[Editor's note: I am a huge fan of James Perloff. In my opinion, he is correct about Israel taking the key role (but underplays the importance of the Pentagon in making it work out), the use of nukes in blowing apart the Twin Towers (but his account has the details wrong, since it cannot have been done from the basement up), and he contends that the planes were hijacked (but by Israelis) and that some of the phone calls were real. He begins with a disclaimer that he does not take any of this to be "conclusive" but for consideration. I will be featuring James on "The Raw Deal", renseradio.com, Tuesday from 8-10 PM/ET to discuss our areas of agreement and of disagreement. I like his open-minded attitude.]
This post is not intended to be taken dogmatically; I do not insist that its conclusions are correct; they are just presented for consideration.
In this post, though they have already been much discussed and debated within alternative media, I’ll address three major components of the 9/11 controversy:
(1) what
brought down the Twin Towers;
(2) what initially
struck the Towers; and,
(3) what happened to
the original planes and passengers.
However, there is a valid complaint often voiced in the Truth Movement, which runs like this: “I really don’t care how 9/11 was done and I’m tired of all the infighting about this. What really matters is, we know the government’s story is bogus, so we need to focus on identifying the criminals and bringing them to justice.”
I consider this a very legitimate grievance. But I don’t
think we can separate “who” from “how.” When a prosecutor presents his case in
a courtroom, he doesn’t name a crime’s perpetrator without describing how the
crime was carried out. Nor does he present the jury with the crime’s details
and methodology without identifying the suspect(s).
So let’s tackle both how and who, and we’ll start with “who,” because doing so
clarifies a lot of “how.”
The Who
What’s wrong with the following math equations?
3 + 3 = 68
98 – 7 = 2
58 X 7 = 35
What’s wrong, of
course, are the 8s. Take away the 8s and each equation reads correctly.
I believe that, when it comes to resolving the mystery of how 9/11 was executed, the Truth Movement suffers from a major “8” (in addition to any individual doses of cognitive dissonance that have been deliberately sprinkled in). I believe that “8” is:
9/11 was an inside job.
I believe a far more
correct rendering is:
9/11 was an outside job, done by Israeli operatives, but with consent and cooperation at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
To understand this, it
may be helpful to compare Israel’s vicious 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. It is well understood that
President Lyndon B. Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara fully
cooperated, by twice recalling U.S. fighters that the Sixth Fleet had sent to
rescue the Liberty, and later by
ordering a cover-up. However, at the
physical operational level, the attack was carried out by Israelis, not by
Americans in an “inside job.”
OK, but what’s the
evidence that Israel was behind 9/11? By far the best summary I’ve seen is the
WikiSpooks post 9-11/Israel Did It. (Incidentally, as many of my
regular readers know, I’m half-Jewish on my father’s side, so knee-jerk charges
against me of “anti-Semitism” can be stuffed in the appropriate place.)
A sampling of
highlights:
• The five notorious “dancing Israelis” who filmed the Twin Towers’
destruction, after which they celebrated, high-fiving each other and even
photographing themselves flicking a lighter against the backdrop of the smoking
ruins. They were arrested after driving off in a van whose license number was
reported by a neighbor. Later it was revealed that at least two of them were agents
of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service.
• Michael Chertoff was
put in charge of the Justice Department’s investigation of 9/11, despite his
mother having been a Mossad agent, and Chertoff himself reportedly holding dual
citizenship in Israel. Chertoff released hundreds of arrested Israelis back to
Israel, including the notorious “dancing Israelis.”
• Quoting Wikispooks: “The company
that ran airport security at all three airports where the alleged hijackings
originated was Huntsleigh USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of ICTS International
and owned by Ezra Harel and Menachem Atzmon —both Israeli
Jews.”
• ”Lucky Larry” Silverstein, who became the new owner of the World Trade Center
less than two months before the attacks, and earned an insurance payout of
nearly $5 billion on his $124 million investment (after missing the disaster
due to a fortuitous doctor’s appointment on the morning of 9/11) was such good
friends with Benjamin Netanyahu that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported in November 2001: “Every Sunday afternoon, New
York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein. It made no difference what the
subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call.”1
• Supported by funds from Israel’s government, Zim Israel Navigational was the world’s ninth largest shipping firm. It had its American headquarters in the World Trade Center—until about two weeks before 9/11. Zim then moved its offices, with all 200 employees, to a new building, claiming rent was cheaper there.
• The 9/11 Commission’s
executive director was Philip Zelikow, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen. Why should
anyone with sworn loyalty to a foreign nation be entrusted with such a
position?
• On 9/11, the chairman
of George W. Bush’s Defense Policy Board was Richard Perle, whom the National Security
Agency had caught spying on the U.S. for Israel in 1970.
• On 9/11, employees of
the Israeli instant messaging company Odigo received messages two hours before
the attack, warning them not to be in the World Trade Center.
• Ptech, a software
firm linked to Israeli intelligence, had provided vital software being used by
the FAA, FBI, and U.S. armed forces on 9/11.
• On 9/11, seated in
row 9 of Flight 11 (directly behind “Mohammed Atta”) was Danny Lewin, a former
captain in the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), and who served in the Sayeret Matkal, which specializes in
counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, and assassination. Lewin could bench-press
315 pounds and “was trained to kill terrorists with a pen or a credit card, or
just his bare hands.”2 In 2000, he had himself photographed in front
of panels resembling the Twin Towers, wearing a Swatch Watch whose model name
was “Hijacker.” The hour, minute and second hands were all on the “11” and the
date was set to the 11th, even though the picture was taken on the 10th.
