the internet is a library, not a supermarket, by just wrongly associating these concepts, you are playing the bad guys' game, Michael, you should now just return to your snotting parties with your "beloved partners" instead of spoiling this sunny day!
Congratulation on your first post, the whole logged-in troll community is proud of you (except Jon Katz who is not logged in at the moment as he waxes his butt for Junis visit)!
People like you should wear the pink triangle before being sent to the russian front where these retarded cosacks will help the world by getting rid of them. Du bist nicht mehr Deutsch, du bist ein Amerikaner-Faggot and thou shalt spread your shameful diseases amongst the unworthy yankees !
Flight Of The Bumble Planesby Snake Plissken
as told to Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, March, 2002 May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
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.)
In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.
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.
THE CLUE
First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have
remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might
get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights
taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with
short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.
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.
Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United
Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they
gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an
unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first
eyewitness's story got shellacked.
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.
After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could
see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel
and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped
off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage.
But there was none.
[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.
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.
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.
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]
Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point
out in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said
they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a
car..." The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and dumber," and
told them to quit taking lessons.
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.
Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out,
some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes.
[See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.
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.
* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted
up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed
in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight
175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.
* 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.
* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled
with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown
into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness
saw.
* 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.
WHY DO IT THAT WAY?
So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four planes.
There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the
East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two
small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple
of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.
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.
Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the
flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the
targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not.
You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the
way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points
(geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between
them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer
flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.
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.
I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly
AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then
took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe
dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would
turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent
on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to
destroy and which to leave intact.
OTHER DETAILS
* Pentagon Security Photos : On March
7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September
11, 2001. Look at the photos:
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. )
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:
[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.
The Hijackers: I have read
reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This
suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls
to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers
are still alive, so let's move on.
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.
Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but
nobody's perfect.
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.'"
Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes
of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player,
a forest ranger, a woman police officer...
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.
And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation.
How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom,
this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy.
That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him
directly, she just got a message from the answering service.
Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people
would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes.
This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great
religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the
world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth.
All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men,"
and a nation that is willing to be deceived.
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.
I still believe that if the bigs let us download MP3s for a quarter a track, we'd do it.
actually, they have no other choice than whining about the mp3 we d/l for free:-)
I would'nt pay this quarter for music I am curious to listen to only once (especially when I don't have to pay to hear it on the radio) but I'd definitely be more generous if I had access to loads of unknown artists'mp3. Britney wins more than enough by just showing her bra in soda ads.
Flight Of The Bumble Planesby Snake Plissken
as told to Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, March, 2002 May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
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.)
In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.
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.
THE CLUE
First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have
remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might
get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights
taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with
short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.
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.
Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United
Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they
gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an
unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first
eyewitness's story got shellacked.
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.
After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could
see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel
and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped
off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage.
But there was none.
[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.
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.
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.
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]
Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point
out in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said
they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a
car..." The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and dumber," and
told them to quit taking lessons.
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.
Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out,
some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes.
[See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.
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.
* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted
up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed
in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight
175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.
* 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.
* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled
with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown
into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness
saw.
* 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.
WHY DO IT THAT WAY?
So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four planes.
There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the
East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two
small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple
of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.
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.
Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the
flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the
targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not.
You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the
way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points
(geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between
them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer
flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.
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.
I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly
AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then
took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe
dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would
turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent
on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to
destroy and which to leave intact.
OTHER DETAILS
* Pentagon Security Photos : On March
7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September
11, 2001. Look at the photos:
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. )
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:
[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.
The Hijackers: I have read
reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This
suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls
to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers
are still alive, so let's move on.
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.
Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but
nobody's perfect.
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.'"
Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes
of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player,
a forest ranger, a woman police officer...
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.
And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation.
How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom,
this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy.
That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him
directly, she just got a message from the answering service.
Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people
would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes.
This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great
religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the
world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth.
All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men,"
and a nation that is willing to be deceived.
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.
nice post, mate. I mean it. I want them to be standard. we should not call "enhanced cd" or simply cd a cut-down version of a cd. and I'd also want them to be widely available and marketing free : I don't want to see britney spear or celine dion's ads on tv. but wait... I don't have a tv:-)
Flight Of The Bumble Planesby Snake Plissken
as told to Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, March, 2002 May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
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.)
In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.
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.
THE CLUE
First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have
remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might
get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights
taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with
short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.
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.
Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United
Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they
gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an
unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first
eyewitness's story got shellacked.
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.
After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could
see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel
and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped
off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage.
But there was none.
[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.
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.
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.
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]
Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point
out in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said
they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a
car..." The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and dumber," and
told them to quit taking lessons.
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.
Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out,
some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes.
[See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.
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.
* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted
up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed
in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight
175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.
* 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.
* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled
with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown
into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness
saw.
* 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.
WHY DO IT THAT WAY?
So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four planes.
There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the
East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two
small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple
of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.
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.
Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the
flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the
targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not.
You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the
way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points
(geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between
them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer
flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.
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.
I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly
AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then
took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe
dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would
turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent
on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to
destroy and which to leave intact.
OTHER DETAILS
* Pentagon Security Photos : On March
7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September
11, 2001. Look at the photos:
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. )
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:
[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.
The Hijackers: I have read
reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This
suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls
to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers
are still alive, so let's move on.
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.
Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but
nobody's perfect.
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.'"
Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes
of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player,
a forest ranger, a woman police officer...
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.
And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation.
How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom,
this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy.
That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him
directly, she just got a message from the answering service.
Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people
would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes.
This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great
religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the
world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth.
All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men,"
and a nation that is willing to be deceived.
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.
Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks
FTW, October 9, 2001 - Although uniformly ignored by the mainstream U.S. media, there is abundant and clear evidence
that a number of transactions in financial markets indicated specific (criminal) foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize
unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who is
now in the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency. Until 1997 A.B."Buzzy" Krongard had
been Chairman of the investment bank A.B.Brown. A.B.Brown was acquired by Banker's Trust in 1997. Krongard then
became, as part of the merger, Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust-AB Brown, one of 20 major U.S. banks named by Senator
Carl Levin this year as being connected to money laundering. Krongard's last position at Banker's Trust (BT) was to oversee
"private client relations." In this capacity he had direct hands-on relations with some of the wealthiest people in the world in a
kind of specialized banking operation that has been identified by the U.S. Senate and other investigators as being closely
connected to the laundering of drug money.
Krongard (re?) joined the CIA in 1998 as counsel to CIA Director George Tenet. He was promoted to CIA Executive Director
by President Bush in March of this year. BT was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999. The combined firm is the single largest
bank in Europe. And, as we shall see, Deutsche Bank played several key roles in events connected to the September 11
attacks.
The Scope of Known Insider Trading
Before looking further into these relationships it is necessary to look at the insider trading information that is being ignored by
Reuters, The New York Times and other mass media. It is well documented that the CIA has long monitored such trades -- in
real time -- as potential warnings of terrorist attacks and other economic moves contrary to U.S. interests. Previous stories in
FTW have specifically highlighted the use of Promis software to monitor such trades.
It is necessary to understand only two key financial terms to understand the significance of these trades, "selling short" and
"put options".
"Selling Short" is the borrowing of stock, selling it at current market prices, but not being required to actually produce the
stock for some time. If the stock falls precipitously after the short contract is entered, the seller can then fulfill the contract by
buying the stock after the price has fallen and complete the contract at the pre-crash price. These contracts often have a
window of as long as four months.
"Put Options," are contracts giving the buyer the option to sell stocks at a later date. Purchased at nominal prices of, for
example, $1.00 per share, they are sold in blocks of 100 shares. If exercised, they give the holder the option of selling
selected stocks at a future date at a price set when the contract is issued. Thus, for an investment of $10,000 it might be
possible to tie up 10,000 shares of United or American Airlines at $100 per share, and the seller of the option is then
obligated to buy them if the option is executed. If the stock has fallen to $50 when the contract matures, the holder of the
option can purchase the shares for $50 and immediately sell them for $100 -- regardless of where the market then stands. A
call option is the reverse of a put option, which is, in effect, a derivatives bet that the stock price will go up.
A September 21 story by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, entitled "Black Tuesday: The
World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" documented the following trades connected to the September 11 attacks:
Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United
Airlines, but only 396 call options... Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance
knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.
On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only
748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance... Again, assuming that 4,000 of these
options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
[FTW note: The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]
No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black
Tuesday.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45
put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per
day before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks.
Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks,
their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million.
Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four
trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a1200% increase!]. When trading resumed, Merrill's shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option
contracts were bought by "insiders," their profit would have been about $5.5 million.
European regulators are examining trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all
major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster.
[FTW note: AXA also owns more than 25% of
American Airlines stock making the attacks a "double whammy" for them.]
On September 29, 2001 -- in a vital story that has gone unnoticed by the major media -- the San Francisco Chronicle
reported, "Investors have yet to collect more than $2.5 million in profits they made trading options in the stock of United
Airlines before the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks, according to a source familiar with the trades and market data.
"The uncollected money raises suspicions that the investors -- whose identities and nationalities have not been made public
-- had advance knowledge of the strikes." They don't dare show up now. The suspension of trading for four days after the
attacks made it impossible to cash-out quickly and claim the prize before investigators started looking.
"... October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist
attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each.
[This represents 230,000 shares.] Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called "put"
options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp."
"...The source familiar with the United trades identified Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, the American investment banking arm
of German giant Deutsche Bank, as the investment bank used to purchase at least some of these options..." This was the
operation managed by Krongard until as recently as 1998.
As reported in other news stories, Deutsche Bank was also the hub of insider trading activity connected to Munich Re just
before the attacks.
CIA, the Banks and the Brokers
Understanding the interrelationships between CIA and the banking and brokerage world is critical to grasping the already
frightening implications of the above revelations. Let's look at the history of CIA, Wall Street and the big banks by looking at
some of the key players in CIA's history.
Clark Clifford -- The National Security Act of 1947 was written by Clark Clifford, a Democratic Party powerhouse, former
Secretary of Defense, and one-time advisor to President Harry Truman. In the 1980s, as Chairman of First American
Bancshares, Clifford was instrumental in getting the corrupt CIA drug bank BCCI a license to operate on American shores.
His profession: Wall Street lawyer and banker.
John Foster and Allen Dulles -- These two brothers "designed" the CIA for Clifford. Both were active in intelligence operations
during WW II. Allen Dulles was the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland where he met frequently with Nazi leaders and looked
after U.S. investments in Germany. John Foster went on to become Secretary of State under Dwight Eisenhower and Allen
went on to serve as CIA Director under Eisenhower and was later fired by JFK. Their professions: partners in the most
powerful -- to this day -- Wall Street law firm of Sullivan, Cromwell.
Bill Casey -- Ronald Reagan's CIA Director and OSS veteran who served as chief wrangler during the Iran-Contra years was,
under President Richard Nixon, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. His profession: Wall Street lawyer
and stockbroker.
David Doherty -- The current Vice President of the New York Stock Exchange for enforcement is the retired General Counsel
of the Central Intelligence Agency.
George Herbert Walker Bush -- President from 1989 to January 1993, also served as CIA Director for 13 months from 1976-77.
He is now a paid consultant to the Carlyle Group, the 11th largest defense contractor in the nation, which also shares joint
investments with the bin Laden family.
A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard -- The current Executive Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is the former Chairman of the
investment bank A.B.Brown and former Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust.
John Deutch - This retired CIA Director from the Clinton Administration currently sits on the board at Citigroup, the nation's
second largest bank, which has been repeatedly and overtly involved in the documented laundering of drug money. This
includes Citigroup's 2001 purchase of a Mexican bank known to launder drug money, Banamex.
Nora Slatkin -- This retired CIA Executive Director also sits on Citibank's board.
Maurice "Hank" Greenburg -- The CEO of AIG insurance, manager of the third largest capital investment pool in the world,
was floated as a possible CIA Director in 1995. FTW exposed Greenberg's and AIG's long connection to CIA drug trafficking
and covert operations in a two-part series that was interrupted just prior to the attacks of September 11. AIG's stock has
bounced back remarkably well since the attacks.http://www.copvcia.com/stories/part_2.html . -->
One wonders how much damning evidence is necessary to respond to what is now irrefutable proof that CIA knew about the
attacks and did not stop them. Whatever our government is doing, whatever the CIA is doing, it is clearly NOT in the interests
of the American people, especially those who died on September 11.
needless to say it is not the case today;-)
now, here's some stuff that matters...
Ramallah, Occupied Palestine
My name is Tzaporah Ryter. Iam an American
student from the University of Minnesota. Icurrently am in Ramallah. We are under a
terrible siege and people are being massacred by both the Israeli army and armed
militia groups of Israeli settlers. They are shooting outside at anything that moves.
I am urgently pleading for as much outside help as possible to help save lives here.
