body was later found in the Mississippi river and apparently he suffered from some balance diorder. They think he fell off a bridge while walking late at night. Sure, it sounds a little fishy, but knowing as I do what he worked on, I find it hard to believe his death was part of some strange plot because he "knew too much". I didn't know him personally, but I doubt very much there was anything "dark" about what he did.

So, the fact is that I have no training in engineering or in the military. I know very little about how the CIA and other secret government organizations operate. Thus, I know I am on shaky ground when I try to speculate about huge conspiracies involving the government on 9/11. And what do I know about buildings collapsing and planes blowing up?

All I can say is that I am trying to use my best judgement and my most logical thinking to examine 9/11. And I don't need special training to know that there are very peculiar things about 9/11 that haven't been explained properly.

Thus in no particular order:
1) how did so many cell phone calls get through from flying planes on 9/11-- in particular from flight 93-- when it is clear that cell phones do not work under these circumstances?
2) how did a terrorist pilot who basically couldn't fly, pilot a Beoing 757 into the Pentagon at such a precise approach?
3) how did the large plane that hit the Pentagon produce such a small hole in the wall and how did it essentially vaporize?
4) what is that strange bulge under the wing of "flight 175"?
5) how come "flight 175" doesn't have the dimensions of a Boeing 757-200 series plane which it is supposed to be?
6) how did the US government know so much about the "hijackers" but were supposedly unable to stop them?
7) how come the evidence found relating to the "hijackers" on 9/11 sounds suspiciously planted?
8) how did the "hijackers" all take over the controls of the planes so easily?
9) why did WTC7 collapse from an apparent controlled demolition?
10 how did the WTC towers collapse in such a controlled manner and at a time when the plane fires had almost burned out?

... and on and on and on...

I think it doesn't take specialized scientific training to see there are many many problems with the official story.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 04, 2004


This Michael Chossudovsky piece crystallizes many of the things I have been thinking about lately.

Please go read it.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 03, 2004

The Hijackers on 9/11

Were planes on the morning of 9/11 really hijacked by Arabs at all?

Were the 19 faces they put out there just fall guys and a nice cover story?

Several things suggest this may be the case:

1) many of the "hijackers" have turned up alive. Even Mohammed Atta was alive after 9/11 according to his father.

2) none of the four planes sent a normal hijacking signal. Why not? If foreigners tried to take over the plane, wouldn't the pilots set this off?

3) the flying of the planes was performed much too expertly for the known skill level of the hijackers

4) the hijackers weren't on the flight manifests.

5) the main evidence supporting the existence of the hijackers comes from cell phones calls-- which were likely faked since cell phones call can't me made from fast high-flying planes.

6) the way the hijackers were identified after the attacks, with the cars containing the flight manuals and the Korans, smells strongly of planted evidence.

The no hijacker theory fits nicely with the plane-bomb theory.

Okay, then what really happened to Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93?

Since the transponders were turned off, who the hell knows where they really went?

I'll have to think about it some more.
Bookmark and Share

Pod People and Plane Bombs

After examining more 9/11 sites, in particular this amics21 site, I must say I have a little more respect for the "pod" theory. There was definitely something strange under the wing of "flight 175". The Amics21 site also seems to show fairly convincingly that the plane that hit the South WTC tower was not really United 175. Basically it has to do with the length of the plane and whether it is a Boeing 757-300 or a 757-200. Their analysis seems sound. So if you can handle that the South-tower-hitting-plane was not United 175, then it is not too hard of a stretch to think that this plane could be a modified Boeing 300 with a bulging "pod" structure underneath which could have been a bomb or missile.

This evidence really points in the direction of a large-scale government conspiracy, but I don't see anyway around it. And really only the military could do something like this.

The one thing the not-Flight 175 evidence seems to support is the idea that something besides Flight77 hit the Pentagon. Thus, it seems quite possible that both "flight 175" and "flight 77" were mock-ups of civilian aircraft, but in fact were plane-bombs armed with missiles. Thus, in an odd way, the weirdness of flight 175 helps explain the weirdness of the Pentagon hit.

I know this may sound far-fetched, but it really seems to be the way the data are pointing. At this point I am thinking the whole hijacker story is just a ruse-- a giant red-herring. This would explain a lot .
Bookmark and Share

What Did bin Laden Have to do with 9/11 Again?

from CNN:

"Bin Laden's wealth not the force behind 9/11"

So... if bin Laden didn't use his own money to run 9/11, then what did he do?

Just provide spiritual guidance?
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

9/11 Skeptics Unite!

9/11 Skeptics Unite! seems to be a good clearing-house for current 9/11 news.

They have a story on fire tests done on a mock-up of the WTC floor plan, and the results seem to contradict the official story. I need to read the story more carefully, however.

One odd thing about this 9/11 skeptics blog and many other 9/11 blogs, is that there seems to be little or no attempt to construct a coherent narrative for what really happened on 9/11. Granted this is difficult, but it is frustrating to read weird stories and collections of weird stories without an attempt to put it in a larger context.

I also find it very annoying that some blogs or web-sites don't have any comments (such as "Xymphora" and "911 skeptics unite!") or they have difficult to use comments sections (many other sites I've seen). I think you would want to encourage feedback and an exchange of ideas. Moreover "Xymphora" and "911 skeptics unite!" do not even seem to have any way to contact the author, which seems odd to me. By the way, "Xymphora" and "911 skeptics unite!" are both blogspot blogs, where it is extremely easy to have a comments section.

As for me, right now I am trying to sort out different theories-- that's the point of this blog. Eventually I would like to construct some unified 9/11 theory. I have some ideas, but I'm still trying to piece it all together.

And please leave a comment if you have any ideas!
Bookmark and Share

More Thoughts on the Pentagon Hit

I'm still thinking something very strange happened at the Pentagon on 9/11-- something contrary to the official story. What I have been thinking about for the past day or so is this: did the plane explode OUTSIDE or INSIDE the Pentagon?

If the plane exploded outside, we would expect a LOT more debris outside, so this couldn't have happened. Unless there were special explosives that truly shattered the plane into teeny tiny bits. But this invokes a conspiracy involving planted explosives.

If the plane exploded inside or halfway in, this would explain the lack of debris outside. However, how could the entry hole be so small if the plane exploded AFTER entering the wall? Wouldn't an inside explosion have the effect of making the entry hole bigger? Plus, once the plane had penetrated, there would be less oxygen to fuel a massive explosion from the jet fuel. So this doesn't make sense either.

So what DID happen?

Possible theories:
1) a "plane bomb" a la Eric Bart (see a few posts below)
2) a military jet loaded with ordinance or a cruise missile (here we need to postulate an overfly by an American airlines jet).

Clealry, these theories involve a fairly extensive conspiracy. However, I see no other truly valid theory.

These alternative theories have the added benefit of negating the idea that Hani Hanjour, who basically could not fly a plane, flew American Flight 77 in a tight descending spiral and then made an extremely tight hit on the Pentagon wall.

Is it worth contacting government agenices using the FOIA to ask them about the Pentagon crash?
Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger