Humint Events Online: April 2005

Saturday, April 30, 2005

On Flying a Plane Into the Pentagon

It seems to me that a human pilot simply would not hit the Pentagon at an oblique angle. It seems like it would go against all instinct to hit at a slant like that.

If you really wanted to damage the Pentagon with your plane, wouldn't you line up the plane to fly straight into it? It certainly seems like this would be the natural inclination. The worry with a slanted attack path, as was apparently taken, is that you would give only a glancing blow to the facade, diffuse the energy of your impact and perhaps even bounce off the wall without penetrating.

On the other hand, a remote control drone or a missile wouldn't have this inclination to approach straight on.

For what it is worth.

And what is the deal with those spots on the Pentagon lawn that seem to line up perfectly with the path of the plane? Oddly those spots were there even before 9/11 (scroll down).
Bookmark and Share

Some Weird Stuff About Flight 93

Here. The fact that most of the flight 93 passengers are not in the Social Security Death Index is interesting, but I'm really not sure what to make of the findings about Todd Beamer's father Dave.
Bookmark and Share

A Watershed Moment for the 9/11 Truth Movement

David Ray Griffin on C-SPAN2.

They aired his speech this morning. I saw the first half of it and it was quite good. I liked the way he started off from a theological and political viewpoint and cited various authors who supported different positions.

What was most striking was Griffin pushing the oddities of the Pentagon hit, something I have spent a fair amount of time on here.

Now according to some 9/11 truth activists, the Pentagon is a red herring, a honey pot that is a trap for conspiracy theorists-- and in fact they think the government set this trap on purpose to derail and discredit 9/11 skeptics (for instance they think this is why the FBI hasn't released the confiscated Pentagin footage).

Nonehteless, Griffin is out there pushing the Pentagon no-757 story and is getting on C-SPAN. Interesting.

I suppose some skeptics would say they are showing Griffin precisely because he can discredit himself by talking about the Pentagon. That may be. But on the other hand, Griffin's whole argument does not rest on the Pentagon, and many of his points are very strong and not so controversial.

Overall, I think Griffin's speech did a lot more good than harm, even if he did refer to the dreaded Pentagon hit. At least judging by the comments on his speech at Democratic Underground, Griffin opened a lot of eyes.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, April 29, 2005

9/11 Truth-- Not Dead Yet!!!

Although I have previously questioned whether the 9/11 truth movement will really go anywhere, events of the past few days have made me re-think this idea.

First, David Ray Griffin's 9/11 speech in Madison Wisconsin is to be aired on CSPAN2 this Sat, April 30th, 10:30 AM (tomorrow)!!!!!!!! I'm not quite sure what got into the C-SPAN programmers but this is BIG! His speech has been getting rather positive reviews even in the mainstream press.

Could David Ray Griffin single-handedly alter the momentum of the 9/11 truth movement?

But wait, there's more! Sibel Edmonds is making a major push for whistle-blowing on 9/11, and has an impressive list of whistle-blowers backing her, such as FBI agents Colleen Rowley and Robert Wright.

Finally, I have a general sense from going around discussion forums that more and more people are questioning 9/11.

If the media would pick up on this movement and start asking questions of the Bush administration-- THEN we might really get somewhere in terms of justice. And that would be both amazing and awesome.

For now the good thing is that the movement seems to be gaining some mass -- and if enough people start questioning 9/11, the government will HAVE to do something to re-address 9/11. That will be interesting.
Bookmark and Share

The Landing Gear-- Proof of No 757 Hitting the Pentagon?

This piece found in the Pentagon is very interesting. The Pentagonresearch site has it under 757 evidence, but I don't think it is so clearly a piece from a 757.

The piece certainly looks like a plane's landing gear, and is similar to a 757 landing gear, but as far as I can tell after looking at it for almost an hour, it is clearly NOT the same structure as shown in the picture of the 757 landing gear. The brackets that come off the top, where the "reaction link" goes, are much shorter than for the 757 piece and overall the head structure of the landing gear in the Pentagon photo is quite different from the 757 gear shown.

I think this is therefore PROOF that a normal 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

This of course pokes a major hole in the official 9/11 story....

I should of course point out that the wheel hub found at the Pentagon matches a 757 fairly well. However, this certainly doesn't prove a 757 hit the Pentagon, only that a plane with 757-like wheels hit there. And this wouldn't be too surprising since the landing gear is also similar. However, a landing gear that doesn't match is more damning than a wheel that does match, in my opinion.
Bookmark and Share

Billmon on Neocon Philosophy

Actually he reviews the book "Leo Strauss and the American Right" by Shadia Drury. It is too hard to summarize but basically the whole thing is well worth a read.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Disgusting, Creepy, Outrageous, Ominous

The Catholic church is aligning with US Republicans in the fight over judicial nominees.
Evangelical Protestants have led the way in portraying Democrats as enemies of God, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has chimed in on the issue of judicial nominees in a mass mailing to parishioners timed to yield constituent letters just as the matter comes to a vote. If the Republicans succeed, they will not just have crushed Democratic opposition in the Senate but will be en route to a dramatic weakening of the independent judiciary. Tom DeLay, the ultraconservative Republican leader of the House of Representatives, recently said, defiantly, to a group of reporters: "We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse." In an audio recording obtained by the Los Angeles Times of Protestant leaders at a private meeting, the most influential among them, James C. Dobson, provided chilling detail: "Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court. They don't have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it's gone."

No successful putsch ever announces itself as such. The putsch likely to be attempted soon will be presented as a simple change in the Senate rules, and it will succeed unless at least six GOP senators dare to break with the radicalism of the Bush administration and join with all the Democratic senators (and one independent) to defeat it: Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, John McCain? The roster of the brave is ominously short.

Last January, Fritz Stern — a German emigre historian who witnessed the rise of Nazism — was asked whether the United States could ever become an authoritarian state. Stern, who has steadfastly resisted facile comparisons, replied: "My hope is that the real conservatives of this country may catch fire, the ones who regard civil rights and the Constitution as fundamental, and that on those grounds they may rise up against the foreign and domestic excesses of this administration and say, finally, 'No! You are not going to get away with this!' Three or four senators could be enough to turn the tide." But will there be even that many?

And the German pope? In what mood does he witness the rising threat to democracy within the U.S.? During the presidential election, each candidate had an issue that he could exploit to claim Pope John Paul II as an ally. Kerry had Iraq, which the pope opposed; Bush had abortion. But Ratzinger would have nothing of such evenhandedness. "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia," the future pope wrote to the U.S. bishops. "There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

What his letter seemed to suggest was that if Bush gave Rome what it wanted on the abortion issue and the (now strategically inflamed) euthanasia issue, Rome would do its best to give Bush what he wanted regarding the death penalty and, above all, war. The question that now arises is whether Rome is offering a similar deal with the U.S. Constitution at stake: If Bush backs Rome on abortion and euthanasia, Rome will do what it can to turn U.S. Catholics against the filibuster.
Bookmark and Share

The Pentagon Problem

Silly silly people who question what happened at the Pentagon:
My quick analysis on how this is happening right now would be to point out two red herrings: The Pentagon Theory and the accusations of anti-Semitism. Paul Thompson of the 9/11 Timeline was on the Morning Sedition show and host Mark Marin dismissed the entire 9/11 Truth website by saying, "Oh, it's one of those sites that say no plane hit the Pentagon." We're being judged by our weakest link. And it is pretty weak.

You had rush hour traffic on I-395 that saw the plane hit, you have 100 eyewitnesses compiled in the pamphlet published by Penny Schoner. Where the hell did this theory come from? Thierry Meyssan's book "The Horrible Fraud" was the original source. Meyssan wrote his book from Paris, he didn't travel over here. The book is highly imaginative, and in the middle of a trauma, people are searching for answers. A lot of people in the 9/11 truth movement glommed onto this one and I think it's hurt our credibility over all. You have to wonder if that was by design. For instance, all the right-wing magazines (e.g. National Review) have had a field day.

Well I guess even though I am hurting "the movement", I am one of those silly people who question what happened at the Pentagon. Are we simply not allowed to "go there"?

For what it is worth, I do think some sort of plane hit the Pentagon-- I just don't think it was flight 77 and I don't that it was an ordinary plane.

Here is the Pentagon problem in a nutshell:

First, I have no problem with the idea that the plane got totally smashed into thousands of mostly very small pieces upon crashing into the Pentagon facade and this is why no significant plane wreckage was found.

Also, I also have no great problem with the idea of a fairly intact plane smashing through the three outer rings of the Pentagon and then making a nice neat exit hole 300 feet from the point of first impact, even if this means the plane had to penetrate several concrete walls and bounce off several steel-reinforced columns on the way.

The PROBLEM is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say the plane blew up upon impact and threw debris from the fuselage onto the Pentagon lawn but then say a significant part of the plane was intact enough to go through 300 feet of a building consisting of concrete walls and steel-reinforced columns and then finally knock a 9 foot circular hole in the last wall.

The other PROBLEM is that you can't say the plane blew up on impact and threw debris from the fuselage onto the Pentagon lawn but then say the remaining 99.9% of the fuselage with the people and seats and luggage and everything else that was supposed to be in the plane disappeared into the Pentagon hole.

So if anyone can reconcile this, let me know.

Bookmark and Share

"The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions"

Just started reading this new book by David Ray Griffin. So far it is quite good.

Griffin's writing is very clear and easy to read; his logic is often devastating.

Certainly others have taken on the 9/11 commission report, but Griffin is the only to do so in pure book form. His format is good:

Chapter one on the hijackers who are alive-- does the report mention them? NO!

