portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation

10 minutes to gain control of a locked AA 11 cockpit

It took 10 minutes and THREE "nobody move" highjacker commands to gain control of a locked AA 11 cockpit. Plastic knives and boxcutters? Where's Ms.Ong's tale of any struggle or background noises on her "tape"? Pilots dead, unknown criminal did the stabbings, plane taken over with Global Hawk.
8:24:38 Unknown: (Unreadable) We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be O.K. We are returning to the airport.
8:24:46 46R: And, uh, who's trying to call me here?

8:24:53 46R: AAL11, are you trying to call?

8:24:57 Unknown: Nobody move, everything will be O.K. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.

8:26:03 46R: DAL351, Boston center on 125.57.

8:26:08 DAL351: 2557, DAL351.

8:26:21 46R: Flexjet 420, Boston center 125.57.

8:26:24 Flex420: 12557 flex jet 420, so long.

8:27:20 46R: UAL175, contact the, um, Boston center on 133.42.

8:27:27 UAL175: O.K. 3342, UAL175, so long.

8:29:08 Radar controller: Hello.

46R: Go ahead.

Radar controller: Ya point out there northwest of Bradley BTA4042 be a few minutes so I can get em down.

46R: Point out approved.

Radar Controller: W E

8:33:59 Unknown: Nobody move please; we are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves.

respectfully, only perhaps--still AA11 and AA77 unscheduled for that day.... 03.Feb.2004 09:36


Of course, yes, if they were actually hijacked, instead of electronically commandeered. . .

If the latter, this ATC report--like all the impossible to make cellular phone calls from planes going 500 mph (well above tower range and due to the tower 'hand-off' difficulties) only part of the Hollywood filmscript that is the government's idea of 9-11.

Of course one would have to explain the additional rub of why the actual AA11 (or AA77) was unscheduled for that day.


What really happened to American Airlines Flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11 2001
by Gerard Holmgren . Copyright. Nov 13, 2003


This material may be freely reproduced without permission providing that it is not for commercial
purposes. Please include the author's name, the URL where you found it and the copyright notice.

On the basis of photographic and physical evidence, it has now been established for some time that on Sept
11, 2001 the damage to the Pentagon was caused by something other than the hijacked Boeing 757,
American Airlines Flight 77 claimed by the government to have crashed into the building.

Hunt the Boeing

Physical and Mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash. Oct 2002
Did AA 77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined. June 2002
The amazing Pentalawn.
 link to www.cryptogon.com).htm

More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video evidence that the object which hit the
North Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight
11, as claimed in the official story.


In response to these observations, both supporters of the truth and blind deniers of it agree on one thing. It
raises the question - "If these flights did not hit the buildings as alleged, then where did they go?'

We are now in a position to answer that question.

First lets recap on the official story of what happened to four planes that morning.

AA 11 left Boston for LA at about 8 am, was reported as hijacked about 8.25, and hit the Nth Tower at about 8.46.

UA 175 left Boston for LA at about the same time, was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Sth Tower at about 9.03.

AA 77 left Dulles for LA about the same time , was reported hijacked at about 8.55 and hit the Pentagon at
about 9.45

UA 93 left Newark for SF at about the same time, was reported hijacked about 9.45 and crashed in PA at
about 10.10.

The Bureau of transportation website contains search pages, where one can pull up detailed statistics about
the history of which flights have been scheduled for which airports on any given day. Go to


and click on "detailed statistics" where one can search records of scheduled and actual departure times,
arrival times, diversions and cancellations by departure airport, arrival airport, airline and flight number.
Searches for Sept 11 2001 reveal that the flights AA 11 and AA 77 did not exist. They were not scheduled
that day. Here are the search results which I encourage everyone to check for themselves.

A search for UA flights from Newark on Sept 11, 2001 shows 0093 to SF was scheduled at 8.00 and
actually departed at 8.01. It is listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

A search for UA from Boston on that day shows 0175 to LA was scheduled for 8.00 and actually departed
at 7.58. Also listed as "diverted" and did not arrive at its destination.

The term "diverted" does not specify any differentiation between legally diverted, hijacked or crashed, so
the data gives no indication one way or the other as to truth of the official story about what happened to
them, but it does confirm that they departed as per the official story and did not arrive at their destinations.

A search for AA flights from Boston that day does not list 0011. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA
that day was 0181 at 11.00

A search for AA flights from Dulles that day does not list 0077. The earliest scheduled AA flight to LA was
0135 at 11.15.

Here's a different search method. By returning to the search page URL listed earlier, and clicking on
€œsummary statistics €œ, one can find the historical reliability and punctuality of specific flights over a period
of time, by specifying the airline and flight number and defining the time period. The search then returns
figures on average delays in departure and arrival times and percentages of cancelled or diverted flights.
If one searches specifically for UA 175 or UA 93 narrowed down to sept 11 only, the search returns the
result of "diverted" for each flight. A similar search for either AA 11 or AA 77 on that date returns "no data

If you search for AA 11 or AA 77 on different days, you will find that they were regularly scheduled flights
right up to Sept 10. AA 11 was scheduled daily from Logan to LA at 8.00, and AA 77 from Dulles to LA at
7.45. On Sept 11, they were not scheduled. Not cancelled. Just not scheduled.

On Sept 12, they re-appear in the schedule (obviously as cancelled for the next few days) up until Sept 20
when both flights change their numbers.

Thus the official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77
flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did
not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for
the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.

This still leaves unanswered the question of what happened to the passengers alleged to be aboard the non
existent flights. In the case of AA 77, while one can always speculate about the most plausible scenarios, I
prefer to wait until some real evidence emerges. However in the case of AA 11, I think it is worth noting
that UA 175 left from the same airport, at the same time for the same destination as that normally applicable
to AA 11. Therefore, although there is no direct evidence to support the claim, it would seem reasonable to
speculate at this stage that any passengers who were regular fliers on AA 11, and asked to booked on it that
day, went to the airport, expecting to get on AA 11, as per the normal routine. They were then told that
there was a last minute problem with the flight which could not be fixed within a reasonable period of time,
and were offered a flight on UA 175 as compensation.

The data in this search indicates that we have been systematically lied to about the alleged flight paths and
hijacking sequence of AA 11 and AA 77, as well as the alleged phone calls made from the planes.

It also indicates probable complicity by American Airlines in the events of Sept 11 , 2001.

For the benefit of any NWO operatives reading this, just in case you're thinking of trying to pressure the
Bureau into playing hanky panky with the records, the search results pages have already been backed up
and widely distributed. Nevertheless, I do encourage all readers to do the searches themselves and back up
the results pages, just in case this happens.

[lots of comments and additional information at this post. I have moved ONLY the original post here since the main global IMC is down presently. No one would know how to find this Sydney IMC link without the main IMC link--which had linked to this page at the Sydney IMC. See comments at Sydney link.]

Clarity 03.Feb.2004 10:16


Alright, a couple of things...

I am not prone to dismissing any assertion out of hand merely because it seems improbable. That being said, there are a lot of things posted to IMC and elsewhere which make some pretty wild allegations, the support of which consists of much obscure text, myriad links, and near-meaningless lingo which will confuse all but the most dedicated conspiracy buff. It's hard enough trying to convince someone of an alternate point of view, but you only make your case that much more untenable by poorly organizing it.

I'm a layman and am interested in some of the ideas given here, but sometimes you just need to spell it out. Keep it short. Post a few links and put forth maybe one or two blockbuster allegations at a time instead of six or seven. Easier to digest. Yes, this is indeed the World Wide Web and you can post explanatory links, but also your post should largely stand on its own and you shouldn't expect a reader to bother to click on a bunch of links just to get the gist of what you're saying. Most won't even bother.

For example, what is Global Hawk? I googled that it is some sort of remote controlled flying network/apparatus. Therefore, I guess you're suggesting that the plane(s) involved in 9/11 were crashed by the feds via remote control. This seems unlikely to me (not that the feds wouldn't do such a thing, because clearly they have done worse in the past and present). It seems unlikely to me because you seem to admit that there were indeed terrorists on the plane (at least according to the transcript, which one assumes can be faked), but why would the feds even bother to "put" terrorists on the planes if they have this Global Hawk system? Couldn't they just pick a couple of planes on any given day and just crash them and concoct a cover story later? Why bother gathering nineteen patsies?

Bush and 9/11 03.Feb.2004 13:43


I am quite convinced the Bush administration is telling us only a fraction of what they know about 9/11. And I am quite convinced that they blew off intel warnings in order to focus on their primary mission, which is to pillage the federal, state, and local coffers for their wealthy constituents and roll back all gains for the middle and lower classes made during the 20th century by dismantling any program which does not involve weaponry or corporate handouts.

But I am highly skeptical they orchestrated 9/11. My primary reason is that they simply fucked up almost all post-9/11 policy. In other words, if they orchestrated this attack, doesn't it seem likely that they'd be ready to benefit from their scheme? Instead Bush and Cheney wandered aimlessly over the Mid-west in Airforce One and Two without any apparent goddamned clue how to react. One would assume that had they known, Bush would have been ready to photo-op atop the steps of the White House and defiantly shake his fist at the heavens to swear vengeance on "ee-vil." The cameras would have taken it all in and we would have called Bush our new Lord and Master. Instead, he flopped about like a ferret in a washing machine.

Addtionally, here is an administration which issues press releases about finding WMDs and within 24 hours their earth-shattering revelations are shown to be complete crap. Their investigation in Iraq seems almost to be conducted by middle schoolers. "Look! An empty can. I bet it held sarin! Let's call CNN!"

CNN: "Sarin found in Iraq!"

24 hours later...

CNN: "Um, nevermind. It was just Folger's Crystals."

And this happens over and over and over again.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that an administration which could send commercial airplanes into the Pentagon, World Trade Center by remote control could maybe manufacture WMDs in Iraq? If anything, the fake WMDs should be a complete snap since:

A) The U.S. has LOTS of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
B) The press in Iraq is non-existent.
C) The only source of info out of Iraq is the Pentagon.

How hard could it be to rig up some WMDs and "discover" them?

And yet we're led to believe that an administration who can't rig up some sarin-filled cannisters in the middle of the Iraqi desert can kill 3,000 Americans with four remote controlled aircraft?

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But that's a heavy burden of proof and whoever ends up making that allegation stick is going to have to do better than a couple of HTML pages hosted on geocities.

As I said before, I don't dismiss alternate viewpoints out of hand. Neither do I swallow them whole just because they're provocative. For example, I've posted on this site about William F. Pepper's "Act of State" which outlines in detail the execution of Martin Luther King Jr. Now Pepper spent 25 years and personally interviewed hundreds of witnesses in order to craft the airtight definitive account of the events surrounding King's assassination. More than any other writer or investigator who attempted to weigh in on the matter.

Someone is going to have to step up and do that for 9/11.

Someone is going to have to make the case and plug up the holes and present it in a clear, concise manner so that any reasonable person can read it and irrefutably arrive at the author's conclusion.

Why bother gathering nineteen patsies? 03.Feb.2004 13:46


Well, either they did gather patsies, or they didn't.

It makes sense that they would, otherwise, who on earth would they blame it on? They needed at least half of the people to appear to be real hijackers.

But possibly they did not. Obviously a number of the pictures the FBI chose out of thin air belonged to other people than they thought. I've seen one photo of some supposed hijackers leaving a metal detector and that's it. But that could have easily been anyone. Other than that, there is virtually no REASONABLE piece of evidence that shows that there definitively were hijackers. Indeed, there's far MORE evidence that shows there were NOT hijackers.

There are reasons to do it both ways. Perhaps more important is *how* they did it, than why, which we may never even imagine.

Also, please note that FEW people believe the idea that missiles were fired in the WTC from the planes. While *what* exactly hit the Pentagon is still a huge mystery, there is obvious evidence that jets did hit the WTC, and there is scant if any evidence that they had missiles. However, if evidence does come up, I'd certainly consider it.

How did the towers collapse? The latest theories are either planted explosives or some sort of high-tech solution (microwave or other - already developed by US military) probably powered from WTC 7, which was such an obvious demolition job that even Silverstein has been quoted saying they decided to "pull it" because of the 'fire damage.'

I recommend wtc7.net, among the many many other good sites.

perhaps there should be a running column here, "ASK A 9-11 RESEARCHER" 03.Feb.2004 14:22

ad nauseum

Dear ASK A 9-11 Researcher,

"This seems unlikely to me (not that the feds wouldn't do such a thing, because clearly they have done worse in the past and present). It seems unlikely to me because you seem to admit that there were indeed terrorists on the plane (at least according to the transcript, which one assumes can be faked), but why would the feds even bother to "put" terrorists on the planes if they have this Global Hawk system? Couldn't they just pick a couple of planes on any given day and just crash them and concoct a cover story later? Why bother gathering nineteen patsies?"

1. First, who said there were 19, outside the US gov't? ;-) Anything the US goverment says concerning 9-11 in my studied opinion is perhaps best understood as a skein of lies, even down to such 'facts' as numbers and timelines, etc, that provide an unfortunate sense that they are credible simply because they are hard details. They may be made up hard details. For example, on hard details that actually were made up: many of the people cited within hours of the attacks on September 11 were provided by the FBI directly to the corporate media. Within hours, they had photos and names at the ready. Remember all those pictures that got corporate media play IMMEDIATELY?). However, surprise, these hard details sort of look hard to countenance. Many of these 'people' the US 'cited as terrorists' in true Orwellian fashion on the TV screen were actually stolen pictures and stolen identities. Up to six I believe are still alive and living in the Middle East in various countries and very mad that the US has used ther names and pictures to concoct. This is BBC news, folks! Later, Head of the FBI, Meuller, admitted in 2002 (after through all of late 2001, saying "we have so much documented data, ATM machines, passports that fly out of the WTCs and are found by NY city police", etc.), he later admits by mid 2002 that the paper trail is "basically non-existent." And more hard details that go out the window? Who said that Al-Queda had something to do with it, beside the US government? Did Myers get mad and let this slip? Head of the Joint Chief of Staff, Myers, in answering a pointed question about failing to capture Osama in Afghanistan, said in a press conference at the Pentagon, "the goal has never been to get bin Laden." April 2002, I believe. However he keeps using the patented "al-Queda as a danger motif" to justify a war that can last "for years and years," which is rather contradictory. For why bothering to gather any patsies, see below about false flag operations.

Dear ASK A 9-11 Researcher,

"The Jews are behind it all. Why didn't I realize this previously?
Has anyone considered the Jews as the culprits?
I think it was the Jews. Yeah, ...it was the Jews"

1. Since all of these planes "used" on 9-11 were kept suspiciously only half full, it would be unlikely to fit the 6 million or so Jews in the world into them, even if they clamored about having enough frequent flier miles and even if they only had a single carry on item without any excess baggage.

2. Second, most Jews are quite happy being nationalists of whatever country they are in, and they are nationalist-loyal. Most Jews hate the state of Israel, like everyone else. Most Jews are actually intermarried outside of Jewish families. Most "Jews" are non-practicicing Jews. In other words, just a regular old secular Joe. Jewish demographics as a separate subgroup is going the way of the melting pot, globally--even in Australia though less so there. It is this breakup of the DEMOGRAPHIC justification of Zionism that has right wing fanatics like the Lukudniks (and their American Christian Zionist associates) terrified. Jews are ceasing to believe that the Zionist state is a requirement for Jewish global well being, and the sheer weight of votes would mean that Israel would be a Muslim country (like it always has been, demographically) if actual democracy reigned there. Give up your hates. This is how you let others manipulate you, and how you manipulate yourself into believing such nonsense as collectivist responsibilities.

3. Moreover, It is a false assumption to blame an ethnic group for anything. This is called the collectivist fallacy, blaming a group for the actions of particular individuals.

4. On the point of many Jews being potential fifth columns, as I said, many are just happy being where they are and fail to be a fifth column attempting to destroy the states they are in. For example, believe it: it was a ethnically Jewish person acting as a double agent loyal to the Muslim/secular country of Egypt (THE WORLD REQUIRES MORE OF YOU GUYS, GOD BLESS!) working for Nasser's Intelligence services that broke the cover for 'his own' Zionist terror operation there. Look up the "Lavon Affair" on the web. It is one of the most well known examples of a Zionist state terror operation, performed in Egypt. Zionists in the intelligence and miltary services attempted to use 'false flag' operations to blame Muslims for blowing up libraries, theaters, etc. What? False flag operations do you say? What are those? False flag operations are where you arrange the framing of your state terror to throw blame on someone else. This allows you to coup "pity points" with the world, and allows you to undertake domestic crushing of dissent while the world's opinion is on your side. Of course, if they EVER find out you were the ones who did the false flag terror, it sort of spoils your image. Though who said that these Zionist people were entirely all there in the head, if you know what I mean?

5. Instead of taking about Jews, Mr. Troll, talk about Mossad connections to 9-11. Only then you will get somewhere in your 9-11 research. As you are a troll attempting to blame "Jews"TM for everything, fu&* off with that idea, grow up, get a more interesting job, and read these instead:


The Terror Enigma : 9/11 and the Israeli Connection
by Justin Raimondo, editor of Anti-war.com


By: Dr. Albert D. Pastore PhD [in many locations on the web if this link is ever broken]

4. Is it possible that Mossad faked an Al-Queda hit, you say? Well, yes. Let's remember that the Zionist apartheid state was CAUGHT in 2002 attempting to create a fake "Al-quedaTM" cell in the Palistinain territories, replete with fake signed Osama letters to the "new faithful", fake Al-Queda webpages that actually announced the formation of the (fake) cell in Gaza, etc. If Zionists were doing this in 2002, certainly it begs one's credulity to avoid the idea that they were potentially doing it in 2001 in the United States.

Dear ASK A 9-11 Researcher,

What's your big picture, in a short summary?

Overall, my present BIG PICTURE is still incompete. My present big picture conjecture (without giving the justification, because my fingers are tired of typing) is this: The terror strikes of 9-11 were likely a CIA and Mossad false flag operation on American soil, cooperatively done. The CIA provided the people (the terrorists patsies were a mix of actual Muslims and Zionist cover members, & the CIA provided the training as they did in the past for other terror incidents. Traning terror pilots at US military bases associated with the CIA is a time honored tradition almost, sort of like baseball, Mom, limited hangouts, cooperating with organized crime, killing witnesses, and apple pie). The CIA gave the terroriststs illegally obtained American visas--through the CIA infiltrated Jeddah, Saudi Arabia embassy. The cover names used were mostly these illegally admitted visa people through Jeddah. That's a CIA flag if ever there was, though why did they leave it? I'll leave that question open. Let's turn to Mossad. So, what did Mossad do? Well, they kept watch on them everywhere, concentrating in the same cities as the "terrorist training cells" like Phoenix, Hollywood(FL), and Los Angeles, and when required, made sure to leave a lot of messay "muslimTM" symbolism wherever they went when they were impersonating them, like going to nude dance bars and leaving Korans on 9-10-01 (WTF?! Talk about a Zionist hate flag if ever there was one.), asking stupid ass questions to flight instructors "hey, I'm not interested in actually taking off or landing, only how to control a plane once it is in the air. You'll promise to report that to the nearest FBI office, right?" I mean who wrote this script? To use a quote by terror-buddy Powell (who invaded Panama without a pretext threat for Bush Senior, and who invaded Iraq in 1991 after Saddam was baited to attack Kuwait), Powell originally rejected reading what was mostly a public domain online gradstudent paper from the early 1990s (taken off the web!) as 'evidence' in 2003 to the UN security counil in Febryary of the danger of Iraq biological weaponry. Powell said to Cheney: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit!" Back to my point. I can imagine some Mossad operatives rolling their eyes, wondering the same thing. "I'm not saying to this guy I'm uninterested in taking off or landing, only what to do once I commandeer the plane" I mean, this is laughable. Talk about laying down an obvious fake trail. Attempting to convince loyal Amerian intelligence that a Muslim operation of some sort was in progress? And then the FBI covering for the CIA, refusing to do anything about all the reports about "dangerous terrorists" likely training across the US at flight schools? The FBI refusing to even look into it? Even changing submitted loyal letters from agents, then passing on the changed versions which (as expected), failed to give the agent permission to proceed. Do you know what happened to Rowley's supervisor after he changed this letter by her that had warned pre-911 of Phoenix cell of potential Al-Queda? Well, he was promoted. She was hounded out of the FBI, I believe. Besides, instead of being Afghanis, most of the visas of the people the FBI stated (a lie) who did 9-11, were Saudis. Does that mean that the US was setting up a future context of invading Saudi Arabia, or does this just represent stupidity? Certainly the US wants to invade and destory Saudi arabia. Wait and see! I believe Saudi visas were used intentionally to create more ambiance useful for later "shocking, shocking" discoveries when they want to turn the Orwellian behavioral modification system (the TV news) toward the next enemy.

This is saying nothing about motive, only about actors I feel it boils down to, due to overwhelming evidence. Though motive all points to Zionists in the United States and Israel, in general, with bits of sheer corporate state greed thrown in for largesse (like the stock options bets, like the insurance on the WTCs, like Silvertein alibi of "pull it".)

if you want an overview, circa the state of the art 2002, the best laymen's book is by a British author and policy analyst by trade:

The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001
by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, John Leonard

just 7.49 currently at amazon.com

 link to www.amazon.com

Surely a small investment you can afford, given that your Congressional representatives have already approved 87 billion dollars to go to the Iraqi/Afghanistan occupation?

America, get it strait, this is already a fascist state and it killed 2600 of us in NYC. It did this to propogandize WWIII and to pass the entirely unConstituional unPatriot Act which has demolished the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the anthrax was from Ft. Detrick, people! It was weaponized by a top secret process under a CIA contract--the patent was taken out as recently as 1999. The anthrax went to mostly two types of people: people who were showing appropriate opposition to the Patriot Act--Dasche and Leahy. And it went to anti-Bush media. Fake letters were sent as well. Why would terrorists send fake letters, people? And why would OsamaTM attack two Democrats and mostly media outlets that had been critical of Bush?

This the ground upon which we stand. We are face to face with an illegal executive government with CIA connections born of a judicial coup by a court that said it was OK to stop counting votes. And if any more Bush people are appointed to the Supreme Court, this would basically remove the separation of church and state and turn the United States into a religious theocracy, hey, just like Zionist Israel.

We are without a functioning competitive party system, and barely over half the people are still blind enough to vote. That's optimistic, I guess that half of the people have figured it out: America in practice is a huge televised sham. Where the two 'competitive' presidentical candidates are blood brothers from a secret society called Skull and Bones, or "The Order",' which is likely an offshoot of the Bavarian Illuminati. Both are multimillionaires. Like the previous 2000 Presidential elections (Bush/Gore), Kerry and Bush tend to agree on everything. They are slowly corralling you, the voter, painting you into their corners.