The odds against all four time indicators being on “11” are more than 20,000 to 1. Times the odds of the watch model being named “Hijacker”: unfathomable.
That’s just
a small sampling of the evidence that Israel did 9/11. When police detectives try to
solve a murder, among the first questions asked is: Who benefitted from the
crime? In 9/11's case, Middle Eastern Muslims did not benefit—the U.S. has been making war on them for 16 years. America did not
benefit—we’re suffering the casualties and trillions in costs
from the wars, as well as degradation of our liberties in the name of security.
The only beneficiary was Israel—her enemies have been neutralized one by one, courtesy America, in
fulfillment of the Greater Israel plan, with Iran reputedly next on
the hit list.
That’s the main who; let’s talk about the how.
(1) How were the Twin Towers
destroyed?
Within alternative
media are three major schools of thought about this. One is nano-thermite,
largely advocated by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Another is Directed Energy Weapons
(DEWs), whose foremost advocate is Dr. Judy Wood. The third is nuclear devices,
which I and a few others support. Let me be clear: I have friends in all three
camps, and differing opinions on this matter don’t impede our friendships.
I’ve laid out why I
believe the Twin Towers’ collapse was a nuclear event in an extensive blog post. To minimize redundancy, I’ll
shrink this to a “top ten” list:
TOP TEN REASONS THE WTC COLLAPSE WAS A NUCLEAR EVENT
1. Thyroid cancer
occurs at above-average frequency in 9/11 first responders more than any other
type of cancer (see full post for citations). This is a signature of nuclear bombs; they emit iodine-131,
which collects in the thyroid, often causing cancer. (This is why some people
keep potassium iodide tablets on hand—to protect their thyroid glands in case
of a nuclear attack.)
2. World Trade Center
dust samples examined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found
Uranium, Strontium, Barium, Thorium, and other products of nuclear fission, in
high concentrations that only an atomic blast could explain. Although the
Survey avoided calling attention to the significance, William Tahil vetted it
in his pioneering 2006 book Ground Zero: The Nuclear
Demolition of the World Trade Centre. (“The phrase “ground zero,” incidentally, had only
been applied to nuclear detonation sites prior to 9/11.)
3. There
was molten steel underneath the rubble of the World Trade Center, whose fires
kept burning for over three months. Extraordinary heat is yet another signature
of a nuclear bomb.
(Note: I’m aware that molten steel was seen at a corner of the South Tower
before its collapse; I don’t doubt that pre-planted explosives were in the
Towers, probably including the incendiary thermite, but I don’t believe these
explosives were what destroyed the WTC. To clarify, each Tower had six basement
levels, and the thesis of my full post—which I had excellent assistance with—is
that each Tower was destroyed by a suitcase nuke positioned at the lowest point
in either building: the services pits beneath elevator 50. This was the only
elevator that ran the full length of either Tower, and the only elevator whose
service pits were carved into the bedrock beneath the World Trade Center. This
location would make the ideal “launching pad” for a nuke, as the bedrock would
contain the sideways and downward force of a nuclear explosion, which would
follow the path of least resistance up through the shaft. See the full post for
diagrams.)
4. The Towers did not
simply “fall,” they exploded, throwing chunks of steel weighing multiple tons
hundreds of feet. Check, for example, this piece that embedded itself in the
American Express Building across the street:
No exotic weapons are
needed to explain this. A nuclear bomb is the most powerful explosive known.
5. The Towers’ inner
contents were vaporized: no
furniture, filing cabinets (except one), computers, or toilets survived. All
turned into dust. Even the buildings’ concrete became dust, instead of falling
as chunks of debris. The vaporization, of course, included the people inside
(whole bodies that were found
belonged to people who jumped before the Towers disintegrated). Not only is a
nuclear bomb the most powerful explosive known, its blast—unlike conventional explosives—endures for
several seconds, enabling it to inflict considerably more damage.
6. At the times of the
two Tower “collapses,” seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty
Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded enormous off-the-chart spikes consistent with huge explosions.
7. A nuclear blast
explains the damage to the rest of the World Trade Center. Buildings 5 and 7
suffered enormous fires, and building 6 was cratered out. These phenomena could
not have begun before the Towers’ destruction; otherwise, videos of the burning
Towers would have shown additional smoke plumes, and cameras would have panned
to the blazes.
Nuclear blasts originating at the lowest levels of the Twin Towers may provide the answer. Underground the World Trade Center was interconnected by pipes, not only for sewage, but a 3-foot-wide storm water drainage system.
Any building’s place at
greatest risk for flooding is its lowest point. For the Twin Towers, this would
have been Elevator 50’s service pits. From here flood water would be pumped
through pipes to the 36-inch storm drain. Thus atomic blasts here would not
only follow the path of least resistance through Elevator 50’s shaft, but through the 36-inch storm water drain,
traveling through the underground pipes and shooting up through buildings 5, 6
and 7, igniting them. Falling debris could not have caused the raging internal
fires seen in the smaller buildings; edifices outside the World Trade Center (American Express Building, Winter
Garden Atrium) were heavily impacted by debris, but they did not catch fire.
