Slashdot Mirror

Is that the same FBI as the one mentioned in this article?

kill/invade/torture/ for faith, whereas your decent religious people do it all the time.

Only a handful of individuals in remote areas of backwards countries have killed/invaded/tortured for faith in recent memory. Their religions don't consider them "decent religious people" at all, even when denouncing these apostates and their tactics costs the denouncers their own lives.

All real mass-murders — or attempts at same — over the last 100 years have been perpetrated by folks either actively (like Communists) or passively (like Nazis) godless. The only possible exception is the Ottoman's decimation of the Armenians — shocking in itself, however, it is dwarfed by the "achievements" of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or Rwanda's thugs. Osama bin Laden — the worst religious murderer of recent memory — does not stand near those guys, because, in no small part, the fate of innocent people actually bothered him somewhat and he tried (if unconvincingly) to distance himself from the 9/11 attack.

Even when you are cornered by religious zealots bent on killing "infidels", one can escape death by converting. But there is/was no escape for "kulaks" from Stalin and Mao, for Jews from Hitler, or for Bosnjaks from Milosevic...

Which takes one to the major point/revelation — religion is not the reason. Like a gun or a hammer, it is a tool, that could be used for good or evil depending on the user's motivations and desires, which are usually far deeper seated, than the religion can penetrate. If anything, religion softens the rough edges we've all inherited.

I strongly suspect that you have been indoctrinated heavily against Com.

That's true. I was heavily indoctrinated against Communism — by Communists...

Your comment about the lamppost I will not even attempt to answer - it is so childish and shallow....

It is not at all shallow — I'm against death penalty in general for fear of uncorrectable mistake. But a person, who openly admits sharing the most murderous ideology known so far (Nazism is not even close), is an unmistakable danger. Killing such people is the least we can do in memory of the millions of innocent victims of Communism.

You actually trust people whose moral standards are from an old book

I don't trust — I trust them more than others. There is a difference...

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.h tm
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
http://www.no911conspiracy.com/mythsvsfacts.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=1
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

It doesn't have to melt it, it only needs to weaken it to further contribute to structural failure.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

"7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren't hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was "certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours" is simply not true." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.ht m

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=4

"The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building--paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained" http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Here's another good one I just found.

It seems you believe very strongly that 9/11 was all an elaborate hoax, as do I, so I figure if you haven't already read this, you might be interested in it.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.ht ml

ND

"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."

I always use 90210 for the zipcode (regardless of what company asks)... It either gets a double-take, a question like "can I have your real zipcode",

Yawn, BORING! More interesting Zip Codes:

96943: Yap, Federated States of Micronesia
37863: Pigeon Forge TN (Home of Dollywood)
20505: CIA
92328: Death Valley
80429: Climax, Colorado, highest elevation Post Office.
97834: Halfway, Oregon, also known as "Half.com"
12345: Schenectady, NY
10048: WTC ...and of course the infamous:

17534: Intercourse, but this being Slashdot, I wouldn't expect most to be familiar with that locale.

Tom Clancy makes me insane. Whenever theres some sort of political or military conflict, all the CNNs and FOX News stations scramble to get Clancy to come on and comment. And he has no military or political experience, just a vivid imagination.

Despotism starts slow. A war with another country they can "believe in". anything closer to home just 'can't happen". People just "can't believe they would do that"

History shows "they do"

Anything else is just a little too hard to comprehend for most people. "Bad stuff" is only on TV, it doesn't really exist. There's a term used, I didn't invent it but it's accurate for this phenomenon, it's called "cognitive dissonance".

When I was a younger man, I watched 5 cops stomp another young man to death. His "crime" was exercising his first amendment in public, definetly non violently, as I was right there, maybe 10 yards away, watched the whole deal go down. It never even made it to the newspaper, no one was ever charged. No pictures exist, cameras on the scene got confiscated.

They were laughing as they did it

I won't forget

one reply for an AC, thanks for the comments and you are welcome

March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon
By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology.
(John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

Carol,

You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion.

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes.

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

[ CV cmments:
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter airplane. It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site : By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.

[CV comments: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg ]

[CV comments:
I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / iretruck.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / apitolview.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / ars-damaged.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg

and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / lanepiece.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition.

OK. Now back to Snake Plissken]

[http://www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html ]

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is your fifth clue.

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.

[ Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 1
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit : Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.

[See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1 / outhtowerpath.jpg ] HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.

Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight 93 is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

[CV commens:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited in Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 2. See Eberhart testimony at:
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pict ures/index.html

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A566 70-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.

* Fireman's Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.g p.med.asf

[Note to reader: There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip. If you can find a verifiable copy, let me know. CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet made
the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[ http://public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
and
http://public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[ Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]

["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even
himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon
By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology.
(John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

Carol,

You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion.

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes.

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

[ CV cmments:
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter airplane. It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site : By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.

[CV comments: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg ]

[CV comments:
I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / iretruck.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / apitolview.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / ars-damaged.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg

and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / lanepiece.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition.

OK. Now back to Snake Plissken]

[http://www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html ]

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is your fifth clue.