Chapter two on the WTC demolition. Does the report mention the possibility of bombs? NO! It doesn't even mention the demolition of WTC7. Moreover the report badly misrepresents the WTC structure, portraying the heavy core structure of the towers as some sort of flimsy tube.

Chapter three is on the Pentagon hit and whether the report even mentions the anomolies there. Of course not! (Surprisingly, Griffin continues to promote the missile theory-- arguing that physical evidence must trump eye-witness testimony.)

Chapter four is on the odd behaviour of Bush and his secret service team on the morning of 9/11, and whether the report covers this issue satisfactorily. Of course not!

That is as far as I've gotten so far, but definitely a well-written and quick-to-read book covering key aspects of 9/11. I think in general Griffin's writing would appeal to non-conspiracy-minded folk more than other 9/11 books. "Crossing the Rubicon" and "Terror Timeline" while excellent, are very dense and not very accessible. "9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA" is also excellent but is fairly advanced 9/11 material. Hopsicker's "Welcome to Terrorland" is good, but is uneven and would mostly appeal to hard-core 9/11 researchers.
Bookmark and Share

Susie Bright Has Some Choice Words About Jeff Gannon/James Guckert

Well, this is certainly the case with high class sexual services... and that is why anyone who’s ever done sex work understands that Jeff is not some wacky fluke... that the only way his access happened was because Gannon was dialed in, connected via his cock, to all the right people. The reason he got his little laminated press card was because someone was plying his favors.
Are you getting the picture? This guy is the cream of the crop. He works in the DC/Maryland area. He is a master of protocol and discretion. Look at his interviews! They are a role model of deniability. That’s "Class A” courtesan for you! A guy like this is SOUGHT AFTER.

Try to imagine Richard Gere in American Gigolo, and substitute Jeff in the gay version. He’s professional, he’s smooth, he’s never late, he’s not strung out, his appearance is immaculate. He provides perfect illusion and fantasy. As any pro will tell you, this is hard to maintain, because it is such an act, and so stressful.
I am convinced Bulldog got into the press corps because someone was deeply in love with him, i.e, with the fantasy he provides. Others in the game saw what he could be used for. Jeff's client wanted more of Jeff, he wanted preferential status, he wanted promises. Gannon, like any pro with a big fish on the line, was growing weary of diamonds and furs.

A mature hooker wants something that will lead to independence; like property, inheritance rights, or a new career. The ultimate way to win your hooker’s favors is by offering something that gives them the same kind of independence that you, the civilian, possess.

There is no way that Gannon has retired from Bulldoggin’. Sure, his cover was blown, but now all the closet stud chasers in DC know how tight he lap-danced in the seats of power. He must be busy. You’re not going to be able to reach him by his web site anymore, because Jeff's little black book is completely filled by word of mouth. There’s gotta be a waiting list and a velvet rope as thick as his dick.

I was reading some new posts on AmericaBlog, which is systemically outing every bigoted closet case, and fag-bashing fag in the GOP. You may know from their work, that Ken Mehlman, the chair of the Republican National Committee, is one of these gay-men-against-gay-men, the paradox of our age.

I know he isn’t a household name yet, but one day Mehlman and his brethren will be understood on the same level as Roy Cohn, or J. Edgar Hoover: classist, misogynist, elitist power whores who may be Kinsey 6 homosexuals, but who look in the mirror and whisper this:

“Mirror mirror on the wall, I am special and above it all.”

The Kinky Fascists feel entitled to fuck who they want and ruin who they want, because they believe they are a unique breed of men above other men. They say “to hell with gay marriage,” because they’d never do something that “weak.” Hate crimes are something that happens to nelly queens who deserve it. And women are bitches from hell that need to be kept on a leash until you need their venom for your enemies.

Sure, the hypocrites have deep-seated self loathing, but they’re in the driver’s seat of American conservative politics, baby! Power is better than a line of cocaine up their ass for that all-important self esteem buzz.

That’s why Bulldog has a breezy air of superiority... he reminds himself every single day that some of the most important men in the nation are paying him cash to suck his cock and worship his commands. That is all his self-esteem is based on, and he’ll be damned if any stupid ugly pen-pushing journalist is going to disturb it.
Seems like an astute analysis, and Bright is something of an expert on this sort of thing.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

A Sign of Hope

92% of those polled at Democratic Underground about the anthrax attacks think it was a fake terror attack by the Bush administration designed to intimidate the media and Democrats. This was chosen over other options of: Al Qaeda, Iraq, a defector from the US military.

Granted this is not the most representative sampling of people-- but still, clearly the vast majority believe the Bush administration could have been behind the attacks, which is a good start for thinking of 9/11 as Synthetic Terror.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Sibel Edmonds and Her Petition

Sibel Edmonds has her own web site. Please sign her petition for release of the entire report by the Department of Justice of its investigation into confirmed reports by FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds on the cover-up of information and leads pre- and post-9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Getting Angry (Rant)

Seeing Bush holds hands with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah is just too nauseating, especially after reading about Bush crowing about being vindicated by Iraq.

For fuck's sake, people-- kids!- are dying in Iraq. Every fucking day.

Thankfully people are waking up to some of the lies by the administration, but there is just so much more.

There is the plain fact that 9/11 and the anthrax attacks were inside jobs and no one in the position of informing lots of people wants to fucking talk about it.

I guess talking about government-sponsored evil is just like way uncool. Only kooky people would want to talk about THAT stuff. It's way uncool for the mainstream media to talk seriously about conspiracies -- it's even uncool for liberal bloggers. And conservative columnists and bloggers are simply clueless.

Of course what really is important is the Republicans getting their fucking luddite neanderthal judges approved.

And is there an energy crisis or fucking not? I guess not-- no one in the media wants to talk about it, except complain about high gas prices. Hello? Peak oil anyone?

Yes, I am mad. I just have to wonder about what has happened to peoples' consciences. And I am talking about people in the government and in the media, people who can make a difference. Are they really so satisfied with the direction this country has taken in past four years? Is America really such a great country now? Yes, we're big and strong and we have a lot of great things and a lot of great people. But our national image-- is it REALLY something to be proud of?

Where are our priorities?

Is there some reason the US govenrment feels it doesn't have to prove anything about 9/11 except put out a simplified book of fiction?

Why is the government afraid of the following?
1) releasing other videos of the Pentagon hit or the undoctored Pentagon version
2) showing the complete official passenger manifests for the 9/11 planes
3) saying what's on the black boxes found at the WTC and the Pentagon
4) telling us how exactly how the FBI identified who the hijackers were
5) allowing airline pilots and FAA controllers to discuss 9/11
6) allowing firemen to discuss the idea that there were bombs in the WTC
7) releasing all of the available CVR and FDR recordings from 93, 77, 175 and 11 - also the FAA radar tracks?
8) releasing the transcripts of FAA/NORAD/NMCC phone bridges
9) releasing the complete Aug 6 PDB (all 11 pages)
10) releasing the flight school files Jeb Bush confiscated
11) saying why the records of flight controller testimonies taken on 9/11/01 were destroyed
12) telling us who the fax newsletter with the airlines put option tip was
13) releasing the CONVAR data on transactions during the WTC attacks
14) telling us who didn't collect the $2.5 million put option on the Chicago exchange, who the "institutional investor" who bought put options was, who the "small airline" in London was
15) releasing reports on foreign-based suspicious trades in Germany, Japan, London, Hong Kong, Singapore
16) acknowledging the foreign warnings (Jordan, Russia, Germany and Israel especially)
17) acknowledging that the Pentagon did imagine and rehearsed a plane-into-building scenario in Oct. 2000
18) acknowledging that the CIA did imagine and rehearsed a plane-into-building scenario at the NRO on 9/11/01
19) acknowledge the Genoa Warning
20) acknowledge the various 9/11/01 wargames
21) stop claiming "no one could have imagined"
22) hold people accountable for the supposed FAA/NORAD and FBI failures rather than PROMOTING them
23) let Sibel Edmonds talk
24) let Robert Wright talk
25) produce and indict KSM and Binalshibh
26) let Steve Butler talk
27) allow an investigation by people without evident and outrageous conflicts of interest (Zelikow) and who aren't long-term government insiders
28) demand clarification from Silverstein on "pull it."
29) perform explosive-residue testing on dust and fragments left over from Ground Zero
30) acknowledge the 9/11 family questions
31) tell us who made the decisions to keep Bush and Secret Service at the school
32) acknowledge surveillance of Hamburg Cell by German authorities and CIA dating back at least to 1998

etc etc etc etc.

Then there is the October 2001 anthrax attacks -- a clear smoking gun for government-sponsored terror if there ever was one:
The anthrax attacks of October 2001 should have put an end to doubts about the "War on Terror" and the likelihood that elements of the U.S. government are willing to stage inside-job terror attacks on American soil. Instead the attacks have been forgotten, although at the time they were trumped up into something even bigger than 9/11.

Unlike the case of 9/11, the facts about the anthrax attacks are simple, clear and close to conclusive:

-The Bush government revived an anthrax program early in 2001 on orders from Cheney and had developed a new milling process just before Sept. 11. Incredibly, this was called "Project Jefferson" (!).