THEY WERE NOT CONNECTED TO THE WTC’S UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
Please see my full post for elaboration and documentation of the above point.
8. On 9/11, New Yorkers fled two terrifying dust clouds that engulfed the area surrounding the WTC. Anyone who watches videos of nuclear bombs will see that they create sprawling ground-level clouds. Although building demolitions also routinely create dust clouds, the 9/11 ones seemed to have had a life of their own.
(A noteworthy
observation in this film is that as people flee the cloud behind them, smoke is
flowing up from the sewer drains in front
of them. Since the World Trade Center’s underground pipes ultimately emptied
into New York City’s sewer, this is further evidence of the secondary effects
of an underground nuke. Continuous flow of nuclear smoke from the sewers might
account for the “toasted cars” later noticed along the side streets.)
9. CIA asset Susan Lindauer (second cousin to Andrew Card, George W. Bush’s Chief of Staff) has stated that U.S. intelligence received advance warnings of the 9/11 attacks (her whistle-blowing eventually led to her being sent to a federal prison). According to Lindauer, the advance warning the CIA received included the destruction of the World Trade Center by a “mini-nuke.”3
10. In his 1995 book Fighting Terrorism, Israeli Prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu predicted:
Such groups nullify the need to have air power or intercontinental missiles as delivery systems for an Islamic nuclear payload. They will be the delivery system. In the worst of such scenarios, the consequences could be not a car bomb but a nuclear bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center.4 [emphasis his]
Two days after 9/11,
NBC’s Tom Brokaw interviewed Netanyahu, who said:
Even though Netanyahu
revised “nuclear” to “conventional,” one must ask how he knew the bomb’s
specific yield. In fact, how did Bibi know it was a bomb at all? Supposedly plane crashes had brought the Towers down.
A common objection to
the nuclear hypothesis: “Where are the post-9/11 Geiger counter readings
showing lots of radiation in New York City?” The answer: not all nuclear bombs
discharge large amounts of radiation. Most use a combination of nuclear fission
and fusion; if the fission is high, fallout (radiation) will be high; but if
fission is low compared to fusion, fallout will be low. During the Cold War,
the United States began developing tactical nuclear weapons, also known as “battlefield nukes.”
Obviously, in a battlefield situation, a low-radiation weapon is desired;
otherwise it could harm one’s own army.
What types of nuclear
warheads does Israel stockpile? Although this is an ironclad state secret, it
should be obvious that Israel would emphasize “battlefield” nukes. In war with
its neighbors, it wouldn’t want radiation blowback to Tel Aviv. A modern suitcase nuke is small enough to carry in a
backpack.
(2) What struck the Towers?
When I first heard
of the “no planes” theory (no planes hit the Twin Towers) my reaction was
something like: “Of all the stupid %@!&*! There must have been a million
people in New York City who saw that plane hit the South Tower in real time.
Anyone who believes in ‘no planes’ is embracing cognitive dissonance that is
designed to discredit the whole 9/11 Movement!”
However, as I examined
facts, my position began evolving. For one thing, there was little evidence of
Flight 93 at the Shanksville crash site:
Unlike other airliner
crash sites, which are littered with wreckage and bodes, the ground swallowed
up Flight 93. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said: “This crash was
different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."5
Likewise, at the Pentagon, there was stunning lack of evidence for a plane:
Pentagon witness April Gallup:
Supposedly Flight 77
dove 7,000 feet, then pulled out of its dive (a maneuver impossible for a commercial
jetliner,) and flew perfectly level to the ground (not even scuffing it) and
smashed into the Pentagon’s first floor, its aluminum fuselage ramming through
three of the reinforced concrete rings:
Major General Albert Stubblebine:
Given the doubts about
planes crashing at Shanksville and the Pentagon, might the 9/11 perpetrators
have used the same modus operandi at
the Twin Towers? Was it possible that no real planes hit them?
There are, in fact, two substantial reasons why Flights 11
and 175 could not have been what struck the World Trace Center.
First, the object that hit the South Tower was traveling 590 miles per hour,6
whereas a Boeing 767’s maximum operating speed at ground level is about 420
mph.7 Now, it is
absolutely true that at high altitude, a 767 can cruise above 500 mph (due to
the thinner atmosphere) and that if it suddenly dove, it could maintain such
velocity. The problem: when a Boeing reaches ground altitude, it becomes
uncontrollable at these speeds. Pilots for 9/11 Truth explains it in this 6-minute video:
See also the detailed affidavit by veteran pilot John Lear, son of Bill Lear, inventor of the
Lear Jet.
9/11’s success required
perfect execution. Both objects hitting the Twin Towers scored bull’s-eyes. But
let’s say whoever was piloting Flight 175 slightly erred, and only clipped the
South Tower with his left wing. What would have happened? The plane would have
crashed elsewhere in New York City; but more importantly, the Tower could not
have been demolished. Regardless of what demolition theory one ascribes
to—nano-thermite, directed energy, or nukes—the 9/11 perpetrators would not
have dared collapse the Tower on the pretext that a wing grazed it. The plan
required perfection; misses couldn’t be tolerated. But no pilots, however good,
could guarantee bull’s-eyes at the given speeds.