The only solution in my opinion is to consider the whole edifice of the federal government illegitimate and start over. This country has been totally (and in my opinion, intentionally) wrecked by the 1980 Neocon takeover, which has continued to the present without a break. Clinton was a part of it, and is in thick with the Bushes. Look up search terms "CIA, Mena, Arkansas, drugs, Clinton, Contras" on the internet if you are curious.

By start over, it means having the courage to drop your addition to the cat and mouse games of the Democratic/Republican duopoly, permanently. Stop believing in it. Stop voting for it. Vote libertarian. Vote green. Vote anything except the duopoly. They are all a bunch a liars. Well, there may be some honest people there, though they are trapped in party frameworks that are more aristocratic than democratic. On voting, that is of course if you think the voting machines tally them propely without anyone being able to verify the vote counts independently...

Above all, stop watching US state propoganda (TV), get your news off the internet, off European media, off Asian media.

more from Dear Ask a 9-11 Researcher 03.Feb.2004 16:27

ad nauseum

Dear Ask a 9-11 Researcher,

Spudnuts writes: "I am quite convinced the Bush administration is telling us only a fraction of what they know about 9/11. And I am quite convinced that they blew off intel warnings in order to focus on their primary mission, which is to pillage the federal, state, and local coffers for their wealthy constituents and roll back all gains for the middle and lower classes made during the 20th century by dismantling any program which does not involve weaponry or corporate handouts. But I am highly skeptical they orchestrated 9/11. My primary reason is that they simply fucked up almost all post-9/11 policy. In other words, if they orchestrated this attack, doesn't it seem likely that they'd be ready to benefit from their scheme? Instead Bush and Cheney wandered aimlessly over the Mid-west in Airforce One and Two without any apparent goddamned clue how to react. One would assume that had they known, Bush would have been ready to photo-op atop the steps of the White House and defiantly shake his fist at the heavens to swear vengeance on "ee-vil." The cameras would have taken it all in and we would have called Bush our new Lord and Master. Instead, he flopped about like a ferret in a washing machine. "

1. Actually it is untrue that Bush and Cheney were flying all over the country. Only Bushcakes was in the sky. Cheney was with Rice. Cheney/Rice had evacuated to the White House bunker, where Cheney, despite Secret Service fearing for their lives (Cheney and their own), refused to let anyone leave. He even called FAA head Mineta down to his lair, as Mineta says he was somewhere else in DC at the time. Cheney sounds pretty confident that The White House is a safe place to be, even though Secret Service wanted to complete the evacuation because they knew from early after 9:00 AM that a plane was coming back towards DC. However, Cheney and Rice, themselves pseudo-evacuated, only called more people to the White House like Mineta after 9:00 AM, and they failed to bother to let the Pentagon evacuate or tell Congress to evacuate. They were safe, Pentagon and Congress were sitting ducks--left unevacuated. Pentagon hit was around 9:34/7 AM.

Anyway, Cheney refused to leave his precious (as he called it) "node." Cheney by the way had authority, since March 2001 as a national director in the case of any emergencies. Bush appointed him to some high level FEMA position in early March 2001, which gave him 'legal' authority to organize all terror response. Since there was nothing in the way of a terror response, it is Cheney's fault. He was heard on open lines with theater commanders, NORAD, Secret Service, from immediately after WTC1 hit arond 8:46 a.m. So if nothing was done, and they had communication (and NORAD has its own radar---planes still are there even if they drop their transponder IFF (International/Idenity Friend or Foe beacon), and they are likely much EASIER TO SEE when you have thousands of planes moving through the US and your bogies are the only ones flying illegally without the transponders. Just a thought. . .

You further ask:

"In other words, if they orchestrated this attack, doesn't it seem likely that they'd be ready to benefit from their scheme?"

They certainly did benefit.

1. You don't have a Bill of Rights for the first thing.

2. Second, they did benefit and plan on benefitting. They put US and British (and NATO) troops amassed in the area of the Middle East and Persia Gulf by early September, before 9-11. These were the ones to "respond" to the "shocking, shocking terror attack." The plan they used had been war gamed since 1997. The Afghan invasion was assured as "go" as early as June 2001, in a secret German intelligence meeting of interested Intelligence parties, saying "Afghan invasion before the snows." (October, 2001). Which was right about when they did it. This was leaked information, I believe. It was mentioned at  http://www.cooperativeresearch.org .

3. It is estimated that around 1/3 of what has been spent on Iraq has simply been passed to Halliburton. Remember fascism is a corporate state: crony corporate government backed private contracts are what fascism lives on. That and a war economy.

4. And speaking of more benefit to the fascist corporate state, Enron is getting its pipeline to Dabhol, supposedly. Enron, though it went bankrupt, kept its 65% stake in Dabhol, the Indian gas-fired electrical power plant that expects to have a pipeline directly to it through Afghanistan and Pakistan. It was shut down in Summer 2001 at 90% complete. What kind of asset is it? Well, in 1997, it was expected to provide 1/3 of all Indian electrical generation. Who owns the rest: GE has 10%, as does Bechtel with 10%. The rest goes to the Marashastra State, India. Bechtel pops up in Iraq contracts as well. Bechtel is why Baghdad is still without power: they refuse to hire any local Iraqi electricians who know where everything is and how it works (or once did).

5. Drug benefits: they got Afghan opium back online for their drug operations, after those evil Taliban people had the audacity to stop all opium planting and plant (damn them!) wheat! Wheat! What use is wheat! Wheat can only feed a country a few months away from total famine. Stop all that wheat planting, the US said. Opium is the crop of choice. That is what was back by 2002, and it was considered a bumper crop. CIA has to have something to have it black operations funded: drug money. By the way, it is estimated that the global illegal narcotics of the world turn around $400-500/billion dollars A YEAR. This makes it the second leading sector of the global economy, after.................oil. And it is likely that Halliburton is more than a builder of everything under the sun. it is likely connected with the illegal drug trafficking of the world. See this:

[Lead story in the October 24, 2000 issue of "From The Wilderness"]
Michael C. Ruppert
[note that this was published before 9-11, so what it says about Halliburton and drugs is all the more germane and serves to show that it was unbiased beforehand to their activities in Iraq and elsewhere after 9-11. A nice experiment for the predictability of Halliburton on these operations.]

Where does all that money go? Laundered in the stock markets of the world, which explains the inflated prices. See ex-Bush insider Catherine Austin Fitts on these issues.

6. ON benefits: Bush himself said immediately before 9-11 in September I think, that "I would not seize social security, unless in the event of a national disaster, war, or [something else I forget]." When asked about this later, he smiled and joked, "Hey! I hit the trifecta!" which means he correctly predicted the win, place, and show (first, second, third place) at a horse race and all three of his statements predictions came true.

I respectfully submit, I see a lot of assets in the war ledger that puts these international war criminals in the black, instead of in the red.

You further asked:

"A) The U.S. has LOTS of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. ; B) The press in Iraq is non-existent. ; C) The only source of info out of Iraq is the Pentagon. ; How hard could it be to rig up some WMDs and "discover" them? And yet we're led to believe that an administration who can't rig up some sarin-filled cannisters in the middle of the Iraqi desert can kill 3,000 Americans with four remote controlled aircraft?"

According to the MemoryHole.com, there were stories about a US or CIA reconnaisance team that is impuned to have attempted to plant WMD in Iraq, even affixed with large printed letters like "MADE IN 2001" to be seen by the camera. These pictures surfaced--I saw them--then rapidly disappeared. There was something that reeked of poetic justice about this that I honestly forget, like the team itself was killed off in friendly fire or something in the process of attempting to plant it, or something? And the story idea was scrapped. Someone else can go dig this up if they want. There was something about France in it as well? if I remember correctly.