- A week before Sept. 11, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon was experimenting in the "defensive" development of anthrax milling methods. Government scientists were assigned to put together home-made laboratories, using only materials available commercially, on the sparse budget of a mere one million of your taxpayer dollars. When this was revealed, the Pentagon said they weren't actually taking the final step, of milling live spores (although I wonder why, once ready, they would not want to see how well their lab works). The idea of the exercise, supposedly, was to see what terrorists might whip together from store-bought items. The French got wind of this program and complained to a United Nations committee, since the biowarfare convention outlaws all research, including "defensive research." To allay these concerns, the Pentagon invited an NY Times reporter, our old friend Judy Miller, to the Texas base where the experiments were held.*

-On Sept. 11th the White House immediately put some of its staff, reportedly including Cheney himself, on Cipro. How did they know to pick this antibiotic, out of the many available? How could they guess that anthrax (or another pathogen against which Cipro can protect) was coming? This is the subject of a discovery suit by Judicial Watch: how did they know?**

-A wave of stories immediately after Sept. 11th announced that anthrax was the likeliest next attack. We were even threatened with a specific sequence of future attacks: anthrax, smallpox, plague. (They've been drumming up the smallpox scare ever since the anthrax attacks stopped.) Of all the hundreds of biowar germs and literally thousands of types of terror attacks, why was this idea circulated so prominently? Who was behind spreading these stories? Why so specific?

-Suspect Hatfill, while working biowarfare research at SAIC/Batelle Memorial in 1999, commissioned his colleague in science, William Capers Patrick, the renowned dean of American biowarfare research, to write a report on modalities that terrorists might employ in sending anthrax through the mail.

-The report from that study specified an ideal spore concentration and weight of anthrax sample per envelope. These were the amounts that were then reportedly used in the attacks on Daschle and Leahy. In other words, the anthrax attackers had access to this secret report.

-The anthrax went first to the headquarters of the country's biggest tabloid owner (National Enquirer and Florida Sun-Sentinel). The Enquirer had printed a series of anti-Bush "conspiracy" stories, including one claiming that McVeigh was still breathing after his execution. The Enquirer also published embarrassing pictures of the Bush twins drunk, which had gotten much play on Drudge and similar outlets. Was this an object lesson to the media? (Note: never established how it got to Bob Stevens; no envelope located; theory that it may have been spread from one floor to another by a vacuum cleaner .. or was he directly hit, via keyboard?)

-The wife of the paper's editor had rented an apartment to Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi. Was the paper going to do a story about this that would not have fit the official 9/11 line?

--At this point, the FBI on a request from Iowa State University allowed the destruction of a stockpile of original Ames strain samples on Oct. 13, days after the Bob Stevens case became known. Why?! This was a precaution?!

-The next group of attacks hit the New York media. The letters arrived just as the Afghanistan campaign began and caused maximum coverage of nothing but anthrax. For a vital week or two, both the Afghanistan campaign and the 9/11 investigation became secondary concerns to the media.

-At that point the FBI immediately called off one-half of the thousands of agents who were working on 9/11 and put them to work on anthrax. THIS IS VITAL: THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION WAS STALLED BECAUSE OF THE SUDDEN ANTHRAX MAILINGS.

-The third wave of attacks, the one that exactly fit the specifications of the secret paper commissioned by Hatfill, was sent first to Daschle and Leahy - the majority leader of the Democratic opposition in the Senate, and the Democratic head of the Judiciary Committee.

-The government said the anthrax powder sent to Daschle and Leahy had been put through a much more sophisticated process of milling to aerosolize the spoors, such as would require advanced technology from a state weapons program.

-This exceptional piece of constituent mail arrived at Daschle offices about a week after the USA PATRIOT Act was submitted to the Congress. Leahy supposedly received his weeks later on Nov. 17, due to it being lost in the mail. Leahy had initially opposed the Act, and requested clarification of its more extreme provisions from Ashcroft. Ashcroft never answered.

- Senate offices were shut down and Capitol Hill went into an uproar. For weeks, as employees lined up for doses of antibiotics, Hazmat and FBI agents poked around in the Senate.

- By the end of that month the Republican-majority House chose to run home. As they left, they cast their votes for the USA PATRIOT Act and its negation of the U.S. Constitution. As Republican Congressman Ron Paul has made clear, most of them did not even receive a text of the 300-page final version of the USA PATRIOT Act before they voted for it, let alone read it.

- The Senate soon followed suit, also approving USA PATRIOT.

- Reports told that Sens. Kennedy and Levin, two other liberals, had also received anthrax letters, although no photos of these letters were published.

- The notes included with the anthrax letters to Daschle, Leahy and Tom Brokaw tried to point the blame at Arab perpetrators, but these were clumsy and transparent. ("Allah is Great" instead of "God Is Great" or "Allah Akhbar.") They are written in block letters and look as though someone got a child to write them or wrote them with a pen in his left fist (assuming he's right-handed).

- The news at first wanted to blame it on Arabs, or Iraq. Why should that damned Osama bin Laden hate the Democratic leadership, as opposed to Republican leaders?

- Only days later did reports arrive of anthrax being found in mail to the White House, Pentagon, Federal Reserve, CIA, etc. All of their mail had by then been very safely isolated on military bases. No details about these alleged attacks have been released. We have not seen copies of the letters, as was the case with the letters to Daschle, Leahy and Tom Brokaw. There have to my knowledge been no follow-up reports on the provenance of the anthrax employed in these cases.

How strange how the first attacks, the only ones that had a chance to get through, went to the Democratic leadership!

- Suddenly, the anthrax wave stopped as quickly as it had begun. The biggest U.S. media story of October 2001 was effectively swept away. The media obediently switched to the taking of Kabul and spent November 2001 preparing us for a thoughtful Thanksgiving, with endless soul-searching stories asking how our country could have ever produced Johnny Taliban Walker.

- Anthrax has since been mentioned only rarely and out of context, as when Powell had the gall to hold up a vial of white powder at the UN and ask where Saddam is hiding his anthrax. Well, Colin, where are you keeping yours?

-All the foreign anthrax letters reported at various times in 2001 have been dismissed as white-powder hoaxes.

-It was established quickly that the anthrax to Leahy and Daschle was of recent production, with high-quality, weaponized spores such as can be produced only by a specialist at an advanced facility; and that the lineage goes back to Fort Detrick, Maryland and the Ames strain used by American biowarfare programs.

-For all this, the anthrax perpetrator(s) made an obvious effort to minimize casualties and target the letters very specifically to individuals. The same amount of anthrax could have been spread in a fashion causing many more deaths.

-Having gotten as far as Stephen Hatfill, the FBI investigation stalled. Hatfill has been a "person of interest" for more than two years, his house has been invaded several times by sniffer-dog teams, and the FBI even drained a pond near his house to see if he had grown anthrax spores in it; but no further progress has been reported in the investigation.

- Could it be that the "lone perpetrator" thesis is not sustainable, and they don't want to deal with the implications?

What can we conclude?

Unlike Sept. 11th, the anthrax attacks were a selective wave of terror. The confirmed letters, the ones that resulted in the deaths of six people, were targeted at specific individuals: reporters, news media personalities, and four leading Democratic senators. This was by design, there was nothing random about it. The perpetrators have not been presented and so we can only speculate about their motives, but there is no doubt about the direct and predictable effect of their design: the attacks were perfectly sequenced and timed to cow the opposition, force through the Patriot Act, make an exampe of deviant journalists, divert the 9/11 investigation, and frighten and occupy the media during the first phase of the Afghanistan war. The attacks provided important reinforcement in keeping these various actors from questioning the official post-Sept. 11th atmosphere of terror and panic. They were the key step in initiating the formal transformation of American society and law.

In simpler words, the anthrax attacks look exactly as though they were planned and executed by a black-ops or damage-control team working on behalf of the Bush regime's goals, either as rogues or as appointed hitmen. They may have hit Bob Stevens as a revenge job, they hit the media to shut them up, and they hit Daschle and Leahy to intimidate them into accepting the USA PATRIOT Act. We might compare the crew who were responsible for this to Nixon's Plumbers, except that they were more sophisticated and effective in their choice of methods; or, perhaps, they simply had better protection among their sponsors.

That is the hypothesis so far that best covers all of the above facts. In this case, there is no doubt which way Occam's razor cuts. Anthrax was almost certainly an inside job.

In fact, this is the thesis that many people subscribe to when speaking off the record in the the world capital of paranoia itself, Washington, DC.

And what has Daschle done or said about these facts? Are Brokaw and Rather really unaware of all this? They have chosen not to defend themselves against what are, in effect, attempts on their own lives.

This is the context in which we should view the Jan. 2002 call from Cheney, the premature Cipro-taker, to Daschle, the anthrax recipient. Cheney threatened Daschle of dire consequences if he should push too hard for a 9/11 investigation in the Congress. This single call led to a series delays in the Congressional joint inquiry of Sept. 11, which finally opened in June 2002.

Daschle - and Leahy, and all the other Senators including Kerry and Edwards - are so scared, or so compromised, or otherwise being blackmailed with other threats, that they have not risen to this challenge. I don't envy or accuse them, but how can you expect these guys to ever confront the Bush mob?

(*NOTE: What justification is there for programs like "Jefferson"? This program not only finds out what terrorists might do, it no doubt discovers ways to do it that they might not have thought of themselves. The government scientists gain the astonishing insight that there's fuck-all they can do to stop evil biology students from engaging in such activities if they so wish. And the program's results will be written up in a little "defensive" manual on how to make your own anthrax lab. One day, probably soon, that will end up in the hands of one of our freedom fighters somewhere... and a years down the line he or his successor will use it against the U.S., thus setting off the next round of "defensive" activity on our part. At least it's lucrative!)

(** Note 2: Interestingly, earlier in the year one Jerome Hauer took up his new job under Tommy Thompson at the Health Department, as the advisor for bioterrorism. This is the same Jerome Hauer who developed the West Nile spraying program and, ahem, the Office of Emergency Management on Floor 23 of WTC 7, during his tenure as a terrorism adviser to the City of New York. And the same Hauer who claimed to have gotten John O'Neill his last job, as counter-terror chief at the WTC, where he died on Sept. 11th.)
The bottom line is that some very sick people in the government have gotten away with murder, both with 9/11 and with the anthrax. And the killing is still going on in Iraq and no one can even stop it now, short of incredibly massive public protests-- which simply aren't going to happen in the near future. Moreover, there is a very good chance the delusional Bush administration will try to attack Iran in the coming year.