Second is the impossible physics displayed in news footage of Flight 175
vanishing into the South Tower, its fragile aluminum wings and tail slicing
through the 14-inch steel columns “like a hot knife through butter.” For those
new to 9/11 Truth, there are innumerable posts and videos about this; I’ll
embed a slo-mo clip here:
We’re watching an
impossibility. A jetliner’s aluminum wings and tail would have broken off on
hitting the Tower’s steel columns. Here’s footage of a real airliner crash; the
wings are sliced off by wooden telephone
poles:
Jetliner noses are so
fragile they’ve been crushed by bird impacts. Here’s a screen shot from the May 7, 2015 Telegraph:
Many more examples of bird-damaged airline noses can be found online. Regardless of speed, such noses could have not have performed as “battering rams” on 9/11; they would have crumpled upon impacting the steel columns.
Many
believe all the images of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower were clever CGIs
(computer-generated images) created after the fact. However, Richard Hall has
produced a compelling video refuting that. He made a computerized scale model
of New York City; he then took the 26 highest-quality videos of 175 hitting the
Tower.
In all 26 videos,
filmed from many angles, the object followed the precise same trajectory. This
indicates a real object hit the Tower. I won’t embed his 35-minute video, but click here if you wish to view.
What, then, struck the
Towers? We are pretty much reduced to two options. Hall concludes it was a
missile shrouded in a plane’s image.
A. The Missile Hypothesis
A cruise missile would
resolve all the problems a plane presents: speed, accuracy and penetration. A
missile can be guided with precision to a target; is not disturbed by the
“G-forces” that stress a winged plane; and a missile’s nose is hardened for
penetration.
Many will rightly
object that the plane footage was corroborated by countless New Yorkers who
witnessed a plane strike the South Tower. However, there’s an explanation far
more credible than it may at first sound: holographic
cloaking. The Air Force developed such technology years ago, and
fortunately people made screen shots of the web page before it was taken down. It
demonstrates that the Air Force was capable of creating a 3-dimensional image
of a plane, in broad daylight, so
realistic that it could deceive enemy antiaircraft gunners.
Quoting the Air Force’s own description:
The holographic projector displays a
three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display
generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic
perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking,
providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.
Capabilities
Precision projection of 3-D visual images into a selected area
Supports PSYOP and strategic deception management
Provides deception and cloaking against optical sensors
But could the American
military have been persuaded to launch missiles against American targets? While it’s possible, give the darkness of
the “military-industrial complex,” the Israeli
military would have had no hesitation. Remember their attack on the USS Liberty.
But would Israel have
had such technology? The declassified 1987 Defense Department paper Critical Technology Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations noted that the Israeli firm El-Op
was, back then, already developing holographic technology with “stealth
applications.”
How could Israel have launched cruise missiles against us? Israel began replacing her 1970s-era submarine fleet with new Dolphin-class submarines, capable of firing cruise missiles, in 1999.8 In 2000, the U.S. Navy observed these subs test-firing missiles in the Indian Ocean.9
The plane-shaped damage
on the sides of the burning towers would likely be from charges planted by the
notorious Israeli art students before 9/11; the missile could have
set these off.
B. The Drone Hypothesis
Last summer, during his book tour, I had the pleasure of meeting Chris Bollyn, one of the best 9/11 researchers.
After Chris completed his PowerPoint presentation, he took audience questions,
and I asked his opinion of the “no planes” theory. Chris said that on images of
Flight 175’s underside, there appears to be a “pod” or missile; its nose lights
up when it meets the building. (This is much discussed in the 9/11 movement.
Such a missile could not have been attached to Flight 175 without being noticed
by Logan Airport maintenance crews.)
Above: the “pod”
Chris asked: if it was
only a hologram, why would they bother including a missile’s image? His
conclusion: missile-carrying drones struck the Towers.
The drone hypothesis is consistent with Operation Northwoods, a 1962 Pentagon plan to stage a “false flag” in order to justify invading Cuba. It involved swapping drones mid-air for a passenger planes. If, in fact, 9/11 was an updated version of Operation Northwoods, it might explain why Flights 11 and 175 came so close to each other (“nearly colliding”) over Stewart Air Force Base.
This path-crossing
might have marked the ideal time to launch drones, which could have followed
the planes tightly to avoid radar detection.
Drones could also resolve the (relatively minor) aircraft debris photographed near the Pentagon and World Trade Center after 9/11.
However, the drone hypothesis presents its own problems. Wouldn’t a 767-sized drone run into the same issue of high-speed controllability as a 767 passenger plane? And could a drone’s wings and tail slice through the 14-inch steel any more easily than a jetliner’s?
Perhaps the answer to Chris’s question—If it was only a hologram, why would they bother including an image of a missile?—is that the missile was real, but the plane was the image cloaking it.
I’m open to both possibilities—missiles or drones. I’ll note that drones somewhat reduce Israel’s degree of involvement, since an Israeli sub could launch cruise missiles, but not drones.
Incidentally, the Northeast Air Defense Sector did receive a report from the FAA's Boston Center, saying Flight 11 had not hit the North Tower but was still airborne and heading south. You can hear it, as recorded live, in the documentary Intercepted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (I’ve embedded the relevant 1-minute clip):
Although some believe
this message was an error, or even a phantom call to distract fighters from
Flight 77 (then approaching Washington), it confirms there was official belief
on 9/11 that Flight 11 was not what hit the Towers.
(3) What happened to the original planes and passengers?
Not only
were the alleged 9/11 hijackers incompetent pilots, but several later turned up alive.