Yes, they are morons (Ex Treasury Secrtary who wrote that recent book expose on Bush, said Bush was "the blind being led by the deaf" in Cabinet meetings). However, though they can mass manufacture their fantacies in the public mind because they have control of the corporate media, that "Great Wurlitzer" that can change people's minds and make them dance.


Dear Ask a 9-11 Researcher,

Reader asks: "How did the towers collapse? The latest theories are either planted explosives or some sort of high-tech solution (microwave or other - already developed by US military) probably powered from WTC 7, which was such an obvious demolition job that even Silverstein has been quoted saying they decided to "pull it" because of the 'fire damage.' I recommend wtc7.net, among the many many other good sites."

There is plenty of web footage showing demolition squibs throughout WTC1 and WTC2--and WTC7. Demolition squibs are the little "puffs" that come out of imploded buildings floor by floor as they go down. There is even a four hour European video of unedited feeds (I believe that is the origin, is it a Danish researcher?) that shows what was likely left on the CNN cutting room floor: there are damn TONS of these little squibs going off everywhere. It is very hard to find particular close ups of sections of the WTCs as it collapsed. Close-ups of the collapse was a technique that could "show" the buildings collapse, without effectively showing multiple squibs. It effectively shielded the Amercan public from getting an eyefull of demolition squibs--what you see in several instances if a long shot of the towers had been used. That is why there were so few long distance shots of the whole building as it was being imploded. It's so boringly damn obvious it was a sham, that there were internal explosives throughout the building, that firemen witnesses and building-worker witnesses report explosions going off everywhere, and video shows they were detoniated regularly and methodically floor by floor, and the Department of Justice refused to let out that all the fires were pretty much out in WTC2 (as revealed on that audio of the firemen who reached the plane-hit floor, and were very calm. Then of course, WTC2, the second tower to be hit and the one where most of the fuel spilled outside, falls first. It had to! The fire was going out! Would look rather strange if the fire goes entirely out, then you implode the buildings. The cover was blown because the fires failed to last long enough. Once the dust cleared from WTC2, and the operators at the controls could see enough of WTC1, it was brought down as well.

Death after death after death after death--all the way down, living people like you and me, attempting to get out were hit by explosions that pulverized concrete. Over and over.

Remember that the fire chief himself, in print, said that the US gov't's supposition that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed to due to fire was (his word) a "sham."

BONUS MATERIAL: "how did the Pentagon collapse?"

For a detour connected with the answer about Cheney's whereabouts on 9-11, what about this plane Pentagon plane that Cheney and the Secret Service knew was coming from around 9:05 AM or so, though did nothing about it like warning people to evacuate or something? This was the ex-Dulles Airport "AA77" plane (uncheduled for that day as well, like AA11) that eventually was to hit the Pentagon, after making some bizarre turns. Some say they are technically impossible for 757/67s to do. Others concentrate on the impossibility that supposed terroristsTM who were unable to fly even little Cesnas would be able to execute a perfect downward spiraling 270 degree circle that would have thrown them out of the cockpit due to G-forces anyway. Besides, why would terroristsTM want to hit the opposite side of the Pentagon, as the side they were approaching was much easier and direct? Were they just high on adrenaline and had a "watch this America!" attitude, you think? Or was it simply something else, that was far easier to control than a huge Boeing?

From what hit the Pentagon, certainly it was someting else. Whatever it was, it was not AA77. AA77 flight list was packed with military black ops people. Did they fake their deaths? Did the others get killed upon landing somewhere? Then have their bodies transferred to the same morgue as the Pentagon bodies to confuse people? The same people who lied about autopsies at Waco in Texas were involved in providing autopsies of people at the Pentagon and "AA77".

Whaever "AA77" was on the way back after its loop, 'it' was something else than the original plane that took off. A simply gauge of the hole can tell you this. Whatever it was was a substitute operated by the US military and they wanted no one to find out that it was a substitute.

WITHIN MINUTES, of the hit, the FBI was on the scene removing the security camera tapes. FBI even confiscated tapes of a nearby hotel's security camera on September 21st, after it got out that hotel workers had been repeatedly watching the tapes over and over in shock.

Then the Pentagon itself lied they were without any footage of the event, until they later threw that story out the window by issuing those 5 frames after Meyssan's book came out (which documented that the Pentagon was without a Boeing hit.)

Note: you had to be prepared to confiscate any evidence of the nonBoeing beforehand--to be that fast and to make it that much of a priority. As I said, the hole is smaller than a Boeing 757/67. And the exit 'puncture wound' three levels into the Pentagon was only about 6-9 feet wide or so by my guess of the pictures! And whatever made that hole........where is it?......it was somehow carried away? Can people carry away a "Boeing cockpit?" That is what that picture implies.

By the way, there are pictures of about a dozen military officers and low brass of the Pentagon ACTUALLY CARRYING SOMETHING LIGHT AS FEATHER in a huge (I am guessing at the dimensions) 8x8x16 foot box covered in a blue tarpaulin, OVER THEIR HEADS (!) suspended by one arm apiece (!) (as if they were carrying a coffin above their heads), away from the wreckage site. Since the FBI was supposedly in charge of the Pentagon crash site, I guess these military guys were just collecting souveiirs, right?

Then there is the issue that the FEMA photograph shows only one smallish engine turret left over instead of two. And this single engine piece is from something else besides a huge plane. Global Hawk-like craft by the way only have one center engine. . . And they are very light, as they are made of carbon composites instead of "plane metals" like aluminum. Global Hawk like craft were undergoing remodeling according to public documents--miltary wanted Global Hawks that could "deliver payloads" instead of just surveille territory. Some surveillance/attack unmanned aerial vehichles (UAVs) do this already, like the Predator, which killed those people in Yemen, just for good clean American fun. Talk about a total rejection of law and order. Why bring anyone to justice? Justice would show the war on terror is a total sham. Instead, just kill 'em seems to be the attitude, or lock them up without charges. That is all that has been done.

There's still "not enough evidence to prove" the G. Hawk issue, though given what I have seen, the military is on record saying that the prototypes of the Global Hawk were "attritible" (to use a military phrase of invented English, that means they were willing and expected to see them be destroyed without it being any big deal).

I keep getting controdictory numbers of Global Hawk prototypes left in the larder by September 2001. That in itself may be something: that someone is attempting to disguise a particular secure number? However, my first guess is still presently the old fashioned (circa 2001) story of a Global Hawk like craft , a remote controlled craft (for various other boring technical flight capacity details), potentially already armed with something it can "deploy" at the wall of the Pentagon as it goes in.

And another curious smoking gun that shows a cover-up. They broke their own alibi with showing the Pentagon explosion! In those ANONYMOUS Pentagon frames of video that someone sent out the the media--those five frames of non-sequential images of something hitting the Pentagon--it reeks of coverup to edit out what hit first of all, and second of all they really goofed up. First, why hide what actually hit boys? Why drop off these images anonymously boys? And second, by the way you let the cat out of the bag, dummies, because any explosion that expands white/red to 2x the height of the Pentagon immediately..........is a different explosion signature than the offical alibi of a 'jet fuel' explosion. Ouch! Another goof! Does Homer Simpson work at the Pentagon?

And the trail of tears just goes on and on. Let's remember the other cordite bombs in the building--as mentioned by two different eye (or is that nose) witnesses who identified "cordite" smell in the smoke.

And there's more. Yes, sir, and I still remember the happy looking whitecollar Pentagon workers with burr haircuts and black ties and black pants, smiling/smirking at each other like they were oozing the word "success!", while heaving away small pieces of aluminum or whatever--without gloves--immediately in the aftermath, as the fire raged behind them.

