[This article has been modified to take into account some of the points that esbe has raised.]
A growing consensus of Americans (and, in my case, Canadians) believe that 9/11 was a "false flag" operation carried out by the Bush administration and their agents in the American military and intelligence communities. (1)
According to many people who have studied the situation, 9/11 was not caused by 19 Middle-Eastern hijackers; it was an inside job like the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 and the bombing of the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967. (2)
The conspiracy seems to have been aimed at frightening the American people into agreeing to attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.
The intent appears to be to capture Middle-East oil and establish American hegemony before the American economy itself collapses from debt and the greenback falls as the world’s premier currency at the hands of regimes who would like to see it ousted from that place. (3)
According to Michael Meacher, the administration had been negotiating with the Taliban for a pipeline right-of-way through Afghanistan. They had offered a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs and the Taliban refused the gold. (4) Some say that the plans for the invasion of Afghanistan were already in place before 9/11; that the troops were already positioned. They allege that George Bush had the necessary papers to go to war ready for signing on his desk. (5)
In my view, a view which is not shared by many others in the 9/11 Truth Movement, the North and South Towers were not hit by passenger planes, but by remote-controlled drones. These allegations explain the pod the proponent of this view point to on the belly of the aircraft that hit Tower 2, the testimony of an eyewitness that the plane that hit Tower 2 had no passenger windows and was not a passenger jet, and the tight flight manouevres that would have rendered a pilot unconscious and would have been overridden by the plane’s onboard computer. (6)
The people I have found convincing point out that all the aircraft involved in 9/11 were followed from the first indications of abnormality by air traffic controllers, but that neither NORAD nor the Pentagon responded to the emergencies. Certainly the FAA knew by 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 11 that an emergency was playing out, a time well before the first crash. This time allowance would have been sufficient for NORAD to have launched interceptors and have brought down the “airliners.” (7)
Again, the people I have found convincing argue that the North and South Towers, as well as World Trade Center Building 7, were brought down by thousands of cutter charges. This explanation accounts for the explosive auras bursting outwards as they collapsed and the demolition “squibs” observable in the news coverage. The fact that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition is also inferable from the time it took the buildings to collapse (around 8 seconds), and corroborated by reputable architects, engineers, emergency responders, and demolitions experts. (8)
To bring a building down by controlled demolition takes extensive planning over days, if not weeks, moving the date of preparation well back before 9/11. Nineteen Middle-Eastern hijackers with boxcutters could not possibly have engaged in the extensive planning required or have installed thousands of explosives in the three WTC buildings. (9)
According to the view I hold with, which again is not shared by many in the Truth Movement, the Pentagon was hit by a guided missile, as Donald Rumsfeld himself affirmed in a subsequent magazine interview. (10) Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski worked at the Pentagon and went outside on 9/11 to look at the damage. What she saw shocked her. There was no wreckage on the scene (wings, tail, engines, seats, luggage, bodies). There was an entry hole only 20 feet wide. No adjacent windows were smashed. The lawn was not damaged or scorched. She thought the scene consistent with a missile attack, but not with an airplane crash. (11) Government involvement would explain why the FBI confiscated all film footage and released only five inconclusive frames from all the footage available. (12)
Hani Hanjour, alleged to have piloted the “aircraft,” may have been part of the government’s plot insofar as he trained at an American flight school. His instructor said he was average at flying a Cessna. The instructor could not imagine Hanjour flying a 757. When one adds to that the fact that the flight data recorder shows a rapid descent and a bank which a passenger jet could hardly have made and then a precision hit on the first floor of the building which military pilots have said they would find difficult, the hypothesis that Hani Hanjour flew whatever hit the Pentagon becomes too improbable to be believed. (13)
As for the rest of the “hijackers,” the theory is that some of them were paid money to attend flight school, but that is the extent of their role. Mohammed Atta was paid $100,000 on Sept. 11, the payment being made in Washington through a Pakistani ISI general. On 9/11, Atta entered the United States and was photographed at the airport, following which he took a connecting flight back out of the United States. (14) No Arab names appear on any of the flights’ manifests. (15)
The serendipitous survival and discovery of a “hijacker’s” passport in excellent condition near Ground Zero after the total destruction of the North and South Towers is so questionable as to seem impossible. (16) The lack of credibility of such an event must implicate the agents who put the story forward.
