Monday, April 24, 2017

9/11 - The Truth Hurts

One of the main questions "debunkers" ask in total ridicule is, "How could people plant explosives in the World Trade Center without anyone noticing?!" I guess it is not that difficult if the company doing the "renovations" also specializes in controlled demolitions:

It gets worse for those of us who held out hope that some people in the administration were duped by others with nefarious motives. What about all of the put and call options preceding 9/11? One man in particular sure knew when to cash out:

When "speculating" on stock futures, I suppose it is helpful if your brother is the President of the United States. 

No mention whatsoever of Ptech in the 9/11 Commission Report. Amazing. 

As is System Planning Corporation. Its Radar Physics Laboratory created (among other things) a "remote control system for airborne vehicles"? 

"Conspiracy theories" I dismissed out-of-hand for years are starting to look not-so-theoretical.

And let us not even get into the Project for the New American Century's "White Paper" talking about using biological warfare to target genomes for political purposes.

Now that I have shared my migraine with everyone reading this post, let me get to the body of my article. It will be a long one.

The following video is five hours long, but I implore readers to take the time to watch it. I will walk everyone through it as we go, making occasional comments and posting the questions asked in the documentary (editing only for the handful of typographical errors it contains). All times in parentheses refer to the documentary, not any links I have added as references:

Introduction: 12 Parallels Between Pearl Harbor and September 11 (0:1:25)

1) The Ultimate Goal
In the case of 9/11, according to Paul O'Neill the goal was Saddam Hussein (0:2:15).
2) The Propaganda Machine
3) Someone Knew
4) Information Withheld
5) Congressmen Denounce
Operation Able Danger:
6) Honest Officials Ignored
7) Top Military Unavailable
8) Defense Weakened
9) Stand-Down Orders
10) Indignation to Justify War
11) The Official Commissions
12) The Debunkers
NOTE: "Popular Mechanics" is owned by the Hearst Corporation, of "yellow journalism" fame:

The Debate: Main Issues (0:14:05)

Four Hijackings:
- Air Defense
- Hijackers
- Airplanes

Three Locations:
- The Pentagon
- Shanksville
- The World Trade Center

Part One - Air Defense (0:14:55)

Where are the Interceptors?
The "Incompetence Theory" (0:16:15)
"Military radars pointing out" (0:16:28)
The fact is, internal threats were always the responsibility of the FAA, not the military. (0:17:15)
"Without transponders, the planes were hard to find" (0:18:25)
The fact is, when the transponder is turned off controllers lose the altitude, but the plane is still visible on radar. (0:19:00)

The Military Drills (0:22:02)
"9/11 Synthetic Terrorism" Webster Griffin Tarpley (0:22:18)
Due to the war games, most of the northeastern interceptors were in Canada and Alaska, and exercises vs. "real life" were confused on radar.
NORAD/FAA Radio Communications:
Despite fighters being scrambled from Langley to Washington, "Giant Killer" sent them out over the Atlantic Ocean. (0:24:55)
The war games were not suspended until 10:11 EDT. By then, Flight 93 was also down. (0:27:23)

Specific Warnings (0:29:37)
"Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" (0:30:45):
The "August 6 Memo" (0:31:50):

QUESTION (0:32:40)

Knowing that the attacks were imminent, knowing that they might involve hijacked airliners, but not knowing where and when they could happen, would that have been a good reason to beef up the defense and keep even more jets than usual on alert all across the country? 
Why instead schedule so many exercises in one day, while leaving only four jets on alert to defend the very sector of the country that was most likely to be attacked?

The Chain-of-Command (0:33:08)
The most appalling thing about the cluster-fuck in our defense system that day was the Secretary of Defense going AWOL.

QUESTION (0:37:48)

After having realized that the country was being attacked by hijacked airplanes, at 9:03, why didn't Eberhart immediately suspend all of the war games and recall all of the available jets to their bases?
Why didn't Myers order him to do so, after having been briefed by Eberhart on the ongoing attack? 
And why hasn't the 9/11 Commission ever asked either general these most fundamental questions?

Promotions, not Punishment (0:38:12)

The Mineta Case (0:39:55)
The NORAD Tapes (0:40:07):
Mineta's testimony - the only portion still available online - (0:42:00):
"Mineta was mistaken" (0:47:38)
The exact footnote #209 reads as follows (the second half of the entry referenced): "On the time of entering the tunnel, see USSS report 'Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11 - October , 2001,' Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2 Secret Service personnel told us that the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data which is no longer available. USSS briefing (Jan. 29, 2004)." 

The Mineta Case: A Summary (0:53:20)
1) Washington D.C. is "Bravo" P-56 Air Space (0:53:25)
Admittance only allowed under FAA Regulation 91.131:
- Clearance from ATC
- Two-way radio communications
- Mode C transponder
2) Emergency lock-down
3) White House had missiles (0:54:10)
4) "Unknown" is a perfect candidate (for shoot-down)
5) Secret Service knew about Flight 77 for at least 30 minutes


The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following it on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital. But they didn't. Why?
In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane, as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

Part Two - The Hijackers (0:57:14)

"Piss-Poor Student Pilots"
"Hijackers trained in flight simulators" (0:58:35)
"Just set autopilot" (0:59:08)


Marwan al-Sheikki has never flown a jet before in his life, let alone a huge airliner. How was he able to perform ascents of 3,000 ft./min. and plunges of 10,000 ft./min. while keeping full control of the plane, and why would he want to take unnecessary risks, including collisions with other airliners, instead of flying safely with the autopilot towards the intended target?