And then there was the Pentagon (or FBI? I'm unsure) team of about 20 people in blue windbreakers with some yellow lettering on them who "walked the line" of the beautiful Pentagon lawn, bending over occassionally picking up tiny fragments and pocketing them, all before any investigation could take place on what or where they were. Awfully kind of all these people to tamper with the crime site like that. Shame that "walkng of the line" was captured on live helicopter footage (though rarely shown ever afterwards). Ouch!

And then someone had the bright idea to attract EVEN MORE attention by bringing in truckloads of brown dirt to bury the beautiful unscarred green Pentagon lawn, the lawn they were so interested in cleaning only moments ago. They did this at Waco as well: buried the thing in a concrete slab.

I can almost hear their relief. "Whew. You just successfully organized and covered up a terrorist hit on the Pentagon killing over 100 people and blaming it on a Boeing that somehow disappeared upon impact. Your successful terrorist hit was the reputed top secret center of the American global war machine. You hit it and covered it up within the hour, and your troops are already stationed near Afghanistan. It's Miller Time!"

Answer this one and you know what happened. 03.Feb.2004 20:02

Freedom Fighters

How and why was the transponder in all four planes disabled?

Prove it? 04.Feb.2004 18:26

HailtotheThief bush_dumbya@hotmail.com

There is so much evidence against Shrubya and his friends that my additude it this: Prove that the official story is correct. There is so much evidence against them that I am not likely to believe him at all.
An unrelated note: We in Canada hate Bush. Just thought I'd say that.

Agree with prove it 05.Feb.2004 12:29


There are many good points raised in the previous posts, and there is definitely a persuasiveness to what Spudnuts writes, but I think the burden of proof in this case is on the administration. After all, if the "official story" is anywhere near the truth, it shouldn't be so hard to prove. The major problem I have is that almost none of the official version holds up. In fact, two registered Republicans in my own family feel uneasy about this. One is an avowed anti-conspiracist who raises similar arguments to Spudnuts, but even he admits that the official version is too full of holes to be believed. (And, for what it's worth, both of them are totally against both wars and will vote for any Democrat who runs.) So, until the official story can be proven (a/k/a "never), I think I at least know what DIDN"T happen.

(P.S. to "Prove It:" glad to hear that many Canadians, despite global capitalism's insidious reach, are still managing to remain sane. I'm counting on it: my wife, kids and I are relocating to B.C. this summer. I also appreciate the Radiohead reference.)

Ask a 9-11 Researcher, "why remove transponders? & QUEUE EFFECT THEORY/DATA 05.Feb.2004 17:53

ad nauseum

Dear Ask a 9-11 Researcher:

"How and why was the transponder in all four planes disabled?"

I'm unsure. My ideas are that it would be simulteneously
(a) EASIER TO SEE: easier for NORAD to know where the attack planes are (as they would still be visible by radar as the only planes in the air without the "IFF" beacon), easier to monitor progress of the standdown when there are literally thousands of planes in the air in the United States.

(b) FOR SUBSTITUTIONS: removing the IFF beacon removes the planes name and altitude height, though it is still visible on any radar clearly. It would simply be an unidentified blip instead of an identified blip. This 'blank blip' framework can allow potential substitutions by flying under/above the skyjacked planes so that their radar signals merged. It allows original planes to either land somewhere (likely only AA77 was landed somewhere in Ohio, as clinton appointee of FAA said when she reported that AA77 "was going down and likely crashed!"-- this story of course was entirely down the Memory Hole in a few minutes.). (SIDENOTE: If AA77 lands and its Pentagon black op's personnel survive (and its actual civilian passengers are killed immediately then sent to the "Pentagon morgue" to be given fake death certificates/autopsies like what happened in Waco. Fake autopsies. Hey! By the way, the very same two autopsy cover up artists of Waco were used in the Pentagon hit, by the way. Obviously they proved their worth in the mid 1990s and in 2001.


(c) queue effect: There is in my studied opinion a 'queuing phenomenon' that shows a similar small 5 minute or less gap between a period where a plane would be a "definte hit coming up" and the next planes transponder going off, or the next plane taking off the ground. When IFF beacons go off is always right after the previous one is about to hit, (as in the case of UAL175's IFF going off right before WTC1 is hit with "AA11"; or "AA77s" IFF going off right before the substitution). The strikes in my opinion all follow a pattern of definite PRIORITIES for the order and location of the hits though little else was decided beforehand in terms of planes to do the hits. Well, perhaps the unscheduled-for-that-day AA77 plane was more hardwired, though at least I would say that the first, second, and fourth plane were more open.

For example it was only barely right before WTC1 was hit, that the WTC2 plane hit (unscheduled for that day, UAL175) was taken off its transponder. Moreoever, a bit earlier, it was right as (unscheduled for that day) AA11 stopped communicating with ATC that scheduled-for-that-day UAL175 takes off. Both of these planes come from Boston Logan.

And like telekenesis--at another airport: Once 'second-hit' UAL175 takes off (remember, exactly when unscheduled-for-that-day 'first hit' AA11 begins to lose communication with ATC), it was only minutes later at Dulles Airport that unscheduled-for-that-day AA77 takes off, only when UAL175 is assured. The AA77 is more hardwired to a certain target, because it is definitely to be the Pentagon alibi plane for (according to one eyewitness) the "cruise missle with wings" that plowed into the Pentagon). It was important that WTCs be the first two hits for the alibi with the Pentagon hit being a later hit instad of a first hit, so it waited until both the WTC1 and WTC2 planes were in the air and set. The fourth plane UAL93, following this queue, presumably takes off 40 minutes late (though there may be a discrepency between BTA data and actual take off time in this case). However, this 40 minute stall time on the ground was less than five minutes before the unscheduled-for-that-day 'first hit' AA11 hits the WTC1, which allowed the UAL175 definitely to hit the WTC2. Another option that would hold to the queue theory would be that perhaps the UAL175 was hardwired to the WTC2 hit, instead of it still being undecided. It was still designed to be in a temporal queue to make sure that unscheduled-for-that-day was AA11 was in queue itself before taking off for WTC2.

Back to UAL93, the fourth plane. In other words, with UAL93 taking off only several minutes before unscheduled-for-the-day AA11 hits the WTC1, the UAL93 may have been a "WTCs backup plane" that only takes off on another mission of terror, (undecided? who can say? or was it the Capitol?) once both WTCs hits are almost assured.

My point is that this looks like a queue effect that says "OK, that one is airbone, bring up the next one" in all three cases of UAL175, unscheduled-for-that-day AA77, and the potential "WTCs backup hit" of UAL93--that was launched toward something else and kept in the air as a backup later once the WTCs area was assured a double hit.

Second, the FAA "tells" the already-in-the-know NORAD, who have the best radar data in North America all to themselves, the code message, "xxxx plane has just been hijacked" This is the message that is always illegally late, though like the queue effect always almost immediately before a hit instead of when it stops communicating or goes off course! This means in my opinion built into this queue theory issue was a way simultaneously for the "FAA blame" alibi to be constructed as as "tell NORAD to move on" message: that "this plane has just been placed in queue for the next target in priority target list because we are confident that nothing can interfere with it at this stage and that it will be a definite hit. So we (or you?) can program and guide that next plane into the second target."

So is someone at FAA calling the shots, and reporting on successes and giving the OK to NORAD to program the next plane for its destination? My bet is that the FAA contact was MONTE BELGAR, who retires immedately after 9-11. Information on him is hard to come by. I would like assistance in finding about Monte Belgar's background.

In other words what I draw from this is that If I WAS IN CHARGE, and it was VERY VERY IMPORTANT to hit both WTC1 and WTC2 to cover up the internal implosions and demolitions, you require backups and reserves. A military mind alwasys knows that it is the reserves that win the battle or the war, instead of what you put into your immediate assault.