I arrived in Ramallah last Thursday. I had come back for a visit to the Palestinian city
where I had been previously living and studying. On Thursday afternoon, the Israeli
army began sealing off each entrance to Ramallah and there were rumors that they
planned to invade.
People were rushing back home from across checkpoints and also people were trying
to flee. People were not allowed to go out and many working people -- with homes
and children to return to -- were not allowed in, everyone was trying to take cover.
Those traveling in began desperately searching for alternative ways and traveling in
groups, but the Israelis were firing upon them and everyone was running and
screaming.
Women carrying their children were trying desperately to flee from Ramallah, carrying infants and toddlers, and
their young children were running along in the rain through the fields, slipping and falling on the rocks, trying to
reach safety. Israeli jeeps were speeding across the terrain pulling up from every direction and shooting at the
women and children, and also at me, as we ran in opposite directions. They were chasing down people, hunting
them like that in the fields.
When I reached Ramallah, people were panicking and trying to buy bread, rice and milk from corner stores, but
most supplies were already gone. We bought what we could and went inside to wait for what was coming.
When night fell, Israeli tanks began to invade and also we saw Israeli troops coming on foot from the valley, and
surrounding our house. I could hear them calling to each other in Hebrew. They were against our door and all
around. They were firing everywhere a barrage of bullets and there was tank fire. We had to lay on the floor and
keep silent. We stayed there, on the floor, for nearly four days in the darkness.
Nobody can go outside. We knew that our circumstances were better than others because old people or infants or
people with medical emergency needs had no help. It was very cold, with most families packed all in one room.
Some people are without life sustaining medicines like insulin, and they are altering their doses dangerously if
they have any medicine left to take. People are becoming dangerously sick from lack of food and water and heat.
The fear and terror only makes things worse, but it cannot be avoided.
In the daytime, we heard them shooting people in the streets, and could hear them screaming and screaming. No
ambulance was allowed through. Then their screams stopped and there was just silence.
We had a telephone and would receive calls from all over telling us what was happening. Everyone is in grave
danger and Israeli soldiers were killing people everywhere. They are arresting medics and ambulance drivers,
including foreign volunteer medical workers.
They keep taking doctors and medics, just now another call. Again, this time the wife of a doctor telling us her
husband has been taken from the ambulance.
Groups of people have been found in rooms, shot dead, there are blood marks where they have lined people up
on their knees and shot them, and there are photos of them on the news with their ID cards laying on top of
them. There have been reports that the Israelis are taking people from their homes, blindfolding them, removing
their clothes, taking them away or lining them up and shooting them against the wall. There is no way of verifying
this.
People are making phone calls and saying that these soldiers and militia have come in and are shooting people
and then the line cuts off. This could be because the Israelis are hanging the phone up but this is the point, we
just don't know. The fear is bad enough.
The numbers of these killings I fear are much greater than the numbers confirmed in the press, because the
human rights offices and the media centers have been stormed, and everything is shut down. No one can move
without almost certain chance of being shot by the Isreali snipers, who are everywhere.
The Israelis are demanding that all journalists leave Ramallah and today another foreign journalist was shot. They
do not want any more internationals here and are deporting people. It seems quite clear that they do not want
eyewitnesses which is only heightening my own fears.
The hospitals have also been surrounded and invaded and Israeli troops are taking the injured people and
interrogating them. Today a woman, a patient, tried to walk out from hospital. The Israelis shot her in the neck
and killed her.
The Palestinian Ministry of Health is saying that they fear the spread of diseases because of the number of
unburied corpses.
The numbers are only growing in reports of the mass killings here and Israeli troops continue to round up people.
People are calling frantically, missing a relative and we do not know where they have been taken, including
children.
The numbers of detainees we know about exceeds 600, and we are estimating between 700 and 800
Palestinians have been taken away. All human rights groups and legal advocates are being denied any
information of where the detained are being held. The people we have spoken to confirm that 10% of those
detained so far have been children under age 18.
On the fourth day I decided to try to move. People were running out of supplies and I also was so worried about
people, and had to check to see if they were okay. If I didn't, I feared panic would overtake me so badly that I
really had no other choice but to try and go.
It was not safe where I was in any case and at least if I left I would still have my sanity. It was really terrifying as
there are some internationals here, usually traveling in groups, and the Israelis are saying on the radio that they
will arrest or shoot the internationals. They did shoot some yesterday and regardless, it's not as if snipers
differentiate and they are everywhere.