Gee, maybe a nice letter to the editor would some good...

Bookmark and Share

The Anthrax Letters

As soon as I learned that the letters targeted Dashcle and Leahy, back in October 2001, I suspected it was a government job. This was definitely one of the things that got my alarm bells ringing about 9/11. I really don't know why the anthrax attacks haven't made more Americans suspicious-- the right-wing and military connections are just completely obvious.

I had forgotten about this but it turns out the FBI (who have basically been incompetent in pursuing the anthrax case), engaged in a blatant cover-up by destroying key evidence:
Last month, after consulting with the F.B.I., Iowa State University in Ames destroyed anthrax spores collected over more than seven decades and kept in more than 100 vials. A variant of the so-called Ames strain had been implicated in the death of a Florida man from inhalation anthrax, and the university was nervous about security.

Now, a dispute has arisen, with scientists in and out of government saying the rush to destroy the spores may have eliminated crucial evidence about the anthrax in the letters sent to Congress and the news media.

If the archive still existed, it would by no means solve the mystery. But scientists said a precise match between the anthrax that killed four people and a particular strain in the collection might have offered hints as to when that bacteria had been isolated and, perhaps, how widely it had been distributed to researchers. And that, in turn, might have given investigators important clues to the killer's identity.

Martin E. Hugh-Jones, an anthrax expert at Louisiana State University who is aiding the federal investigation, said the mystery is likely to persist. ''If those cultures were still alive,'' he said, they could have helped in ''clearing up the muddy history.''

Ronald M. Atlas, president-elect of the American Society of Microbiology, the world's largest group of germ professionals, based in Washington, said the legal implications could be large. ''Potentially,'' he said, ''it loses evidence that would have been useful'' in the criminal investigation.

The F.B.I. says it never explicitly approved the destruction of the cultures, but never objected either. (snip)

The Iowa State archive was destroyed on Oct. 10 and 11, after relatively brief deliberations with the F.B.I., said Julie Johnson, an official in environmental and safety at Iowa State. (snip)

Tom Ridge, the White House director of homeland security, confirmed publicly that the tainted letters contained the Ames strain on Oct. 25, two weeks after the destruction.

Timeline of Anthrax events:
Sept. 18: Envelopes containing letters and granular substances are sent to NBC News in New York and the New York Post. Both are mailed from Trenton, N.J.

Sept. 22: Editorial page assistant at New York Post who opens letters to the editor notices blister on her finger. She later tests positive for skin form of anthrax.

Sept. 26: Maintenance worker at Trenton regional post office in Hamilton, N.J., visits physician to have lesion on arm treated.

Sept. 27: Teresa Heller, letter carrier at West Trenton post office, develops lesion on her arm.

Sept. 28: Erin O'Connor, assistant to NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, notices a lesion.

The 7-month-old son of an ABC producer in Manhattan spends time at the network offices. He develops a rash, and is hospitalized with an unknown ailment soon after the visit. He is later diagnosed with cutaneous anthrax.

Sept. 30: Bob Stevens, photo editor at supermarket tabloid The Sun in Boca Raton, starts to feel ill.

Oct. 1: Erin O'Connor, the NBC assistant to anchor Tom Brokaw, goes to her doctor with a low-grade fever and a bad rash and is prescribed the antibiotic Cipro.

Ernesto Blanco, 73, an American Media Inc. mailroom employee, is hospitalized with pneumonia.

Oct. 2: At 2:30 a.m., American Media Inc. photo editor Stevens arrives at JFK Medical Center in Atlantis with 102-degree fever, vomiting and confusion. He deteriorates rapidly.

Oct. 3: Doctors determine Stevens, 63, has anthrax. He is on a respirator, being treated with intravenous penicillin.

In New Jersey, Heller, the West Trenton post office letter carrier, is hospitalized and a biopsy is performed.

Oct 4: AMI calls the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ask whether its Boca Raton headquarters should be evacuated. The CDC says no, and everyone continues working as usual at AMI. That afternoon, JFK Medical Center along with the Florida Department of Health's Dr. Steven Wiersma call a news conference to confirm that a patient has anthrax. They stress that it is a public health investigation and they believe it is an isolated case.

Oct. 5: Teams from the CDC fan out to Stevens' home and office. At JFK's intensive care unit, Stevens is pronounced dead, becoming the first anthrax fatality in the United States since 1976.

Oct. 7: At 7 p.m. the CDC notifies AMI that they intend to seal the building because test samples have shown anthrax spores on Stevens' computer keyboard and in the nasal passages of Ernesto Blanco, an AMI employee who delivered mail to other workers there.

Oct. 8: In Miami, the family of Ernesto Blanco is notified that Blanco has tested positive for anthrax exposure. He has no symptoms of anthrax infection. Employees of AMI line up at the Delray Health Center to be tested and to receive a two-week supply of antibiotics

Oct. 9: Letters containing anthrax addressed to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Sen. Patrick Leahy are postmarked in Trenton, N.J. The letters bear the same fictitious "Greendale School" return address and are written in all-capital block letters.

In New York, a skin biopsy is performed on the NBC employee.

In South Florida, the FBI says it found no traces of anthrax in the known places the Sept. 11 hijackers had stayed, or in Stevens' home or the places he frequented. Federal and state officials said they now believe the case is an isolated incident of "foul play." President Bush tries to assure anxious Americans that the Florida cases do not warrant national alarm.

Oct. 10: Federal investigators announce that a third AMI employee has tested positive for anthrax exposure and that the AMI case has become a criminal investigation.

The Ames anthrax archive was destroyed October 10th and 11th.

And from the NYTimes article above: "Tom Ridge, the White House director of homeland security, confirmed publicly that the tainted letters contained the Ames strain on Oct. 25, two weeks after the destruction."

Brilliant work there.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, April 25, 2005

Jim Hoffman

See my previous post for a link to a radio interview with him.

I've only listened to the first part so far, but the first hour was quite good.

I didn't realize Hoffman was an accomplished scientist-- he's published in major journals. I think this gives his analysis of the WTC collapses/demolitions more weight.

One of the major points he makes is how badly the FEMA report on the WTC collapse misrepresents the WTC structure. In particular, they downplay the tremendous strength of the WTC tower cores, instead making them seem rather flimsy and delicate. This is really an important point, and suggests there is an intentional effort on the part of FEMA to mislead the public on why the towers collapsed.

Hoffman's site 911 Research has a good slide show on the collapse of the towers that starts here.
Bookmark and Share

Demolition of the Wolrd Trade Center

This interview with Jom Hoffman of on the Jan. 21st and Jan. 28th 2004 shows here, is quite interesting. He talks a bit about the Oklahoma City bombing as well.

This radio show, Guns and Butter, has a large number of really great shows on 9/11: interviews with David Ray Griffin, Webster Tarpley and others. I'll definitely be spending a lot of my spare time listening to these. Note you can order CDs of the shows as well if you want a more portable version.
Bookmark and Share

Speaking of Hot Gay Sex

This is just too weird.

Look through the slideshow-- they must have been holding hands for quite some time.

Kind of gives a whole new meaning to Bush "being in bed with the Saudis".

Bookmark and Share

Smells Like Hot Gay Sex To Me

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, April 24, 2005

A Must Hear Lecture

by Michael Dietrick-- "A Professional Pilot's View of the Events of 911."

Found here
, and scroll down to the August 25th show.

Lots of good info from a very convincing source.

Most interestingly for me were his statements that:
a) as a pilot, he says there is "no way" the hijackers, with their supposed level of training could have flown the planes on 9/11 all by themselves.
b) the airlines have a gag order on pilots about talking about 9/11 (especially United). Their pensions and careers have been threatened.

So basically, there is a huge cover-up and everyone is afraid of talking up.

What an outrageous situation.

As Dietrick says, we really need the truth out about 9/11 in order to heal as a country.
Bookmark and Share

Speaking of the FBI and Cover-Ups...

Bookmark and Share

Official Government Lying

If anyone thinks the FBI isn't capable of lying or isn't capable of simply making stuff up-- I highly recommend they read the essays by Kristina Borjesson and David E. Hendrixs in the 2001 book "Into the Buzzsaw". These two former journalists write about their experiences with investigating the TWA flight 800 crash near Long Island in 1996.

There were many strong indications that the government was involved in the crash, most likely by military naval exercises involving surface to air missiles that were going on at the time of the crash. The FBI completely suppressed this evidence and instead simply INVENTED a new theory that a spark from the center fuel tank somehow ignited the fumes in the fuel tank and caused the flight to explode in mid-air.

The way the government and the press handled the story is incredibly reminiscent of 9/11. That is, the major media took the government's version of events as gospel, and totally ignored other more nefarious explanations of government complicity.

Kristina Borjesson worked for CBS news and lost her job by trying to get more of an investigation into the crash. Hendrixs worked for a small California paper that bravely investigated and reported facts about flight 800 that the government and the major media didn't want to hear.

These two essays are essential and incredible reading that give imnportant insights into the way the media covers for the government -- and this has major implications for 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Moussaoui Pleads Guilty

Says he was ordered by Osama bin laden to fly a plane into the White House. Says he was trained on a 747, says he wasn't specifically part of 9/11.

Overall, his indictment nicely validates the official 9/11 legend.

One main problem with the story is why the government wouldn't let Moussaoui call other Al Qaeda members in custody to his defense. What didn't the government want these people to say? What national security risk was there to having these men testify about Moussaoui?

The other main problem with his story is why the FBI stalled on his case back in August 2001, when it was clear forewarning of 9/11.