As a result, we in the Truth Movement has been running some scenarios like this:
THEREFORE
there were no hijackers on the planes at all;
THEREFORE the planes
were electronically hijacked;
THEREFORE the calls
from the planes were faked, probably by passengers and crew who were hired as
crisis actors;
THEREFORE the planes
probably landed at military bases; the crisis actors were paid handsomely and
given new identities;
OR the calls were not
actually from the passengers themselves, but CIA agents digitally posing as
passengers, using voice print technology, etc.
However, although I
have spent much time seriously exploring these possibilities, and still
entertain some questions regarding Flight 11, I now believe these are mostly
rabbit holes. I started looking at 9/11 from the viewpoint: “If this was an Israeli operation, how would they
execute it?” Here’s my conclusion.
I believe there were hijackers on 9/11. But they weren’t
Arabs. They were elite Israeli elite special ops, Sayeret Matkal, using Arab
IDs (except for Danny Lewin). Not even Mossad would be entrusted with an
operation of such military caliber. Darker men who could pass for Arabs would
have been selected for the mission.
Unlike Hani Hanjour and
the rest of the Arab patsies, who couldn’t control little Cessnas at 65 nauts
at flight-training schools, these special ops would have had months of training
on Boeing 757s and 767s, plenty of which were in El Al’s (Israel’s) fleet:
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/El-Al-Israel-Airlines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al
They would have
practiced cockpit invasion countless times, probably using a Boeing in an
Israeli hangar, using real people play-acting as the “American pilots and
crews” who would have to be overwhelmed. “Good work; that took nine seconds;
let’s see if we can get it down to eight.”
How would Israeli
commandos invade the cockpit so quickly? Mary Ellen Moore, co-producer of the
movie I scripted ShadowRing), was a career flight attendant. She tells me tells
me cockpit doors were standardly locked by 2001 to guard against hijacking. The
attendants did keep a cockpit key in a secret location in case of emergency. I
recently asked Mary Ellen if the key-lock set was unique for each Boeing
cockpit, or was it universal? She wasn’t sure, so she asked a pilot friend, who
told her that, up until 9/11, it was universal.
I think, then, we can
answer how the hijackers breached the cockpits. They had keys, or copies of keys, provided by El-Al. As we have
said, everything on 9/11 had to go like clockwork and be virtually guaranteed.
They certainly weren’t going to struggle trying to kick in a locked cockpit
door, or (as some in mainstream media
suggested) holding a box-cutter to a flight attendant’s throat, saying
something like, “Open the door or the broad here gets it!” What if the pilots
said “No!”? Furthermore, in hijacking situations, all pilots were trained to
immediately type in a 4-digit code that alerted air traffic control. None of
the pilots on any of the airliners did that. I don’t think they had time.
We know through the
calls from AA 11 that two hijackers had been in Row 2 of First Class. (Having
people seated up front was presumably standard on all these operations.) They
probably waited until the flight attendants were distracted (or more likely,
they created a distraction; Danny
Lewin back in Row 9: “Oh, Miss, I feel sick!”) Once inside the cockpit, they
would have killed the pilots instantly.
(Remember, Lewin
reportedly “was trained to kill terrorists with a pen or a credit card, or just
his bare hands”) and this would have held true for the rest of the Sayeret
Matkal. There is no evidence that there were struggles in the cockpits of
Flights 11, 175 or 77. The hijackers would not have tried to “cut their throats
with box-cutters,” which would have splattered the controls with blood. The
pilots would have been killed (or rendered unconscious) instantly with the best
device Sayeret Matkal had, such as an Epipen-style injector.
The hijackers would
have removed the dead pilots from their seats, and taken control of the planes,
fully familiar with Boeings from
hundreds of hours of practice with El-Al jets. One hijacker would likely have
been designated the expert pilot, with one or two others capable of backing him
up.
I don’t think the
passenger calls were faked. I think they wanted
those calls made to establish the narrative that hijackings were under way.
Here’s an amazing sentence from the September 21, 2001 London Telegraph: “Accounts from the other
doomed planes indicate that the hijackers encouraged people to call their
families and tell them what was happening.”10 Say what?!? What evil
hijackers would encourage people to
call their families?
This would also explain
why the hijackers weren’t patrolling the aisles. They wanted passengers feeling safe enough to start picking up those air
phones and calling in order to establish the “Muslim hijacking” narrative.
I want to add something
here about cell phones. Some calls came from cell phones instead of air phones,
and we have been told this was not possible in the existing 2001 technology.
However, my flight
attendant friend Mary Ellen Moore reports that in late 1998, she and a pilot
were flying, as passengers, at high altitude over Nebraska. The pilot opened
his ATT Flip Phone and called his wife. After chatting for a while, he handed
the phone to Mary Ellen, who also spoke with his wife, until a flight attendant
came past and scolded them.
Mary Ellen tells me that things are different today; her smart phone shuts off at altitudes of a couple thousand feet. But she believes we are underrating the connectivity of cell phones years ago, which was rarely tested, since their use was forbidden on passengers flights.
I’ll quote The New York Times, which is of course a mainstream source, but this was less than two weeks after 9/11, before there was any Truth Movement to rebut:
According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.
''The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight,'' said Marvin Sirbu, professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University. ''An excess of caution prevents us from doing so, of course, because we are so worried about the safety of air travel.''11 (emphasis added)
In any event, while
many 9/11 cell phone calls undoubtedly didn’t connect, it appears from the
record that some did. These, along with the air phone calls, gave the hijackers
sufficient “narrative.”