My friends told me not to go, and were really scared for me, but I had to go. When I went outside, there were
cars all shot up and hit by multiple bullets and shells in the middle of the road, unparked. There must have been
people in them but I don't know where their bodies are. There are no reports of them, but they must exist.
I got to the corner trying to go to the bakery for bread and food for people. Some people were calling and calling
with only one cup of rice left. I made it to the corner but they opened fire on my first try, and shot at me, so I had
to turn back.
After that I tried again and it took me one day to make it a block because I had to start over again and again. I
had to climb through the valley, and as I passed house by house, people were warning me and pointing out what
path seemed safest for these two minutes. In the next two minutes, it would be something different. They really
helped to keep my path safe.
Today is Day Five and they are still rounding up people like this and we hear them shooting all day long.
This afternoon the Israelis suddenly lifted the curfew, suddenly announcing that everyone had two hours to go
out to get food. However, the Israeli soldiers also took food from many of the stores, looted, and there is no
bread or things. People went to get whatever they could.
Even though the Israeli army said it had lifted the closure for two hours -- in which we still were not able to
transfer medical supplies and still was not long enough to get everything that was badly needed -- the Israelis
continued shooting people in the streets indiscriminately on their way, so people were running around trying to
make it to the store or find a safe route only to have to run back home again. It was an added cruelty and terror
tactic in this macabre situation, a sick joke: starve people and then shoot them when they try to find food with
your permission.
In an apartment building in Beitunia neighborhood where I used to live, they took 60 people who were my
neighbors, including several familes, and pushed them into one room since last night. The Israelis told them that
they are to be used as "human shields", as the apartment building is across from a building that they were
invading.
One child needs to go to the hospital since last night and, initially, the families were able to call outside. Now, the
Israelis have taken their phones.
There are reports that they are rounding up men between the ages of 14 and 45 in that neighborhood, and these
civilians, from these same Palestinian families trapped in that building, were just used to walk in front of an Israeli
tank as it invaded the Preventative Security Compound.
Reports also have alleged that the Israelis were saying that some could leave but shot them when they
attempted to leave. The buildings there are burning, and people are trapped inside.
We keep calling to try to find people but there has been no electricity and most people's phones are dead now. I
do not know what is happening to many people. The only solution to this is to try to brave the deadly streets in
order to check, but it's almost impossible and terrifying to leave the house at all.
Each place I come to, I am afraid to leave not only for myself but for everyone else in this horrifying position. I
hear only shooting and shooting, with no return fire. This suggest that unarmed civilians are being gunned down
mercilessly everywhere and I am so scared for everyone. I feel like maybe if I leave one place, one area or
neighborhood that I will never see people alive again.
There are more explosions outside now and more shooting. Another explosion. More firing, it just doesn't stop.
This is a massacre. The foreign delegations tried to get in but were turned back, the International Committee of
the Red Cross is trying to help but they are being ignored. Please help.
I am not only scared for myself and for people here, but if this cannot be stopped, I am truly scared for all of
humanity, for a world in which we send men to the moon but cannot stop ethnic cleansing.
On the news in America, we see hardly anything of demonstrations. What are you doing over there?
There do not seem to be any reports of what is happening. In truth, it's got to stop. Please go out to the streets,
please demand a response from your representatives. Be loud, march up to the capitals, refuse to leave until the
Israelis withdraw. Act now! Tell them the Israelis are murdering innocent people whose only crime is being born in
their own homeland, a Palestinian under a military occupation.
Demand international protection for the Palestinian people, scream that this is an affront to humanity and that it is
time that the US not only stop supporting Israel, but that the US stop its abuse of human rights within its own
borders. This is about all of our struggles. For the love of God, please stop this slaughter. Please help.
Slashdot Mirror
They also did this on slashdot, that's why, to compensate, they often post duplicate stories, ahr ahr ahr !
Yep, what a shame this would be for us, civilized people!
BTW, he's so ugly he could have been a Brit...
do you think Le Pen is better or worse than the shitty-holed GWBush (Sharon's boyfriend, that is) ?
erst post, gotta have more imagination but I kinda enjoyed the slashcrap blackout so fuck it !