I have to wonder if Moussaoui isn't just a patsy set-up specifically for this case-- a highly publicized indictment against an Al Qaeda member for 9/11 who validates the official 9/11 story of hijackers wanting to fly planes into buildings. That is, I wonder if this is the role the FBI had for him all along. They were saving him just for this role.

The most interesting thing is how the government wouldn't open up key planners of the Sept. 11 attacks Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheik Mohammed to defense questioning. What was the government worried about getting? 9/11 is officially a known story. Is there some secret the government doesn't want out about what Al Qaeda was doing on 9/11?
Bookmark and Share

Friday, April 22, 2005

Dave McGowan Has Some Choice Words

on the Pentagon hit as well.

[Editor's Note: A popular hobby of late among some 9-11 researchers seems to involve disparaging the efforts of, and questioning the motives of, those researchers who refuse to ignore the fact that the available evidence is entirely inconsistent with the crash of a jetliner at the Pentagon. These individuals generally refer to certain other Pentagon investigators as "no-plane" theorists. For the purposes of this article, I have adopted a name for them as well: Tattoo theorists. This appellation is, of course, an homage to the "Fantasy Island" character best known for the tag line, "Ze plane! Ze plane!"
Two of the most aggressive of the Tattoo theorists, by the way, are Jim Hoffman and Brian Salter, both of whom were on the other side of the fence, so to speak, until fairly recently. If you have ever known someone who quit smoking and thereafter embarked on a mission to browbeat and berate every other smoker on the planet, then you have a pretty good idea of how the Tattoo theorists operate.]

On February 24, Brian Salter ( posted a histrionic denunciation of Pentagon "no-plane" theorists that included the bizarre claim that any efforts to "keep the unnecessary no-plane speculation alive just helps to smear 9-11 Truth activists as hateful maniacs. Maybe that's the idea."

Well, I guess the jig is up. Mr. Salter, it seems, has figured out our diabolical plot. All along, the real goal has been to cast 9-11 researchers as - dare I say it? - hateful maniacs. In fact, the 'talking points' that I receive from my secret CIA backers routinely contain such notations as: "Operation Hateful Maniacs is, as you know, proceeding on schedule; prepare to shift into the next phase of the program, Operation Deranged Psychopaths."

Of course, it could also be that those of us who continue to focus on the glaring inconsistencies in the official story of what happened at the Pentagon are actually pursuing the truth, which is what a "Truth activist" is supposed to do, rather than peddling entirely speculative drivel about a mythical 'plane bomb,' which is what the Tattoo theorists choose to do.

The primary strong-arm tactic of the Tattoo theorists is to cast "no-plane" theorists as part of a Cointelpro-type operation aimed at undermining the 9-11 skeptics' case. The "no-plane" theories, it is claimed, are "straw man" arguments, propped up specifically so that they can be easily brushed aside by "debunkers," thus discrediting the 9-11 movement in its entirety by attacking at points of greatest vulnerability.(snip)
I must say I have run into one of these "Tattoo theorists" myself, and boy do they get upset if you dare suggest something besides a 757 hit the Pentagon.

I have a newsflash for these people. As much as I hate to say it, the 9/11 truth movement isn't going anywhere. So why do these people get so upset if a few people question the fairly odd evidence about the official Pentagon story? What is the big deal? The fact is, the media is going to make us look like kooks no matter what we say. We are kooks to them simply because we dare question the official 9/11 story AND we dare suggest the US government was complicit in 9/11. Even if we just made our case that the government had foreknowledge of 9/11 because of CIA connections to the ISI and to Al Qaeda, they would still paint us as kooks. But frankly, in some respects, any publicity is good publicity. If the media wants to poke fun at the kooky ideas of conspiracy theorists, then let them-- and at least some people in the general public who haven't thought of other interpretations of 9/11 will have their mind opened up a little. Who knows, such a story might even inspire new researchers and new interest in 9/11.

In any case, I basically agree with most everything McGowan has to say in this essay-- particularly in regards to (cough) John Judge. I do think McGowan is overly suspicious of the site though.
Bookmark and Share

So Why Would The Planners Want to Have Extra Explosives on the Plane that Crashed into the Pentagon?

Two possible reasons:
One is that the plane that was used for the attack was a passengerless drone, and the planners knew that a normal drone plane would not definitely breach the reinforced walls of the Pentagon. If the plane didn't breach the wall, the plane would be clearly exposed as a passengerless drone when it exploded. Thus, explosives or a missile were planted in the plane to make sure the Pentagon wall was opened up upon impact, thus burying the plane wreckage in the building debris.

A second possible reason is that perhaps the plane was meant to take out some particular office or region or certain people in the Pentagon. In fact, the Office of Naval Intelligence was taken out by the attack, and this office was implicated in 9/11 by Delmart Vreeland. Therefore the plane attack on the Pentagon could have been a type of cover-up. The planners may have wanted to gurantee they could penetrate deep enough into the Pentagon to destroy the area they wanted gone, and thus put extra explosives into the plane to make sure it would cause the maximal damage. This would explain why the plane hit the relatively unoccupied and recently renovated area-- because it was targeting a special part of the Pentagon.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, April 21, 2005

Once More Unto the Breach: Surveying the Pentagon Hit Again

I know, I know, we're really just NOT supposed to question what hit the Pentagon, but the problem is that what happened there on 9/11 is just damn strange.

First, it is not the size of the hole that is the issue. The initial hole is consistent with the size of a 757 fuselage. But where the hole is and the complete damage pattern is not entirely consistent with a 757 impact.

Here are the main anomalies, as I see them (and I will be mainly referencing the excellent site for this analysis):

1) as shown in my post about a month back, a 757 would have to fly one inch off the ground to be able to hit the Pentagon with its wings only impacting the first floor. I don't think this approach path is feasible-- and all available evidence suggests the flying object came in at a level path-- since the ground was not touched in front of the impact area. Moreover, the picture in the post I linked to doesn't show it, but there were several obstacles in the way of the plane right in front of the Pentagon wall: a construction trailer and a couple of cable spools. Not that these items would have impeded the plane significantly, but it would have been impossible for the plane to go over the spools (which were at least six feet high) and then still only hit the first and second floor only. Take a look at this picture and you will see what I mean. I can't see how a 757 (body plus engine height of 16 foot high-- ignoring the tail) went over the cable spools and only impacted the first two floors. The engines would have knocked the spools over if the plane came in that low.

2) The fuselage of the plane must have crumpled up considerably to spew the lettered sheet metal debris found in front of the Pentagon. In fact, when the plane hit the reinforced concrete of the Pentagon wall, you would expect the plane to crumple and blow up. And certainly the video the Pentagon released shows a large explosion apparently at the impact point. Yet, if the plane blew up when it hit the wall, why aren't there more signs of the fuselage and its contents on the ground? Those large pieces of the fuselage would not have flown off the plane's body and be found 50-100 feet from the impact site if the fuselage HADN'T blown up. Why are there only a few select pieces of painted fuselage there? Moreover, there was no sign of passengers or seats found lying in front of the Pentagon that indicated the fuselage had blown up. It makes no sense.

3) The plane certainly crumpled and disintegrated quickly once it was inside the Pentagon, as both the black boxes from the tail region of the plane were found near the impact site very near one of the seats from the cockpit. So what parts of the plane retained so much momentum and structure to produce the swath of damage that ends in a large "exit hole"? And apart from the heavy structural columns that the plane parts encountered, there were a very large number of concrete walls. The plane was of course huge and would expect to produce a lot of damage. The landing gear are indeed very strong and large and might have produced a great deal of the damage. But given that much of the forward momentum must have been lost upon the initial impact as well as the fact that many columns and walls needed to be broken through, which would also cause loss of momentum, I can't see what part of the plane makes the perfectly round exit hole. Moreover, if the tail and at leats part of the cockpit ended up near the impact site, then clearly there was not so much forward momentum carrying the plane deep into the building. And what ever went deep in had to go through several walls and avoid pillars, which were largely not badly damaged deep in.

4) The blown out doors on the A-E drive which are far off from the main damage swath. There is simply no explanation for this damage, and how it could have occurred from a 757 impacting at an angle.

5) There is no sign of the wings or wing debris from a 757 outside the Pentagon, and 757 wings simply would not have gone completely into the entry hole. The engines would fit through the larger side holes but not the complete wings. The wings were very large.


1) I can't rule out a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. But I find it highly unlikely a normal 757 hit the building and caused the complete damage pattern by itself.

2) I don't think any plane fragments were planted to make it look like a 757 hit. However, I am suspicious of the fragments left on the lawn. I can't help but wonder if there were some sort of large explosive device containing a few select 757 parts that was exploded when the flying object impacted the Pentagon.

3) The overall damage, with the deep penetration, is consistent with what one would expect from a cruise missile or other large missile. The cruise missile obviously conflicts with eye-witnesses and with the debris that looks like it is from a 757. Conceivably two missiles coming from slightly different angles that could account for the light pole damage and the damage to the west of the main swath, but there are no witnesses referring to two flying objects. The other reasons to think a missile hit are 1) the circular path taken by the flying object before hitting, 2) the body would be smaller and could fit in the impact area more easily, 3) the Amalgam Virgo military exercise involved hijacked aiplanes and a cruise missile attack. If there was a cruise missile attack, the missile must have been painted to look like an AA jet. The main problem with the missile theory is the eye-witnesses, who every militant 9/11 conspiracist who believes "a 757 hit the Pentagon" loves to cite. It is hard for me to evaluate eye-witnesses over the internet, and eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable. However, enough eye-witnesses claimed to see a large jet plane hit the Pentagon that we have to take that very seriously. Plus, there was enough debris from a jet to look like a jet did hit. So a straight cruise missile attack is unlikely.