This narrative had been
progressively established in the days leading up to 9/11:
In Germany, Mohammed Atta had been a shy architectural student; according to his family, he was timid around girls and hated to fly. But a very different Atta appeared in America. U.S. journalist Daniel Hopsicker, in his book Welcome to Terrorland, cited testimony that “Atta,” in Florida, was a party animal who loved to drink, snort cocaine, and listen to rock ‘n’ roll. According to eyewitnesses, on the Friday before 9/11, Atta and two other alleged hijackers went to Shukum’s Oyster Bar in Hollywood, Florida, where they drank heavily, played video games and cursed. They argued with the manager over their bill, which Atta paid with a $100 bill, saying, “Of course I can pay the bill. I’m an airline pilot.”12
On Sept. 14, 2001, CBS News reported:
Three men spewed anti-American sentiments in a bar and talked of impending bloodshed the night before the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, a Daytona Beach strip club manager interviewed by the FBI said Thursday.
“They were talking about what a bad place America is. They said ‘Wait ‘til tomorrow. America is going to see bloodshed,’” said John Kap, manager of the Pink Pony and Red Eyed Jack’s Sports Bar. . . .
In Daytona Beach, Kap said he told FBI investigators the men in his bar spent $200 to $300 apiece on lap dances and drinks, paying with credit cards. Kap said he gave the FBI credit card receipts, photocopied driver’s licenses, a business card left by one man and a copy of the Quran—the sacred book of Islam—that was left at the bar.13
We were consistently told that Atta and his fellow hijackers were Islamic fundamentalists, motivated to die for their faith. Yet their lifestyle completely contradicted this thesis. What devout Muslim brings his Koran to a strip club? What operatives on a secret mission call attention to themselves by loudly arguing over bills and leaving behind their business cards? These facts do not fit the official story—they do, however, fit someone planting a trail of misleading evidence.
That trail went right
up to the morning up 9/11; a car attributed to the hijackers was found at
Boston’s Logan Airport. Inside: a Koran and a flight training manual. What were
investigators to conclude from these clues?
L A Koran. Hmmm . . . These guys must have been Muslims!
K A
flight training manual . . . Aha! Flight training school!
J Now,
a Koran with a flight training manual
. . . Eureka! These were Muslims at a
flight training school!
Too conveniently, Atta’s luggage didn’t make it onto Flight 11. If was from
this luggage that the FBI so quickly learned the “identities” of the 19 hijackers.
(Of course, 9/11 Truthers have always asked why Atta would bother bringing
luggage for a trip on which he planned to commit suicide.)
But I think we’re
ending the play at Act One if we stop there, and insist no hijackers ever
boarded the aircraft, and that no hijackings occurred. Israeli operatives would
have boarded using the same fake/stolen Arab IDs found in Atta’s luggage.
Carrying out the hijacking itself, prompting numerous calls from flight
attendants and passengers, would have been the
culmination that all these planted clues led up to.
A Disservice
I think some of us in
the Truth Movement have done a disservice to the passengers and crews on these
flights by turning victims of the
Israelis into perpetrators. (It’s
kind of like saying the sailors on the USS
Liberty conspired in the attack on themselves.) The “Inside Job” paradigm
has led some to say the 9/11 passengers faked the phone calls—or even that the
people never existed.
Shortly after 9/11, at
the Winchester, Mass., church I was attending, during the post-service coffee I
struck up a conversation with a lady who turned out to be a flight attendant.
She told me how she’d lost one of her best friends on one of the 9/11 flights.
On Flight 175 was
Garnet “Ace” Baily, a professional hockey scout. “Ace” had played for the
Boston Bruins; I can still remember him coming off the bench in Game 1 of the
1972 Stanley Cup Finals, scoring a goal to break a 5-5 tie and win it for
Boston. “Ace” Bailey attempted four phone calls to his wife from Flight 175. No
one has seen him since 9/11. Yes, “Ace” was a real person. And I think any
serious researcher will acknowledge that the same holds true for the other
passengers and crew members.
This segues to the next
aberration: that the crews and passengers were real, but served as crisis
actors, collaborating with intelligence services to make fake phone calls
describing a non-existent hijacking. It is sometimes presumed that such were
handsomely paid, assigned new identities, and moved to exotic locations to live
out the rest of their days.
But this doesn’t
withstand scrutiny either. No one gets a million bucks and a new identity just
for making a 30-second phone call to their home—and most on those planes didn’t
make calls at all.
Furthermore, what if
some had remorse after seeing images of the Twin Towers collapse and said:
“Screw their money! I didn’t know I was part of this!”? Could 9/11’s architects risk some supposedly-dead flight
attendant being “resurrected,” returning to their home town and family, and
being interviewed by the local newspaper? The whole plot would have collapsed.
No, everyone on 9/11 had to die—except the hijackers.
So where did the passengers and planes go?
If Israeli special ops
flew the Boeings, but didn’t crash them into the buildings, where did they take
them? I don’t think it was “American military bases.” Not for an Israeli
operation. That would open a Pandora’s Box: how to dispose of the bodies and
planes, and the risk of witnesses.