Ziad Jarrah had never flown a jet before in his life, let alone a large airliner, and even his experience with small airplanes was rather poor. How could he perform a descent "so fast that the computer can't keep up with it", while maintaining full control of the plane, and why would he need to take such an unnecessary risk, including collisions with other airplanes, instead of safely flying with the autopilot towards the intended target?

"Amateurs drive planes like trucks" (1:03:56)
What the narrator calls "the feat of the century" is my personal favorite. Hani Hanjour, who was repeatedly denied the ability to rent Cessna 152s because pilots did not think he was fit to fly, somehow manages to pull off a 330-degree turn (pulling between five and six g's), goes into a steep descent (pulling around nine g's), levels off somewhere around twenty-to-thirty feet "off the deck", and slams into the first floor of the Pentagon doing 500 knots (approximately 200 mph over VMO - Maximum Operational Velocity). In the following video, a pilot explains the miracle of Hanjour's alleged stunts:
"Hanjour had a pilot's license" (1:10:30)


How could an amateur who was deemed unable to fly solo in a Cessna 150, had "a poor understanding of the basic principles of aviation", and had never once sat in the cockpit of a 757, suddenly become able to control such a large airliner flying at top speeds?
And even assuming he was able to reach Washington with the autopilot, why would he want to disconnect it and hand-fly the plane for another eight long minutes, performing a totally unnecessary descending maneuver that a) would have drastically increased his chances of an unwanted crash; b) would have increased the danger of being intercepted; c) would have made him lose sight of the target again; d) would have forced him to a much more difficult approach near the ground; e) would have shrunk the target to a tiny strip of cement; f) would have limited the possible damage to the external rings only, when he could have maximized the damage and ensured the most spectacular outcome of the mission by plunging the plane onto the Pentagon's roofs from above?

Someone Knew? (1:13:10)
This question is not outlandish, especially given the "coincidence" that not only the Pentagon but World Trade Center 7 had both undergone "renovations" just prior to September 11. And, why the September 10 deadline (see AMEC video posted at the beginning of this article).
Jim Miklaszewski's account (1:15:28) is quite chilling as well. Perhaps it was simple logic to be concerned about the Pentagon as a potential target, but to specify the E-ring and use the declarative statement "We're next" is disturbing, to say the least.


Even if someone could predict that the Pentagon would become a target, one would imagine a plane to plunge from the skies onto the roofs of the building.
Why would anyone suggest "stay away from the external ring" in particular, unless he knew in advance what was going to happen?

Airport Security Cameras (1:16:37)


Why were we never shown a single image of the 19 alleged hijackers moving through the different areas of the three airports on the morning of September 11?
Since Washington Dulles did have security cameras at the checkpoints, why were we never shown the properly time-stamped images of the five terrorists boarding Flight 77 on the morning of September 11?

The Missing Black Boxes (1:20:18)
The oddity here is the missing voice recorders from Flights 93 and 77 despite the flight data recorders being found. That seems to be rather convenient, and becomes even more puzzling when the NTSB has refused to release the serial numbers to the FDRs. 

Part Three - The Airplanes (1:26:47)

Passenger Jets, or Military Drones? 
The documentary makes excellent points, but let us not forget the possibility of remote control I suggested at the beginning of this post. However, the idea of drones replacing aircraft in mid-air is not new. In fact, "Operation Northwoods" not only suggested such a scenario but also discussed using "clandestine radio" to support the ruse(s). As for destroying aircraft via radio signal, I wonder if that explains what happened to Flight 93?:
VMO for a 767 is 414 mph.
VMO for a 757 is 402 mph.
Flight 11 (767) crashed at 490 mph.
Flight 175 (767) crashed at 510 knots (586 mph).
Flight 77 (757) also crashed at 510 knots (586 mph).
Flight 93 (757) crashed at 580 mph.
I love Leslie Hazzard's reaction (Boeing spokesperson) when asked (at 1:36:20) if a Boeing 767 could be going 500 mph at 700 ft. altitude: Laughter.


Can you produce any evidence that a Boeing 767 equipped with regular engines can fly for almost two minutes beyond 500 mph. in the lower strata of the atmosphere without suffering any visible structural damage?
Can you explain how amateur pilots who had never flown a jet before in their lives could maintain full control of an airliner that has exceeded the VMO by almost 200 mph?
And why would some terrorists who have been lucky enough to get within reach of their target want to risk the entire operation by imposing such a stress on the airplane that it would almost certainly cause them to crash before they complete their mission?

What Happened to the Passengers? (1:37:30)
The "plan" described here comes from "Operation Northwoods", which I linked in the last section.

The Cellphone Calls (1:38:34)
The information here is startling, and not something anyone questioned at the time.
"Only two cellphone calls made" (1:45:40)
An eighteen-minute, uninterrupted cellphone call from an airplane?


Given the known limitations of the cellular phone system in 2001, can you provide any evidence that the cellphone calls made by the passengers reported by the FBI could have been made from the altitudes, at the speeds, and for the durations indicated for each of them?

If Not from the Planes, from Where?
The Todd Beamer Call (1:51:04)


How could Beamer be describing events that are supposed to be happening in front of his eyes, when in fact they had already happened half an hour before? 
How could the terrorists be "preparing to take control of the flight" at 9:45, when they had already been in the cockpit for more than fifteen minutes?

The call lasted for more than an hour, and the line was left open after the crash?


Since airphones are powered by the same airplane's electrical system, how could the line have remained open for another 45 minutes, after the phone had literally disintegrated to the ground in a thousand pieces?

* * * * * 

NOTE: Due to the length of both the video and this article, I have decided to break it into two parts. The continuation will be posted ASAP.

Thanksgiving: A Lesson in Gratitude

I found myself becoming irritated yesterday as I watched people I know on social media talking about the various plans they had for today. ...