4) What might be more likely than a cruise missile is that some sort of medium-sized jet was used as a remote-controlled drone to hit the Pentagon and this drone contained addtional explosives, perhaps it even carried a missile of some sort. This would account for the inside damage pattern as well as the light pole path and perhaps for the lack of interior contents that spilled out as the plane exploded on impact. This might explain why black boxes were found but the contents never revealed.

I am going to have to go with this last idea for now. I'm tired and I can't think of anything better for now.
Bookmark and Share

Most Annoying David Brooks Column Ever

Bookmark and Share


Weird-- the FBI acronym for 9/11 is PENTTBOM: PEN-tagon T-win T-owers BOM-bing.

What a strange name.

Are they giving us a little hint there by referring to bombing?
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Those Darn 9/11 Conspiracies

The New American takes them on.

It's kind of amusing (yet annoying) how these articles always attack the most extreme 9/11 claims and ignore the very substantial evidence that 9/11 was an inside job-- some of the best evidence is listed in my 9/11 Talking Points.

To be completely fair, the The New American article isn't as completely dismissive of conspiracy theories in general about 9/11 as the recent Popular Mechanics article. But they sure do not go out of their way to show some of the clear evidence of government complicity.

By the way, this little essay here is a good piece that makes the point that you only need two pieces of evidence to prove the official story of 9/11 is wrong: the insider stock trades on American and United Airlines and the collapse of WTC building 7.
Bookmark and Share

Christian Nutjobs

are rampant at the Air Force Academy.
AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (AP) -- Less than two years after it was plunged into a rape scandal, the Air Force Academy is scrambling to address complaints that evangelical Christians wield so much influence at the school that anti-Semitism and other forms of religious harassment have become pervasive.

There have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination at the academy in the past four years, including cases in which a Jewish cadet was told the Holocaust was revenge for the death of Jesus and another was called a Christ killer by a fellow cadet.

The 4,300-student school recently started requiring staff members and cadets to take a 50-minute religious-tolerance class.
The reason I find this interesting is because there is a significant segment of the military that is I guess you could say militantly Christian. Of course these people would fall for 9/11 hook, line and sinker-- 9/11 fits their jingoistic world view too perfectly. But more importantly, some of the more extreme of this group might be just the sort of people that would frame Islamic terrorists in a terror attack such as 9/11 that would allow the US to "take the fight to the infidels" in the middle east.
Bookmark and Share

Regarding the "Official" Hijacking Scenario

Please note regarding the last post-- the biggest reason that I find it unlikely that the "official" scenario -- that the hijackers piloted the planes themselves-- is wrong is because of other overwhelming evidence that US intelligence was involved in the plot. Thus, since they knew of the plot, is there really any chance they would randomly let terrorists take control of airplanes and crash into buildings? Even if they knew the terrorists would attack the WTC and the Pentagon, could they be sure that the terrorists wouldn't change their mind and attack something the controllers didn't want attacked-- such as the White House or a heavily occupied portion of the Pentagon? After all, would you trust a terrorist? Thus, I find it highly unlikely the controllers let the terrorists pilot the planes.

The fact that the terrorists really couldn't fly jumbo jets and the fact that hijacking a plane with knives and boxcutters isn't easy is really secondary.
Bookmark and Share

The Hijackings on 9/11

There are three main scenarios for how the commerical airplanes were taken over by hijackers on 9/11 and then these planes or similar planes were crashed into the WTC towers and Pentagon.

1) The "official" scenario-- the planes were taken over by hijackers armed with knives, boxcutters, pepper spray and fake bombs, and the hijackers piloted to the planes themselves.

a) taking over the planes with knives, boxcutters, pepper spray and fake bombs is questionable,
b) there is no reason to think that the hijackers could have flown 767's and 757's so effectively.
c) in a "let it happen on purpose" scenario, having the hijackers guide the planes is too unpredictable.

2) The remote control scenario-- the planes were taken over by hijackers armed with knives, boxcutters, pepper spray and fake bombs, however, the planes were piloted by a remote control system run by the military, not by the hijackers.

a) taking over the planes with knives, boxcutters, pepper spray and fake bombs is questionable,
b) what exactly did the hijackers think they were doing on the planes?
i) Did they know the planes would be piloted by remote control?
ii) How exactly do you tell the terrorists that they don't need to fly the planes?
iii) Would they agree to such a set-up?
iv) If you don't tell the terrorists the planes will be taken over by remote control, how do you know when to start the remote control-- and what if they start flying the plane and screw up?
c) how is turning on the remote piloting program coordinated with the hijackings so that the real pilots won't alert ATC?
d) how or when was the remote control program installed on the plane?
e) who was piloting the planes by remote control?

3) The plane-swap scenario merged with the "hijacking drill".
The four planes had actors posing as hijackers or did not really have hijackers, and the hijackings were acted out as an exercise. The planes were landed as part of the drill, while drone planes get swapped into the radar signal of the original planes. The drone planes are programmed to crash into the WTC and Pentagon. (Alternatively, missiles mocked up to look like planes could be used, particularly for the Pentagon and perhaps the second WTC tower hit.)

One argument in favor of the plane swapping scenario is that it was proposed in the Operation Northwoods plan-- which was a synthetic terror plot by the US military that was never carried out. The plane-swap scenario is the only scenario that explains why the transponders were turned off as well as the irregular flight paths of the hijacked planes. This scenario also avoids the other problems associated with the first two scenarios. Furthermore, NORAD had run drills previously with drones acting as hijacked planes. Thus, this scenario also has a back-up excuse for 9/11: "military exercise gone wrong". This scenario can also account for the anomalies of flight 175 as well as the object that hit the Pentagon.

a) disposing of the crew, hijackers and passengers on the original planes--
i) the planes took off again, were unwittingly made to enter the NORAD live-fly hijacking drill and were shot down because NORAD pilots thought they were drones,
ii) the passengers were killed-- possibly via a failed hostage-rescue "drill",
iii) the planes were blown up on the ground.
iv) the passengers were all put on flight 93 which was then crashed in Shanksville (unlikely)
v) the passengers were not killed but given new identities in other countries (unlikely)
b) this scenario is complicated in terms of logistics and might require more people to be in on the cover-up.


I have problems with all of these scenarios, and not one of them stands apart as clearly more feasible. The official explanation is the simplest but has the major problem of the planes being flown by the hijackers, which seems especially unlikely in the case of the Pentagon. I don't much care for the remote control scenario, for the reasons listed. It seems too facile of an explanation. The remote control scenario can't explain certain oddities about the 9/11 planes. Although the plane swap scenario is the most complicated, intuitively I am drawn to it. However, it has the major drawback of what was done with the passengers on the original planes. In one sense, it is very gruesome to think someone had the task of killing all these people (most likely they were killed). On the other hand, these people would be killed by the remote control scenario anyway.

All around, a bit of a puzzle.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, April 19, 2005


Officially, the US government said it couldn't infiltrate Al Qaeda and learn of the 9/11 plot, yet here we have the case of John Walker Lindh, "the American Taliban", who single-handedly infiltrated Al Qaeda and learned of the plot.

Walker was essentially a stupid kid who got caught up in the bad side of Islam. I am assuming there is nothing more to his story than what is officially known. While it is possible that Lindh was an intelliegnce agent who infiltrated Al Qaeda that went bad for some reason-- this seems fairly unlikely. Lindh was apparently a true believer.

Overall, I find it absurd that the US government expects us to believe that all our intelligence agencies and all their assets couldn't infiltrate Al Qaeda-- even when we have "allies" such as the Saudis and the Pakistanis who clearly were very friendly and ideologically aligned with Al Qaeda. This is just one more of the many absurdities of 9/11 the government wants us to accept.

Of course, the American public believes a lot of illogical things-- the Iraq war being a case in point. I guess many people seem to automatically believe what the government says, even fairly sophisticated and educated people-- particularly when they are aligned with the party in power. In this regard, one has a certain amount of respect for people who distrust both political parties, as well as people who naturally distrust the government. There is a certain wonderful freedom in having disdain for both political parties and thus of being detached from the partisan squabbling that goes on all the time (and consumes much of the blog space it seems).
Bookmark and Share

Will Someone Finally Stand Trial for 9/11?

Zacarias Moussaoui planning to plead guilty after three years of legal negotiations.
Moussaoui's plan to plead guilty comes over his attorneys' objections and still has several obstacles -- including Moussaoui's own whim. The French citizen, the only person charged in the United States in the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, tried to plead guilty in 2002, claiming an intimate knowledge of the plane hijackings. But he rescinded his plea a week later. His mental state has been an issue in the case ever since, and U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in Alexandria is scheduled to meet with Moussaoui this week to determine if he has the mental capacity to enter a plea now, the sources said. (snip)
Moussaoui's renewed interest in a plea comes as the case, which has seen years of delays, seemed to be headed toward trial. Moussaoui was indicted in December 2001, but his trial has been delayed three times. For most of the past two years, the case has been tied up in the appellate courts in a dispute over Moussaoui's access to key al Qaeda witnesses.

Gee, it almost seems as though the government has been hiding something regarding those key al Qaeda witnesses. Now why on earth would they do that? I'm sure they have nothing to hide, right?
Bookmark and Share

Monday, April 18, 2005

Terror Before 9/11

While the government conveniently likes to act as though 9/11 was completely unexpected and Islamic terrorism in the US was unheard of, in fact bomb threats at US airports were relatively common events. Of course hijackings had occurred dozens of times before 9/11, though hijackings in the US were rare in the years right before 9/11.

Interestingly, there was even some sort of bomb threat at the San Jose Airport, involving middle eastern men, the night of September 10th, 2001.