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.

[ Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 1
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit : Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.

[See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1 / outhtowerpath.jpg ] HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.

Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight 93 is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

[CV commens:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited in Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 2. See Eberhart testimony at:
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pict ures/index.html

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A566 70-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.

* Fireman's Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.g p.med.asf

[Note to reader: There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip. If you can find a verifiable copy, let me know. CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet made
the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[ http://public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
and
http://public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[ Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]

["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even
himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

March 10, 2002 -- Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon
By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ]. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology.
(John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

Carol,

You did some fine research on 9-11. You came within inches of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest of the story. Let me explain by making a suggestion.

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee. You can't do it. You get confused. Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes.

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage). All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead.

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash: The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw. You could hear it in her voice. If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up. She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower. She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane.

[ CV cmments:
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter airplane. It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash: The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport. No mention of a plane.

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon. Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC. A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet.

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway. It was an American Airlines passenger jet. Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking. And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low. And that story paved the way for the official truth.

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site : By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon. What's the problem? The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines.

[CV comments: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-200/ext.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/boeing757-200

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across.

US News & World Report, December 10, 2001, pg. 31
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn011210-1.jpg ]

[CV comments:
I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11. After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <jadinardo@hotmail.com>. By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11. Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / iretruck.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon6

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / apitolview.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon5

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / ars-damaged.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon2

The scenes depicted by the US Army photos are consistent with contemporaneously published photos in the popular press. See, for example, US News and World Report, September 14, 2001, pg. 40.

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/usn010914-1.jpg

and the photo that appeared in Newsweek's 2001 "Extra" edition, pgs. 26, 27.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/nwkxtr-1.jpg

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site. It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage. Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages / lanepiece.html
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/pentagon0

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon. Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear. Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes. Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition.

OK. Now back to Snake Plissken]

[http://www.Public-action.com/911/robotplane.html ]

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon. The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target. The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots.

Something is wrong here. Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots. That is your fifth clue.

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off: As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude. But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible. Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked? You are looking at your sixth clue.

[ Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 1
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

Eighth Clue -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit : Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit. The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner. Yet the first plane struck its target dead center. That's your eighth clue.

[See diagrams from Wag the WTC website at:
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/psyopnews/Extra/1 / outhtowerpath.jpg ] HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down. There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this: Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command. There is a national emergency. We are under terrorist attack. Turn off your transponders. Maintain radio silence. Here is your new flight plan. You will land at [name] military air base."

* The pilots turn off the transponders. The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes. Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now.

* What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths? We'll never see the real records, for sure. But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other. If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that: As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude. The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes. Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane. Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive. The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

That's probably close to the way it was managed. Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly.

[For the alleged flight paths of the four jets, see
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/4flights.html
For names and locations of military airfields in the US, try
http://www.globemaster.de/bases.html
You can search for a listing of bases in 9-11 related states by using the search engine.]

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet, is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower.

Beautiful! Everyone has pictures of that.

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower? Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet. The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary. They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile if you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77.

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen. Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77. Reporters lie better than lawyers.

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93. If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course.

* Flight 93 is taken aloft.

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which. Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions. Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden. No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course.

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77).

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ...

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said. Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash. But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works.

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled.

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS? Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight. Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four. There would be too many chances of things going wrong. Plane substitution would be much simpler. You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth. That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars.

[CV commens:
Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars." Cited in Did NORAD Send The 'Suicide' Jets? Part 2. See Eberhart testimony at:
http://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/HomelandDefenseTrans cript.doc
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/eberhart-testimon y.html ]

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower. An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake. The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path. What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/noradsend.html ]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pict ures/index.html

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A566 70-2002Mar7.html

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible.

* Fireman's Video of First Crash. The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small. This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

http://www.xemox.net/wtc/movies/first.plane.hits.g p.med.asf

[Note to reader: There are other versions of this clip on the Internet, but I have been unable to find one I can verify as the original clip. If you can find a verifiable copy, let me know. CV <SkyWriter@Public.Action.com>]

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work. The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound. The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings.

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC? I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane. The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame. After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates. At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped. The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet. But more important: if the impact of the jet made
the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame.

[ http://public-action.com/911/gamma.jpg
and
http://public-action.com/911/gamma2.jpg ]

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country. Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared. Then mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes. That would work.

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist ]

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash. Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose. So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

[ Dallas Morning News, "Trapped in the skies, captives fought back," September 17, 2001.
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/dmnheroes ]

But why did it have to be suicide heroism? "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more to die with them." It makes a better story, of course. "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

Why did they have to die? The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report. They weren't dead. If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane? Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"? But they said, "I know we're going to die."

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog". And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag. It spoils the show.

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die. But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too. And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet. Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

[ http://www.Public-Action.com//911/northwds.html ]

["The Final Moments of Flight 93," September 22, 2001, by Karen Breslau (NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE)
http://www.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/finalmoments93 ]

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer. When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back. That's normal. That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing. He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet. If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even
himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win. He's trained that way.

The only thing that matters is the Objective. Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do. All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts. Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to. If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.