First, in planning 9-11, I would have had a series of priorities of what should be hit that dealt with
a. order of hits
b. symbolic rationales of hits
c. alibi for disguising demolition or bomb explosion cover-up operations (this is the case of both the WTCs and the Pentagon).

Second, and I would have backup. I would have the actual planes be a 'swarm' of backups. The targets would be settled, though the planes for particular ones would be open, instad of 'hardwiring' the overall plan to be four separate events with their specific targets and adopting the "aw shucks" attitude if one failed to work out. With this type of operation there is nothing that would allow this "aw shucks" type of attitude to a failed terror strike, because all of them were crucial to the overall plan, or the full plan for an immediately police state and WWIII would fail. One of these planes did fail in its hit by the way, and in my opinion, it has given us this slight breathing space as the Bushes attempt to jury-rig up something that would take the place of what they considered to be the carte blance that would be given to them by the missing fourth terror plane hit. So what would have been this carte blance for the Bushes that failed, which launched us into this gray inbetween, a 3/4 successfully terror strike by the Bushes? More on this below.

Anyway, back to the queue issue: if a plane or two fails to hit the WTC for some reason, this would really spoil the cover operation of demolitions of the towers! So you keep everything loose throughout the attack, monitor everything, gauge when particular hits are certain, and then and only then, move on to the next definite target using the next plane.

This accounts for why the fourth plane UAL93 was grounded for huge times on the tarmac, until the WTC1 and WTC2 were more certain, and then it could go on to its next destination or be in the air for sudden adaptations in case something else went awry.

When you create a timeline of takeoffs, waiting on the tarmac, IFF beacons, and hits it reads like one script, with tiny spaces of minutes inbetween, where once only when the previous queued target was sound the next plane was either powered up and allowed to leave the ground, or if it was in the air already, it would suddenly turn off its IFF beacon and move in for the next hit. This would be a failsafe is in case some particular ones fail to get thorugh. There was another Memory Hole story (or perhaps one I remember myself) right after 9-11 that would support this: the FBI said that they KNEW ABOUT 11 PLANES. So this brings up the question did they have many more planes than four waiting on the ground or otherwise in the air which were scheduled to take off?


In order to stagger them appropriately through the air, the queue would read three hits and one missed hit. So the order of the four priority hits could be maintained as 1) WTC1, 2) WTC2, 3) Pentagon, and (in my opinon the Bushes wanted the fourth plane to hit.........) 4) the Congress building?

"Why do you think the fourth plane was to hit the Congress building?"

You ask, why do I think that the Congress building was the fourth plane's destination?

a. Well, because everything was going so "well" (from the Bushes/CIA/Cheney point of view), one of the planes that was in rotation for terror hits and already in the air got REAL FAR AWAY from its target. It got real far away by the time they actually decided on its final target to be, the Capitol building. This caused some trouble, because the NORAD standdown was going on about 1 hour and 45 minutes by 10:00 a.m. (Counting from the unscheduled-for-that-day AA11 stopping communication with ATC around 8:15 a.m.)

b. Why the Capitol? Well, ask whoever decided to ask for a "change of flight plan to DC" from Dulles ATC....after FAA head who said to "clear the skies and land at the nearest airport". The DC airport was very very far away by then. (DAMN! That sudden initiative from the intentionally placed first day on the job person at the "Big Board" of the FAA really messed everything up for the fourth hit. They expected him to be unable to comprehend what was going on, or be scared of taking any action when faced with this on his first day. However! HA! He said "clear the skies!" He singlehandedly ruined the chances of the fourth hit--and perhaps even others. As I said, someone had the audacity after this FAA order was given to attempt to allow UAL93 (ahem) to (alibi) head back to Dulles Airport (ahem) under these conditions of "clear the skies". Moreover, it was the FAA that simultaneously said for the Buffet "NetJet" to follow UAL93, interestingly enough, countermanding its own orders? Who gave the order to allow the NetJet to follow UAL93? Remember that this "someone" only radioed ATC at Dulles after it was supposedly (alibi) hijacked, though still on course. FAA claims that UAL93 was 'hijacked" (alibi for this one is next in queue) around 9:20. Wait a minute, UAL93 was still on course and with a IFF beacon at 9:20. It's beacon is on until 9:40 a.m. and it only goes off course around 9:28-9:35 a.m.. This sort of says to me that "well, we have ourselves a plane here, where should it go"? All this lag time here to me shows indecisiveness on just what to do with it. So they finally request on the fly in response to the FAA nationwide order to "clear the skies" a "flight plan to DC," though this was after the FAA had claimed it had been hijacked! Ouch! Sorry, we have some delightful parting gifts for you, thanks for playing. This flight plan alibi was the last ditch attempt to get it to DC.

So with this background, why do I think that the fourth plane was to hit the Capitol?

a. Cheney had made damn sure to keep the Capitol full of legislators even though he and the Secret Service had pseudo-evacuated HIM from around 9:05 a.m. to the White House Bunker--a full 30 minutes before the Pentagon was hit by the "cruise missle with wings" and ***a full hour*** before the fourth plane was shot down (that was even the US miitary's original story, then they changed it. There is plenty of seismic and other plane witness data and ATC data and court testimony at the Massaoui trial that a Warren Buffet "NetJet" was for some reason told to tail the fourth plane). Remember, that this means that the Capitol and the Pentagon, even though Cheney and the Pentaon knew something was approaching from around 9:00 a.m. (when Pentagon goes on Alpha Alert as well, though they fail to evacuate), are left unevacuated until AFTER the Pentagon hit was successful.

b. Remeber they were all ready with the Shadow Government, after 9-11, however, the expected Congressional hit was a failure.

c. Suddently there was very little "emergency" to pass the Patriot Act as the legislators were still alive.

d. So in the days after 9-11, someone in the military got the bright idea to mail out some Ft. Detrick military grade anthrax of the Ames strain (which the FBI had the original sample destroyed to cover the US's trail on this, and which was shared by groups such as BioPort (Carlye Corporation owned), Battelle (truly a NWO operation if ever I saw one), and other top secret miltiary areas like Dugway Proving grounds in Utah. The point is they picked a strain that was easily tracable to only a few domestic miltary people, and they used weaponized which even further refined the suspect list to CIA related groups. Follow: first anthrax were mailed days after the failed Congressional hit that would have killed most of the legislature. Ahtnrax is known to have about a month downtime before it infects.

e. Bush, Ascroft, Rumsfeld, everyone--are in the media early October talking about ANTHRAX coming up, danger of anthrax, this is still going on, etc. We are in danger. Patriot Act is introduced in Congress by Bush cronies.

f. Days later, anthrax finally surfaces, as predicted after being mailed out after 9-11. So the Bushes attempt scare tactics instead of mass murder of the legislature. The anthax kills........the editor of the Florida Newpaper who was the only one in the whole country to publish pictures of Jenna Bush drunk, and was ready to go with publishing nude pictures of Bush in a coffin with his male Skull and Bones buddies. This editor dies. Then the FBI CLOSES THE NEWSPAPER and refuses to let people retrieve anything. This newspaper is gone.

g. Daschle and Leahy say "screw you Bush" fu*k your police state, in so many words. We refuse to introduce this bill, it destroys the Bill of Rights, etc. They are immediately sent THE MOST CONCENTRATED STRAINS sent out, weaponized anthrax, trillion spores per gram, weaponized under patent to the CIA in a contract job. Daschle does gets his, and his whole staff is nearly infected. Leahy's anthrax letter was stopped by mail stoppages once danger realized and was only 'found' in November, postmarked the same as Daschle's letter. The letters were posted from Trenton, New Jersey. To get weaponized anthrax out of its secure environments and to handle it without killing yourself, is a very specialized operation. Plus, it is reputed that only people with the level of CIA clearances could authorize such anthrax to be removed from such US government operations as Ft. Detrick.