At least five of the "hijackers" were found alive and well after 9/11; one was surprised to see his name in the news. This element of the official story is so important that I shall quote at length the evidence refuting it:
“The New PearlHarbor reported evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers are still alive. David Harrison of the Telegraph interviewed two of the men who supposedly died on Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, one of whom said that he "had never even heard of Pennsylvania," let alone died there. The Associated Press reported that Waleed al-Shehri, supposedly on Flight 11, contacted the U.S. embassy in Morocco about two weeks after 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report, nevertheless, suggested that al-Shehri was responsible for stabbing one of the flight attendants shortly before Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.” (17)
is quite right. But even without all those compelling issues the simple fact that the 9/11 was immediately treated as an act of war instead of a felony crime as it really was impeded the rule of law aand judiciary investigation and pushed aside the matter of the Trial. Without aatrial there is no result especially when we find out that some of the 'perpetrators' are still alive. As such all the Bush propaganda and war are based on the version, nothing more and on behalf of all US citizens whoever would like to join me I apologize fo our bizarre stupidity which eventually resulted in loss of countless civilians in Iraq and Afgahnistan and also in the loss of our military personnel. Bush gambled on our stupidity and he won. Eat your checkers.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 249 diaries, 3565 comments)
on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 2:08:20 PM
"In the 9/11 Truth Movement’s scenario, as they have been able to discern events so far, the North and South Towers were not hit by passenger planes, but by remote-controlled drones.These allegations explain the observed pod on the belly of the aircraft that hit Tower 2, the testimony of an eyewitness that the plane that hit Tower 2 had no passenger windows and was not a passenger jet, and the tight flight manouevres that would have rendered a pilot unconscious and would have been overridden by the plane’s onboard computer. (6) "
Esbe: The "9-11 truth movement" is nowhere near as myopic or monolithic as this paragraph implies. You have taken a particular theory and presented it as though most if not all who consider themselves deprived of the truth by the government, are in lock-step regarding two theories which -in fact- most serious government skeptics do not take seriously.
I do not believe the aircraft which hit the twin towers were "drones", nor do I believe that most people who consider themselves "9/11 truthers" believe this theory. So why do you imply they do?
It's demonstrably absurd on it's face; ALL modern commercial jet liners have GPS systems connected to autopilot. One would only need to re-plot the flight path of the flights using the tools available in every flight. No need to build "drones"; every commercial airliner can be programmed as to altitude and flight path.
Secondly, you'd have to account for at least 3 missing commercial aircraft and hundreds of people. Now why the hell would anyone formulate a plan that complicated when it wouldn't accomplish anything one bit different than simply using the GPS and autopilot programing to put the towers in the flight path?
Third, this so-called "pod": If the towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives, there's no point in putting a missle or bomb under the plane is there. And I've already explained that there's no reason a "pod" needed to be there as far as flying the planes "remotely".
I believe 9-11 was absolutely an inside job. I also believe that the so-called "truth movement" has been fully infiltrated by disinformationists who's sole purpose is to create theories so absurd as to discredit the movement. I believe that your paragraph, whether intentional or not, is ample evidence of disinformation's toxic, debilitating effects. The "pod", and "drone" theories are demonstrably absurd, and do not reflect the beliefs of a majority of serious 9/11 truth seekers.
"An unconcious agent is an effective agent".
-Esbe
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 3:12:52 PM
That is a good point, Esbe. I have been going on the sources I've read or watched. (See www.freewebs.com/truthseeker22/.) The literature is very large and I don't claim to have read it all.
But you're right. I had vaguely heard that some 9/11 Truth people (I have no idea of who or how many) do not agree with the notion of a drone with a pod. Though I had not come across it in the literature, I thought it was a very small number. Next time I'll make it clear that I agree with the people who agree with the "drone" theory and not with the people who don't.
Drone technology is highly refined in the States. It has regularly been used on planes that take part in jet-crash studies. It has been an available technology in covert ops since the 60s (witness the Northwoods Document).
Your theory of putting a plane on "autopilot" doesn't make sense to me because it would seem to allow the pilot to continue to talk to the tower and the pilot did not talk to the tower. If you're saying that pilot communications were also somehow jammed, well, you may be right. But I prefer the simpler theory, which is that a drone was used.
Besides, the one eyewitness to the South Tower crash, a Fox news employee I believe, said the plane had no passenger windows and was not like any passenger plane he had ever seen.
None of us knows the truth. That's in the nature of this work. The criminals who perpetrated 9/11 have done their best to hide it, usually invoking "national security." We are almost always in the position of guessing on the basis of the best information possible, that we have read.
I can say what sounds contradictory, implausible, credible, etc., but I cannot say what is true.
To answer your question about the four flights, I have no way of knowing whether there actually were four, or less or more, and, if there were, what happened to the people. Did Flight 93 land in Cleveland? What about the plane that was said to have crashed near Camp David which we heard about for one day and then never again? Only the perpetrators know what happened on that day and they are not saying.
Thanks for correcting me on the fact that there is not a consensus on the drone theory.
Steve Beckow
by
Steve Beckow (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 5:31:48 PM
It is wonderful to see more people coming out with assertions that the US Admin was involved in 9/11. However it is important to realize that the greatest tool which the supporters of the official conspiracy theory have is dispute between truth seekers.
The way to avoid providing this tool to the shills is to first do some research and make a list of the things which are indisputable and another for the things which are in dispute. You will find that there is ample evidence for explosives in the demolition of the three buildings and ample evidence for a cover up which implies guilt.
A good place to start in at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. There you will find peer reviewed papers which can be trusted http://journalof911studies.com/
by
gravity32 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 173 comments)
on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 8:23:55 PM
I am confused about the images of planes hitting the towers. People who were watching TV images of the crashes saw shadowy forms hitting the buildings and penetrating them like a knife through butter, with no initial explosions; only the huge blasts on the other sides. Some people are attributing these images to "computer graphics" and saying that there were no actual planes. Yet, the people who were on the scene must have seen actual images of planes. I'm confused about this issue. Who can clarify?
by
Phil Little (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 3:30:21 PM
I am confused about the images of planes hitting the towers. People who were watching TV images of the crashes saw shadowy forms hitting the buildings and penetrating them like a knife through butter, with no initial explosions; only the huge blasts on the other sides. Some people are attributing these images to "computer graphics" and saying that there were no actual planes. Yet, the people who were on the scene must have seen actual images of planes. I'm confused about this issue. Who can clarify?
by
Phil Little (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 3:30:25 PM
I am not qualified to speak on the allegations that computer graphics were involved in the 9/11 newscasts. I personally believe that aircraft struck the Twin Towers, though not passenger jets.
Inevitably someone asks: What about the passengers? That remains a matter that I do not have an answer for. I too would like to know the fate of the passengers.
The best photo I have seen of the plane that allegedly hit the South Tower is the 35 mm photo taken by Rob Howard. It can be found, about 3/4 of the way down the page, at:
Of late, my attention has been drawn more to the dangers of depleted uranium and the need to prevent a second 9/11 and a subsequent war with Iran. Unfortunately, matters did not stop with 9/11. They continue to unfold and the danger of the situation increases.
Steve
by
Steve Beckow (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments)
on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 4:12:23 PM
I thank you for your prompt response. It seems, in the light of so many comments from professionals, the maneuvers of the planes were so extreme that even the most expert pilots would have had difficulty executing them. Therefore, the drone hypothesis makes sense. And we do know that the technology exists. With so much empirical evidence supporting the idea that the destruction of the buildings could be only achieved by controlled demolition, one thing is beyond doubt. That is that Joseph Goebbels' "big lie" statement was a valid insight.
Many people are simply incapable of believing that such a dastardly act could be committed. Yet, more and more individuals seem to accepting the hard truth.
In the meantime, I share your fear of a coming Iran debacle. The consequences of attacking Iran are truly terrifying. Problem is, most people aren't even aware of its imminence - and that's no accident. If it does start, we may well on our way to calamity. The use of depleted uranium, with its dire consequences, is another disaster which receives practically no publicity. Thank you for your efforts. Phil Little
by
Phil Little (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at 5:13:03 PM
8 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