It's really quite odd how airport security jumped at a bomb threat and took such precautions compared to the dazed and confused response to the 9/11 hijackings the next day.

Something doesn't add up here.
Bookmark and Share

9/11 Coincidences

A really good list of 9/11 coincidences is here.

And another good set is here.

Mnay of these "coincidences" are incredibly damning indictments of the "official" 9/11 story, and thus are worth knowing about.

Here's a couple of just amazing coincidences having to do with financial transactions:

1) There was a huge surge of financial transactions in the WTC just prior to the attacks. Over $100,000,000 were rushed through the computers. These transactions were found by the German company Convar who were recovering data from hard disks in the building.

2) There was a surge in "put" options*** purchased for American Airlines, United Airlines and some companies with offices in the WTC. Former-CIA executive director "Buzzy" Krongard managed the firm that handled "put" options on UAL.

Of course, we've heard nothing about who was involved in these deals in the three and a half years since 9/11.

***A stock market term-- a "put" option is effectively a bet that the value of a stock will decrease.
Bookmark and Share


40% of the cars in Brazil run on 100% ethanol (a renewable fuel).

Now I understand there are a lot more cars in the US and we use much more fuel than Brazil, but it seems as though we aren't even TRYING to push the use of ethanol. I assume the ethanol industry will ramp up steadily in the next few years as oil prices increase.
Bookmark and Share

Keep On Driving, Folks!

Whereas many experts predict oil production will peak in the next two to three years (the average of the experts in this article put peaking at about 14 years plus or minus 12 years), the US Department of Energy has the rosiest forecast-- oil won't peak for another 32 years!

You have to wonder whether that 32 year figure came from scientists or from the US Chamber of Commerce.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Definitely NOT Part of the Official 9/11 Story

From Michael Wright's site:
In the fall of 2001, I was talking to an OU library employee who told me that she was present when an FBI agent was interviewing her colleague. From this encounter she learned that an OU library computer terminal had been used for an online purchase of an airline ticket for a 9/11 hijacker who was on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania. She also told me that the person who made the purchase had not been a hijacker. Contrary to expectation, he was a white American male, but he knew he was assisting the hijacking operation.

The librarian's report is consistent with information provided by Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding in their book Masterminds of Terror. 3 They wrote that the 9/11 hijackers mostly used the Internet for selecting their airplane seats. Fouda is a reporter for Al-Jazeera and Fielding works for the London Sunday Times.

In October 2002 I assisted Bill Crozier, a fellow OU graduate, in making a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI, in order to obtain more details about this incident. The letter requesting details from the FBI began with this sentence:

Under the Freedom of Information Act I request information about a report I heard involving purchase of airline tickets for the 9/11 terrorist hijacking from the public computer terminals in the University of Oklahoma library.

The request also asked FBI to identify the purchaser and to report whether he was taken into custody. The scan of their reply is at the bottom of this article. The FBI letter confirms that the incident happened. Their subject line at the top reads:


The letter informs us that "the material you requested is located in an investigative file which pertains to a pending investigation." While confirming the event, the FBI did not identify the person who bought the ticket. Their secrecy over this matter inspires a strong suspicion that the purchaser was an infiltrator operating under the CIA's instructions. The most likely explanation indicated by all the evidence compiled for this report is that he was a participant in a failed attempt by the CIA to organize a sting operation against terrorists who later succeeded in the 9/11 attack. Had he not been an infiltrator, he would have been accused of a crime and brought to court in a public proceeding. The concealing of his identity cannot be explained by offering the possibility that he is a fugitive. The names and photos of fugitives are commonly put on wanted posters. If he were a fugitive, why haven't they put out a wanted poster?

An Oklahoma City TV news station broadcast a report about this ticket purchase, but I did not see the broadcast. Several people have told me about it. One of them who saw the broadcast has emailed the Family Steering Committee for the Independent 9/11 Commission and confirmed having seen it. She copied the email to me. Other Oklahomans who saw this broadcast are asked to write and tell me.

According to USA Today, the CIA definitely had infiltrated Al Qaeda. The newspaper reports that "the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur." Those who supervised the purchase of the 9/11 ticket from OU library knew, for at least one flight.

Pretty wild stuff-- this information clearly shows government complicity in 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

9/11-- A Bungled Sting Operation?

This idea is actually something I considered early on in my 9/11 research, not wanting to believe the government would deliberately allow its citizens to be killed.

A man named Michael Wright has a whole web page devoted to this idea, and there is some interesting info there. In particular:
In its issue 8 of 2002, the British magazine Eye Spy alleged that the entire 9/11 hijacking operation was a sting attempt coordinated by Barbara Olson, wife of U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Olson died on American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.21 Eye Spy claims that four agents were on United Airlines flight 175 and seven or eight more were on United 93. They report that Olson was accompanied on the aircraft by three federal agents. While expanding the view of the scope of the sting operation, Eye Spy agrees that the sting planners expected the aircraft to be landed by hijackers instead of crashed into buildings.

Eye Spy would not support my suspicion that the five men described by news media as "heroic passengers" were actually CIA operatives on United flight 93. The article states: "Washington allegedly deleted the names of the many agents, along with names of the 19 hijackers, from the passenger lists of the flights." I had formulated my own bungled sting explanation in regard to the Pennsylvania flight before seeing this article in Eye Spy.
The idea that there were US agents on the hijacked flights can explain why the numbers of passenger names don't add up to the official passenger count, but you have to wonder why the agents didn't try to do more once it was clear that the hijackers were steering the plane. While I can't completely rule out the "sting" idea, I think overall it is a naive view of 9/11 when taken together with all the other evidence of complicity of that day. If anything, 9/11 makes more sense as a NORAD live-fly hijacking exercise gone wrong than a sting operation gone wrong. But I don't event think that is the complete explanation. Mr. Wright refers to the '93 WTC bombing as another "sting" operation gone wrong-- which it was in a way. Except in that case it was the FBI who deliberately made the sting operation go wrong, not the suspects. Perhaps 9/11 can be seen in that light. Perhaps some of the FBI agents involved in helping the 9/11 hijackers thought it was a sting operation, but other mole agents actually sabotaged the sting.

Certainly, many of the people in the government who assisted the 9/11 operation probably thought they were involved in either some sort of sting operation or some sort of benign exercise. Then it just took a few people in the right place (i.e moles) to turn the benign aspect of 9/11 into the catastrophe it was.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, April 16, 2005

9/11 Talking Points-- to Share with Friends, Family, Media and Government Representatives

Best Example of State-Sponsored False-Flag against one's own citizens (Synthetic Terrorism)
-- Italy's "Strategy of Tension" in the 1970's and 1980's; Operation Gladio

Best Example of US Considering Synthetic Terrorism
-- Operation Northwoods Plan (early 1960's)

Best Examples that 9/11 was not Unexpected
-- NORAD running terrorist hijacking drills and hijacked planes into building drills prior to 9/11

Best Example of General Forewarnings of 9/11
-- FBI whistle-blowers warning of Arabs in flight schools

Best Example of Specific Forewarnings of 9/11
-- Suspicious trading of American Airlines and United Airlines stocks right before 9/11 (trades not by the terrorists since story has been covered up)

Best Example of contacts of US intelligence agencies with Al Qaeda
-- Extensive interactions between CIA and Pakistani ISI and Pakistani ISI and Al Qaeada
-- FBI informant lived with two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego right before attacks

Best Examples that there is more to the 9/11 story than the official version
-- Live-fly hijacking exercises run on 9/11
-- Not one of the eight pilots on the four hijacked planes signaled they were hijacked to air traffic control: how did knife and boxcutter-armed hijackers do this?
-- Perfectly controlled collapse of WTC building 7, a 47 story building housing several government agencies including the CIA and Secret Service: building had only a limited fire and was not hit by an airplane
-- Witnesses described bombs in WTC towers: officials and media have covered this up
-- WTC towers had massive central core section that was built to withstand impact with large jet airliner: WTC structure has been misleadingly portrayed by the media to promote pancake collapse story
-- Jet fuel fires should not have been hot to enough to weaken steel beams in WTC tower core
-- Strange and very difficult flight path taken by flight 77 pilot to hit Pentagon
-- Damage to Pentagon and debris not consistent with 757 impact
-- Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI-translator, is being gagged from telling what she knows about 9/11

Best Examples of Administration Cover-Up
-- Stonewalling of appointment of the 9/11 commission
-- Appointment of Henry Kissinger initially to chair the commission
-- Limited time and budget allotted to 9/11 commission
-- Bush and Cheney testify to commission together

Reasons and Motives for 9/11
-- geopolitical strategy, maintenance of US global dominance by creating permanent US bases in middle east and asia
-- incitement to war to capture middle-east and asian oil reserves
-- disgruntled military officers wanted a war after many years of relative inaction
-- Neocon motives: clash of civilzations with the west and Islam; Islam perceived as threat to long-term US global dominance and to Israel
-- Massive insurance fraud by Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC, and others

Details about any of these can be found in the books I recommend on the right-hand side of the blog, or at the various 9/11 sites I have linked, or by a google search.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, April 15, 2005

The Bush Administration and Economic Competitiveness

Tom Friedman actually has a column I can whole-heartedly agree with.
One of the things that I can't figure out about the Bush team is why an administration that is so focused on projecting U.S. military strength abroad has taken such little interest in America's economic competitiveness at home - the underlying engine of our strength. At a time when the global economic playing field is being flattened - enabling young Indians and Chinese to collaborate and compete with Americans more than ever before - this administration is off on an ideological jag. It is trying to take apart the New Deal by privatizing Social Security, when what we really need most today is a New New Deal to make more Americans employable in 21st-century jobs.