Ah! finally you're back ! :-)
You're my favourite troll, especially because of your sig and your pedantic statements, nice to see you're not dead
Congrats on your FP, Dude... BTW, I am *not* living in MS-USA so, why should I care about that not-that-revolutionary neo-zionazi scheise ?
the internet is a library, not a supermarket, by just wrongly associating these concepts, you are playing the bad guys' game, Michael, you should now just return to your snotting parties with your "beloved partners" instead of spoiling this sunny day!
Vielen Dank für deinem Ergebenheit !
Congratulation on your first post, the whole logged-in troll community is proud of you (except Jon Katz who is not logged in at the moment as he waxes his butt for Junis visit)!
People like you should wear the pink triangle before being sent to the russian front where these retarded cosacks will help the world by getting rid of them.
Du bist nicht mehr Deutsch, du bist ein Amerikaner-Faggot and thou shalt spread your shameful diseases amongst the unworthy yankees !
Doch, mit Bier, oder Rivella, oder Grappa, oder Malvoisie, oder Humagne, oder Fendant, oder irgendwelche Schweizerisch Wein :-)
Hewlett-Compaq have sold their first machine!
I bi jetzt versteckt in Bärn wo man auch ohne Bier zufrieden sein darft :-)
"Eva, Auf Wiedersehen !" (W3d/ep3/Lev6)
Wo bist du ?
why should I care ? :-)
these are not my rights but the rights of the downunderers
as told to Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, March, 2002
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
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:
In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.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.
THE CLUE First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.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.
Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked.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.
After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage. But there was none. Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point out in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a carYet 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.
Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. [See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.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.
* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.* 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.
* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.* 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.
WHY DO IT THAT WAY? So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four planes. There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.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.
Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not. You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.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.
I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact. OTHER DETAILS * Pentagon Security Photos : On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001. Look at the photos: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
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 Hijackers: I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on.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.
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.
Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but nobody's perfect.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.'"
Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officerBut 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.
And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service. Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes. This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth. All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing to be deceived.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.
I would'nt pay this quarter for music I am curious to listen to only once (especially when I don't have to pay to hear it on the radio) but I'd definitely be more generous if I had access to loads of unknown artists'mp3.
Britney wins more than enough by just showing her bra in soda ads.
as told to Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, March, 2002
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
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:
In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.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.
THE CLUE First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.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.
Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked.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.
After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage. But there was none. Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point out in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a carYet 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.
Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. [See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.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.
* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.* 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.
* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.* 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.
WHY DO IT THAT WAY? So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four planes. There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.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.
Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not. You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.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.
I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact. OTHER DETAILS * Pentagon Security Photos : On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001. Look at the photos: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
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 Hijackers: I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on.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.
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.
Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but nobody's perfect.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.'"
Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officerBut 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.
And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service. Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes. This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth. All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing to be deceived.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.
you've seen alien2 too much, haven't you ?
nice post, mate. I mean it. :-)
I want them to be standard.
we should not call "enhanced cd" or simply cd a cut-down version of a cd.
and I'd also want them to be widely available and marketing free : I don't want to see britney spear or celine dion's ads on tv.
but wait... I don't have a tv
as told to Carol A. Valentine
Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum http://www.Public-Action.com
Copyright, March, 2002
May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes
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:
In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.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.
THE CLUE First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights: Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets. You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists? Nuts. That's your first clue.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.
Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane. So the first eyewitness's story got shellacked.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.
After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane. The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel and glass. The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building. We should have seen wing wreckage. But there was none. Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash: As you point out in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless. "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a carYet 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.
Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks: As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes. [See above-cited URL.] That's your seventh clue.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.
* A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet. It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types. Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.* 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.
* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower. That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw.* 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.
WHY DO IT THAT WAY? So there you have it. Not four planes. More than four planes. There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles. Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets.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.
Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets. Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not. You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown. A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors. The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections.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.
I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash. That's a pipe dream. Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap. Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact. OTHER DETAILS * Pentagon Security Photos : On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001. Look at the photos: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
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 Hijackers: I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull. But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on.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.
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.
Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but nobody's perfect.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.'"
Heroic, wasn't it? And not a dry hanky in the house. The heroes of modern America. A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officerBut 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.
And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation. How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy. That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service. Is this all too much for your to swallow? Don't you believe people would conspire to pull all this off? Well, look at the stakes. This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth. All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing to be deceived.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.
NOT MINE A BADGUY
3 oligosyllabic words including one onomatopoeia.
Modded up as informative.
Some days I just love Slashdot...