h. Remember that the Patriot Act was already written up well before 9-11. WELL BEFORE 9-11. WELL BEFORE 9-11. Who wrote most of it? Why, Sentaor Graham of Florida, the person who, along with an ex-Intelligence operative, were in charge of the "Biparisan 9-11 Investigation (ha) Commission". On the day of 9-11, Graham was meeting the terrorist money drop man of the Pakistan ISI in the Congress builining, Ahmad, the person who met with (likely Rice) someone in the White House in the week before 9-11, right before the money transaction was wired from Pakistan to the Florida (Sun Trust Bank) accounts of Mohammad Atta who the FBI still claims was "a hijacker." So you have Graham, the writer of the Patriot Act mostly, meeting with the money drop man to the FBI claimed terrorist of 9-11, Atta--and on 9-11 the meeting occurred. With Graham in this meeting was Goss, another Floridian Bushite ex-Intelligence operative. Lots of Florida in this story, eh? Graham says that Goss and he and everyone who was with him "received a note from Goss's aide" and they turned on the television to see a smouldering WTC2 (second hit, post 9:03). He claims that it was then this group evacuated themselves from the Capitol--early--right after WTC2 was hit (9:03 a.m). [I personaly would like to see more information about the Capitol evacuation because it is a crucial issue in connecting Graham/Goss, and whether they knew they were going to be offed by the potential fourth plane hit, or did they know to leave early? Knowing that they would be hit in the Capitol if they stayed around. Capitol was only evacuated officially much later and after the "cruise missile with wings" found the Pentagon and hit it around 9:35 a.m. or so.] In other words, DC for 30 minutes, nothing evacuated, though plane coming in? By the way, Graham came out immediately after 9-11 saying the US should attack Iraq immediately. He even called the mass murdering ex-Governor "Executioner" Bush "soft on terror." Graham used to be a Governor of Florida by the way, well know for all his executions as well. This is the same Graham family that runs the Washinton Post and has covered up "votescam" in Florida since the 1970s! [on this read half of a free book  http://www.votescam.com ]

The overall point is, people, that 9-11 is only one in a series of state teror and corrupt actions of the US. There is a direct continuity with these people. The more I looked into it, the more that 9-11 seemed to be business as usual. It was business that finally has woken up some of the sheep that is all.

The sheep theory is that 9-11 represents something different in the way of US criminal actions. However, it is the same networks building on what they have accomplished and they have been doing this for 30 years in the United States, terror, assassination, and cover-up, terror, assassionation, and cover-up, terror, assassination, and cover-up, etc.

Welcome to your world. It's high time you got to know it.
& Huge Prepatory Demolitions in the Sub-basements
& Huge Prepatory Demolitions in the Sub-basements
Demolition Squibs on WTC1 (.wmv file)
Demolition Squibs on WTC1 (.wmv file)

fighter jets 05.Feb.2004 22:21


Where were the fighter jets. Why weren't they sent as per standard procedure. FAA notifies Norad at first sign of emergency, who then sends fighter jets to intercept. This is STANDARD PROCEDURE. Sept 11 was the first time in history that the standard procedure wasn't followed. The attacks could have and should have been prevented. What happened?

With all the money and brainpower we have put into our military, we are expected to believe they had no plan in place for such an event. With all of the warnings, and previous suicide airline bombing threats we are expected to believe our 'intelligence' had no idea such an event could take place. This administration is an insult to our collective intelligence. They think americans are incredibly stupid, and we must prove we are not with our courage to expose these bastards!

conspiracy theories? someting does not ring true 05.Feb.2004 23:38

red fred

Obviously the official story does not hold up. You do not have to believe in conspiracies to know that the official explanation stinks. After Pearl Harbour was attacked their was an investigation within two months. I think it is safe to assume that the Japanese were a more significant threat than a ragtag group of terroists that make up Al quida. Concentrate on having an independant investigation into the security failures of 9-11.

I suggest the web site WSWS.org and look into their archives about 9-11

it's important to strive for accuracy when exposing 9/11 15.Feb.2004 02:12


Holgrem's comment:

More recently, its become widely accepted on the basis of video evidence that the object which hit the
North Tower of the WTC at 8.46 that morning was not the hijacked Boeing 767, American Airlines Flight
11, as claimed in the official story.


This is nonsense.

Claiming this is "widely accepted" even among 9/11 researchers is blatant disinformation.

Either this person is unaware of basic standards of accuracy and evidence, or it is an effort to muddy the waters with obviously untrue material.

The "proof" that Flight 11 didn't hit the WTC is a couple of very blurry pictures at low resolution that prove nothing. The hole made in the building clearly shows large holes made by wings.

For accurate information on the likelihood that remote control systems were used in the Boeings, see



It is highly unlikely that a flight school drop out flew in a high speed spiral into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon ...

to mark 19.Feb.2004 10:49

ad nauseum

Er, there is nothing that says your points about remote control and the points about these planes being substituted are at odds with each other. Certainly, you can have remote control on any number of types of planes, instead of only the 'governmental conspiracy theory' story about AA11 crashing into WTC1.

For instance,

From the photographs of the 'puncture wound' of the plane on WTC1, the holes made by the plane wings are SMALLER than those that would have been made by a Boeing 767-223ER (which is what the plane should have been). So with,

1. the missing BTS data for only American Airlines planes of AA11 and AA77 (unscheduled/missing from database), while UAL planes being in the database

2. the puncture wound being smaller in width than a 767

3. the entirely contrary "graphical drawing" of these in the FEMA report (sign of coverup)--the holes in the graphical drawing and the holes in photographs fail to match!)

4. The flash BEFORE it enters WTC1.

5. The claims by eyewitnesses to WTC1 that it was a smaller jet.

6. the detonations, the demolition squibs, the seismic records

7. the molten steel in WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 (hey, what do these have in common except the demolition)?

8. blah blah blah

So respectfully, I would offer that you can have your cake (remote control) and eat it too (in a substituted plane). Besides, Holmgren's whole point from the database analysis has nothing to do with what you are talking about anyway. It's simply a different issue, and I am unable to see why you connect them as opposed to one another.

correction--for the ONLY record that is attempting accuracy about 9-11 20.Feb.2004 21:58

ad nauseum

hello all,

I wrote:
"From the photographs of the 'puncture wound' of the plane on WTC1, the holes made by the plane wings are SMALLER than those that would have been made by a Boeing 767-223ER (which is what the plane should have been). So with,...."

Actually, invert that sorry, I checked some files.
The actual WTC1 holes and width are a much larger gash, around 40% larger, than a 767 would be.

However, that failed to bother FEMA any, because FEMA failed to use photographs of the gash, and instead simply made up a drawing that perfectly fit a 767. It's really cute! You should go look at it and then compare to photos.

update for WTC1 hole 12.Jun.2004 10:18


more on WTC1 hole analysis:

9-11: WTC1 hit scar SMALLER than Boeing 767, was something else;WTC2 glancing hit,low fuel
author: research
[later I came to a conclusion that contradicted the title, though it's still worth reading to follow how such a mistake can be made. Plus, it was hardly the original 'government conspiracy theory' plane (AA-11), even though it seems to leave a 767 width of a hole, regardless of what it was. Others of course claim that there were four different bombs that made this type of hole, though I can still have four different bombs in a 767 width-type plane, without it being a 767, let's keep in mind.

Second, the FEMA discrepancy is still an intriguing cover-up that is documented. Did they put in that misrepresentation of a diagram because it would hide the laser/missile/bombs of the hit, which various sites (like letsroll911.com) have shown?