There was only one
place to take them: out into the Atlantic for a rendezvous with an Israeli
ship, very probably that missile-firing sub. That’s where the planes were
headed anyway, if we presume they flew past their targets, be it the WTC or
Pentagon—the nearby Atlantic.
Some may ask, “But why
weren’t been tracked out there by the FAA and NORAD?”
My answer would be: if
they went to military bases, why didn’t the FAA and NORAD track them there? Both agencies experienced much
confusion on 9/11 due to all the ongoing drills, to say nothing of the
Israeli-linked software running their computers. And as we’ve seen, the FAA did still track Flight 11 south after it allegedly struck the World Trade
Center.
The passengers and
crews had to be immediately silenced after the “crashes.” This would almost
certainly be the time when they died. How? Not with bullets or explosives, not
on an airborne jet. Only one solution would have killed the passengers while
keeping the Israeli hijackers alive: a lethal gas.
We know that on both
Flight 1114 and Flight 93, the hijackers claimed to have a bomb,
which they displayed (on Flight 93,
Todd Beamer told his wife the “bomb” was strapped to a hijacker’s waist belt.15)
I suggest two things: (1) although specific mention of a bomb was only made in
calls from Flights 11 and 93, it is likely that a standard plan was followed,
and that bomb threats were also made on 175 and 77; (2) I don’t believe it was
really a bomb (which would not have served the hijackers’ interests), nor do I
believe it was merely a prop. I suggest it was a gas canister awaiting use.
I propose this
scenario: once the “crash” occurs (World Trade Center, Pentagon), the hijacker
carrying the “bomb” (gas canister) goes to the cockpit and opens the door. He
activates the canister like a grenade, hurls it into the cabin, then enters the
cockpit, locking the door behind him. Who knows what this gas might have been;
it must have been fast-acting. Cyanide gas, for example, can render victims
unconscious within seconds before killing them, and in a pressurized cabin, the
gas would quickly impact everyone.
Meantime, the hijackers
would have been sealed safe inside the cockpits, wearing their oxygen masks
conveniently provided by United and American. My guess is they made water
landings near the surfaced sub (or perhaps some other Israeli vessel). They
would have rehearsed such landings in their El-Al practice jet(s). The sub
would pick them up with small craft, after the hijackers popped open a cockpit
window, and departed wearing their life preservers—again, nicely provided by
United and American. In the meantime, each airliner would sink to the bottom of
the ocean: perfect mass tombs—for just like the Maine, the Lusitania, and
(the intended fate of) the Liberty,
the sea bottom is the ideal place to conceal a false-flag crime.
Dick Cheney served as
commander-in-chief that day (Bush having been consigned to do something his own
speed—reading the book The Pet Goat at
an elementary school). In a role paralleling Lyndon Baines Johnson during
Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty,
Cheney may have created a “safe space” for the Israeli rendezvous so that no
U.S. fighter jets would intrude and observe. Air Force veteran Field McConnell,
who appears a lot on alt media shows, says 11,
175 and 77 were all destroyed in an ocean sector called Whiskey 386, a military
training zone 60 miles off the Virginia coast, but he says that 93 had to be
destroyed over land.16 Although McConnell and I have differing
outlooks on 9/11, we are very close on this particular.
Here’s a clip from the 1965 James Bond movie Thunderball, which was about the theft of two nuclear bombs. The theft occurs by hijacking a plane; the crew are killed with a gas. The hijacker then lands the plane in the ocean; he makes a rendezvous with a ship; the plane itself sinks in the ocean. Of course, I put little stock in Hollywood, but it’s interesting that the clip embodies several elements similar to what I’ve just described:
Lest anyone suggest it, this article was not “inspired” by Thunderball. But art often mimics reality. Strangely, Thunderball was the only Bond film to get remade, in 1983, as Never Say Never Again, with Sean Connery summoned out of his long “Bond retirement.” In the new version, Spectre’s nuclear scheme was called “Allah’s Tears,” a name befitting what the Middle East has experienced. The remake appeared 18 years after the original and 18 years before 9/11.
What happened to Flight 93?
Flight 93 departed
Newark more than 40 minutes late. I suspect that most analysts are correct in
conjecturing that its intended target was the White House. A dual attack on the
Twin Towers, followed by a dual attack on the Pentagon and White House, would
have been ideal combinations to ramp up Americans for war.
Flight 93 was evidently shot down, not merely plunged by the pilots into the smoking Shanksville crater. There was a widely scattered debris field; one engine was found more than 600 yards from the infamous hole.17
I’ve clipped some of
this collected original news footage indicating Flight 93 was shot down:
Cheney acknowledges
giving the order:
However, if Flight 93 was downed, I do not believe it was for the reason
commonly given (save the White House). I now believe, based on the collective
phone calls, that there really was a “let’s roll” attempt to recover the
cockpit, but with one difference: they were not retaking it from Muslim
terrorists, but from Israeli special ops. Indications are that the passengers
overwhelmed the terrorist guarding the cockpit and had begun breaching it.
Remember, the flight attendants had a key of their own.
(Note: one reason I
believe the 9/11 planes were physically—not electronically— hijacked, is Flight
93’s behavior. When the passengers revolted, the plane began left-right,
up-down motions to knock them off their feet. This sounds much more like a live
pilot at the controls than a remote system.)
Let’s conjecture what
possible scenario might have unfolded had 93 not been destroyed: the cockpit is
retaken; the hijackers are subdued. One of the passengers, Donald Greene, was a
licensed pilot. Let’s say Greene and the flight attendants, with coaching from
air traffic controllers, were able to make a rough but successful landing.
Now what happens? The hijackers are arrested. Michael Chertoff may have succeeded in sending the “dancing Israelis” home, but no way could he have released the hijackers themselves. And once it was proven they were Israelis, not Muslims, 9/11’s entire outcome would have changed. There would have been no long succession of U.S. wars against Middle Eastern nations. Israel’s status with the U.S., including its billions of dollars in annual assistance from American taxpayers, would have been completely jeopardized.
Once it became apparent
that 93 was at risk for a successful passenger revolt, Cheney ordered it shot
down—not to protect the White House, but to ensure 9/11’s success. He may even
shot it down after consulting Netanyahu, who would have told him to obliterate
the plane. After all, the loss of four special ops was a small price to pay
compared to the all the gains Israel would reap from 9/11. Undoubtedly, the
Sayeret Matkal members who partook in 9/11 had been forewarned that, if
something went wrong that day, their lives might be at risk.
The infamous
Shanksville “hole” may have been from the discarded missile or drone that had
been intended to attack the White House, the real plane wreckage being widely
scattered.
The F-16 pilot(s) who
shot down 93 would have been told to keep silent in the interest of national
security. And Cheney would have known that, if the shoot-down ever became
publicly exposed, he had the best of excuses: “Alas, it was a hard choice, but
I did it for America.”
I would never call 9/11
a “simple” operation. But on a relative
scale, I believe it was simpler than we thought—especially when we understand
it was, essentially, not an American “inside job” but an Israeli “outside
job”:
(1) two
Israeli suitcase nukes in the basements of the Twin Towers;
(2) explosives planted
by the “Israeli art students” at the level of the “airplane strikes”;
(3) either drones or
missiles hitting all targets; the latter launched from one or perhaps even two
Israeli Dolphin-class submarines;
(4) real hijackings,
executed by elite Israeli special forces, who successfully sunk the planes at
sea, with one exception—the botched-up Flight 93, which had to be shot
down.
Had the operatives on
93 played their cards right, they would have stayed in their seats and done
nothing, for the damage to the World Trade Center and Pentagon was already enough
to send America down the path of endless wars for Israel.
Always remember: It was
not “dancing FBI agents” or “dancing Navy Seals” or “dancing flight attendants”
who were caught high-fiving each other, photographing themselves, and
celebrating as thousands of Americans died in agony at the World Trade Center.
NOTES
1. Sara Leibovich-Dar,
“Up in Smoke,” Haaretz, November 21,
2001, http://www.haaretz.com/up-in-smoke-1.75334.
2. Paul Sperry, “Lewin:
Flight 11’s Unsung Hero?” WorldNetDaily,
http://www.wnd.com/2002/03/13281/
3. “CIA asset Susan
Lindauer: Entire US Intelligence Community Knew 9/11 Imminent,” Shadow Citizen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHYGgYEN2GQ&feature=youtu.be, 29-minute mark.
4. Benjamin Netanyahu,
Fighting Terrorism (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1995), p. 125.
5. “Shanksville,
Pennsylvania, on 9/11: The Mysterious Plane Crash Site without a Plane,” 911Blogger, http://911blogger.com/news/2013-02-19/shanksville-pennsylvania-911-mysterious-plane-crash-site-without-plane.
6. “United Airlines
Flight 175,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175.
7. John Lear, “Ghostplane,”
http://ghostplane.blogspot.com/2009/07/john-lears-no-plane-affadavit-no-boeing.html.
8. “Israel Submarine Capabilities,” NTI,
July 30, 2015, http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/israel-submarine-capabilities/.
9. Ibid.
10. Philip Delves
Broughton, “Last words from Flight 11: ‘I can see water and buildings. Oh my
God!’” The Telegraph, Sept 21, 2001, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1341236/Last-words-from-Flight-11-I-can-see-water-and-buildings.-Oh-my-God.html.
11. Simon Romero,
“After the Attacks: Communications; New Perspective on the Issue of Cell Phone
Use in Planes,” New York Times,
September 14, 2001, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/us/after-attacks-communications-new-perspective-issue-cell-phone-use-planes.html.
12. “When Our World
Changed Forever,” Guardian, September
16, 2001, www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/16/news.september11.
13. “Focus on Florida,”
CBS News, September 14, 2001, www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/311268.html.
14. Gail Sheehy,
“Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show,” The New York Observer, February 16, 2004, https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/M.A.Sweeney.html.
15. Charles Lane, Don
Phillips and David Snyder, “A Sky Filled With Chaos, Uncertainty and True
Heroism,” The Washington Post,
September 17, 2001, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/17/a-sky-filled-with-chaos-uncertainty-and-true-heroism/7ccdab74-aee8-47a1-9e4e-9e7d90f519b5/?utm_term=.d5fe60dc9a5c.
16. “Abel Danger's
Field McConnell on 9/11 & the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot,” The Richie Allen Show, March 3, 2017,
starting about 41:50 mark, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2-1PDlDC_E.
17. “Shanksville,
Pennsylvania, on 9/11: The Mysterious Plane Crash Site without a Plane,” 911Blogger, http://911blogger.com/news/2013-02-19/shanksville-pennsylvania-911-mysterious-plane-crash-site-without-plane.
No comments:
Post a Comment