We have a Treasury secretary from the railroad industry. We have an administration that won't lift a finger to prevent the expensing of stock options, which is going to inhibit the ability of U.S. high-tech firms to attract talent - at a time when China encourages its start-ups to grant stock options to young innovators. And we have movie theaters in certain U.S. towns afraid to show science films because they are based on evolution and not creationism.

The Bush team is proposing cutting the Pentagon's budget for basic science and technology research by 20 percent next year - after President Bush and the Republican Congress already slashed the 2005 budget of the National Science Foundation by $100 million.
It's as if we have an industrial-age presidency, catering to a pre-industrial ideological base, in a post-industrial era.
This is exactly right. It's one thing to be conservative-- it's another thing to be completely backwards. This is seriously fucked up. Particularly with the prospect of oil-supplies running out, we need a forward-looking technology-based strategy to deal the situation, NOT the prospect of more war.
Bookmark and Share

A Non-Conspiratorial Explanation for "The Pod"

Could it be that a bomb, maybe a small bomb in the passenger compartment, has gone off inside the plane shortly before it impacts the tower? The pod might actually show the beginning stages as the central fuel tank explodes. This would explain why the pod produces it's own damage hole when the plane enters the tower-- it is a separate explosive device.

This of course doesn't explain how the wings slice through cement floors or the flash or the strange port wing distortion (see previous post), but it might MIGHT explain the pod.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Even More on Flight 175

Two thoughts here.

First, looking over all the clips and photos of flight 175, the "pod" is only really noticeable on two videos-- the "CNN best shot video" and the Evan Fairbanks video. Interestingly, the pod is only strongly visible as the plane gets very close to the tower. This may be why the pod is only clear in these videos, because they have the best shots of the plane as it approaches the tower. But even more interesting is that in the CNN video, the pod really becomes more pronounced as the plane gets nearer and nearer the tower. One might even think the pod was actually some strange distortion of the wing root that is occurring from the high speed and the angle of the plane. If the wing root was becoming distorted however, you might think that the wings would be more prone to breaking as they hit the wall of the tower. But the wings go into the wall like hot knives through butter. It is the damndest thing. So I really really don't know what to make of this, and as I posted earlier-- I would write the pod off as a trick of the light if it weren't for the fact that the pod leaves it's own special imprint as the the plane enters the wall. So, whatever it is, the pod is a real, solid obejct.

Second, there is another point that needs to be emphasized. As I said, and as you can watch here, the wings go into the wall like hot knives through butter. But the angle of the plane means the wings are spanning at least four different floors, each with a thick concrete base. So not only do the wings slice through the steel exterior columns, but they also slice completely through concrete floors-- even the very tips of the wings! This makes no sense, whatsoever.

Thus, there are four very clear abnormalities with the "flight 175" plane:
1) a port wing abnormality (as shown in the Ghost Gun article) where the wing trails much too far back.
2) the large bulge on the belly (or the pod) that develops as the plane moves closer to the tower.
3) the wings that do not bend or break the slightest upon hitting the steel-framed tower wall, even though the starboard wing spans several concrete-slabbed stories.
4) the flash that appears in a few videos as the plane touches the tower wall (this flash also appears in the video of "flight 11" hitting the North tower).

I have no idea what this all means, but it is very suspicious.

I doubt that a normal 767 would show these abnormalities-- even if it was being piloted at top speed by a terrorist hijacker.
Bookmark and Share

What I Think About 9/11

Some of you may worry that I have flown into kookoo conspiracy land, particularly lately, with my studies on flight 175 and ideas about a cruise missile hitting the Pentagon.

So let me lay it out here.

I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11.

I am merely researching things, trying to make theories and test them against logic. However, I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11.

What I can say ABSOLUTELY is:
1) something very strange happened on 9/11,
2) the media and the airlines are covering up things about 9/11,
3) the US government is covering up many things about 9/11, and
4) the US government has also lied to us about 9/11.

Beyond this, I am not 100% certain of anything except that the twin towers and WTC7 really did collapse on 9/11, that something hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and a lot of people died on 9/11.

I STRONGLY suspect the 9/11 attacks were an inside job by the US government, but you know what? I can't prove it and there is also a slim chance that much of the 9/11 official story is right.

However, I have spent a solid year now researching 9/11, countless hours on this blog, and I wouldn't have spent all this time on 9/11 unless I thought there was a very important untold story as well as a compelling mystery about 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Peak Oil Blogs!

I just found out there is a whole series of Peak Oil blogs, such as The Oil Drum, Flying Talking Donkey and Land of Black Gold. There is even a Peak Oil Webring, as well as a Sustainability Web Ring.

Cool stuff, and I will be adding these to my blog roll. They look like interesting sites to keep a track of these days.
Bookmark and Share

Flight 175-- Breaking the Laws of Physics?

If you can, watch this little clip of flight 175 entering the south tower.

The arrows shows the tail and wing distance. There is absolutely no change in the distance between the tail and the wing as the plane hits, suggesting no crumpling of the plane at all. Also, the wing shows absolutely no distortion or bending or breakage upon hitting the STEEL FRAME WALL of the tower. The plane also has an extremely ghostly appearance and the entry into the building looks very strange.

You can see more of this video here.

I don't know how to explain this, but this is a problem with the official story.

Also, as the plane enters the building, two puffs of smoke arise where the engines go in (which makes sense). However, note the pod-like structure is very noticeable in this clip, and the when the plane goes in, the "pod" leaves a clear impact hole in the building (unlike the rest of the plane). So the plane seems to melt inot hte building except for the two engines and the "pod". Very very odd.

I have never tried to make a big deal of the pod. What strikes me about the pod is 1) that it is extremely clear in some shots and not at all noticeable in other shots, and 2) it could be written off as a trick of the light-- if it weren't for the separate impact hole it leaves in the wall of the tower!

I honestly don't know what to think about this, except that a normal Boeing 767 does not have a structure on its belly like the pod. Thus, this video is either not flight 175 or it is flight 175 and someone has spliced in a pod and pod-shaped building damage to the video for some unknown reason. Either way, something is very fishy here. And if it is the latter, it was not done by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. It was done by the media-- since this video was shown on CNN and the pod structure is seen in a photo on Newsday. The only thing I can reasonable figure is that:
1) the plane that hit was clearly not a United 767, so people who controlled the footage fudged the film but couldn't cover up the pod device, or
2) the plane that hit was a specially hardened 767 that could slice through steel-columns and also had an extra device on its belly, or
3) the plane that hit was a hologram cloaking three or four cruise missiles. One missile for each engine, one missile for the pod and perhaps another missile for the body of the plane.

The problem is that all of these possibilities sound crazy and seem highly unlikely and thus we are left with a real conundrum about what happened. I have to think that number two requires the least number of people involved in the cover-up and thus is more likely.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Flight 587-- A Real Terrorist Attack

Contrary to what the government says. ex-firefighter, named as Tom Lynch, relates his eyewitness account of the final moments of American Airlines Airbus A300 Flight 587, which crashed and burned just two minutes and 24 seconds after take off from JFK International Airport in New York City.

The incident occured on November 12, 2001.

The most recent federal investigation blamed the pilot of the aicraft and the designers for the 'accident'.

The official explanation of the crash is that turbulence caused the tailfin of the plane to snap off.

This eyewitness account along with many others completely contradicts that.

Lynch states that parts only dropped off the plane AFTER a small explosion and that the plane was engulfed by flames no more than two seconds after the first explosion.

The (sic) strongly indicates a small bomb was detonated which then ignited the jet fuel.

Furthermore, in August of last year a supposed Al-Qaeda operative told Canadian intelligence that a Montreal man who trained in Afghanistan alongside the 9/11 hijackers was responsible for the crash.

The source told CSIS that Abderraouf Jdey had downed the plane using a small shoe bomb.

Why would the government cover up a terrorist attack when from all the past examples, they are the only ones to benefit?

Former FBI agent Robert Wright went public in claiming that the intelligence agencies knew of numerous incidents both before and after 9/11 that were real terrorist attacks but covered them up as 'accidents'.

One argument would be that the Globalists don't want ayone or anything to interfere with their carefully constructed script for the controlled advancement of the New World Order and so they simply ignore any real terrorist attacks and tell the public they were unfortunate accidents.

This is simply fascinating and I think this story is legitimate. In a Democratic Underground thread, the 9/11 researcher Paul Thompson related that the flight 587 attack was predicted by a Pakistani student in New York who had predicted the 9/11 attacks. Another poster on DU said his brother was a pilot who had heard that flight 587 was a shoe bomb attack. I hadn't heard that Robert Wright comment, but I wam not surprised-- he was one of the few honest FBI agents working (which is why he is a "former agent", I suppose). I think the interpretation at the end (by the Propaganda Matrix writer) is basically correct.

What this shows importantly is that Al Qaeda is a real terrorist threat and they did have a bunch of people lined up to attack the US around 9/11/01. The 9/11 attacks, of course, were a whole different ball game, but this flight 587 story shows that there were at least some real Al Qaeda terrorists trying to inflict damage. There was of course another shoe bomber, Richard Reid, who failed and was caught. The shoe bomb of course is a pretty crude attack and nothing like 9/11. I think the shoe bomb attack is basically what your average Al Qaeda stooge could pull off.

But the most amazing thing is how the government LIED about these other attacks! It seems as though the government, right after 9/11, didn't want to freak people out too much by having too many attacks on airplanes. Most likely the government didn't want to have the airline industry completely collapse by people scared of flying. The powers that be wanted just the right kind and right amount of fear-- such as was propagated by the anthrax attacks, which were clearly an inside government job.

I am curious what attacks happened before 9/11 that were "real" terrorist attacks?
Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger