if the plane was shot down. there was no barbara olson call. the debris was over eight miles of area. what in the world does this signify? I have no clue. there must have been terrorists in the fighter jet that hijacked the entire relativity of the space time continuum!

that's it. any one who can allow any other conspiracy theory should not be tolerated. Elmer Fudd , head of homeland insecurity must issue an orange and purple alert until the treasonous persons who are destroying the democratic processes via main scream murderer has had time to analyze this false information. hannity, o'reilly, limpbow, etc. will give the real scenario on right ( not wrong ) swing radio.

wolfie howls at the mooooooon.

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 12:57:08 AM

  (0+)

How does the alleged shoot-down of Flight 93 prove that Barbara Olson did not call her husband from Flight 77?

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:50:04 AM

  (0+)

That unreliable multi-billion dollar Failure Being Irrelevant!

Woofington Post

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 1:02:09 PM

  (0+)

Well, lets have these people testify under oath in public. It’s anonymous but it’s from “ex”CIA Wayne Madsen. We’ll see, won’t we?

ALSO STILL HOT BREAKING NEWS!!!

The Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal! (Open Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 2, 2008, pg. 35-40, an open, online journal published by Bentham.org Open Access) of

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

by Dr. Steven E. Jones, Dr. Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley, 

 If you're tired of waiting over 6 years for the NIST WTC 7 Report, have questions about the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2 and want the scientific community to know about and address these 14 points, then please

DIGG the Journal article here:

 Fourteen Points of Agreement: World Trade Center Destruction

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1110 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:43:22 PM

  (0+)

Lemme get this straight.....the plane was shot down. The hole in the ground is small but big enough for the plane to go nose first straight in and disappear with very little debris. What kind of ammo was used? A single bullet to the head of the pilot? That wouldn't work. A Stinger? Nope, that would've made a huge mess....and no tiny hole. This doesn't match up with what has been claimed thus far. Sounds like lies are being stacked on lies.

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:33:18 AM

  (0+)

Sooner or later there might be enough heat and a different government willing to have a real open investigation.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 9:13:20 AM

  (0+)

Competing with what you have just posted is a conspiracy theory that points an accusing eye at the delays in the response of requests to the Air Force to scramble jets to respond to the 911 crisis and the delay in the Air Force response to get jets in the air to the point where everything was over before the USAF could respond. To which I have often responded that those delays make sense from a number of standpoints that arent necessary to elaborate on here.

If you are going to put forward this theory of yours, you need to research that theory and debunk it, if you can.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 9:21:45 AM

  (0+)

See my comment on 4/21/ am

by crispy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:09:22 AM

  (0+)

Has anyone asked the candidates if they'd convene a real, independent 911 Commission? As huge and diverse as the "911 Truth Movement" is, it remains a circulation of information within a "choir". The question should be asked of the candidates again and again and .... so that, ultimately, the question itself becomes "news". Surely there's SOMEBODY that's high profile enough to pose the question in a public forum. 

by Bill Willers (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 50 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:18:32 AM

  (0+)

Such a lurid claim as this needs calm scrutiny.  Frankly, the author needs to show some credibility.

1.  The claim that there is an 8 mile debris field is news to me.  I would like to see where this information comes from.  Can the author please document this?

2.  I am certainly not a defender of nor admirer of Vice President Cheney.  Nor am I convinced the story is true.  However, if it were  true, and if I had been in his position at that moment, or if you were, we might certainly make the decision to shoot down the airliner if we could, if we already knew that the hijackers were on a suicide mission to crash the plane into a strategic target.  What other choice would we have?  Let the airliner crash into another populated building in a major metropolitan city? 

by Carl H. Carlson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM

  (0+)

Its so easy to do a search and find evidence of this information. Ever hear of google? search : 8 mile debris field flight 93

click here one is saying they didnt do what they had to do. I think the point is why did they lie and cover it up? what else is lies and deceit? 

by rsharpe03 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM

  (0+)

I think that it is amazing that the link has changed just since I posted this. Coincidence?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/penn.attack/

by rsharpe03 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:39:14 AM

  (0+)

...is that we keep all fronts in 911 Truth alive.  Because we really do not have a "fair and balanced" media, we have to resort to "tabloiding" the topic to keep it on the mind's of concerned people.

By far and away, the most convincing evidence for conspiracy exists at Ground Zero (WTC).  But without the edges of the conspiracy showing their thinness, media needs only focus on repeating the lies about one site, rather than all three.

I have not seen the movie, Flight 93, for the very reason that I do not believe that "cellphones" work on passenger aircraft, and I also do not believe a passenger jet can collide at one point in the ground while also spreading debris across 8 miles.  I think the earliest information as to the absurdity of the Flight 93 story was published on "LetsRoll911.org," which, while disappointing, made alot of sense to me.

Another morsel of information on the whole idea that the Northeast corridor could have been "gamed" by Washington insiders is the fact that the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was disbanded by Defense Secretary Richard Cheney.  This left the FAA, Air Force and NORAD in charge of deciding amongst themselves whether a threat exists and what to do about it.  When SAC presided over the airspace, everyone knew where they would be getting their orders from.  Once the authority was placed back into the executive Whitehouse, the system would be that much easier to "game."

I don't think there's any serious debate against the idea that Dick Cheney "gamed" the air defense infrastructure on 9/11.  If there is, please let me know and I can cough up the information that closes the door on that little bit of mythology.

What folks in 911 Truth don't realize is that it's not an information issue that we are dealing with here...it's a Communication issue.  And this issue cuts at the heart of human perception and the ability of the human nervous system to tolerate cognitive dissonance long enough to listen to a potentially important piece of information. 

Generally speaking, cognitive dissonance causes the human brain to simply shut down and shut-out the dissonant information.  Only those who have been trained by professionals, or circumstances, can see through the conflicting messages, the smoke and mirrors, to what is relevant.  Not to say that we do not get it "wrong" sometimes or that investigation isn't important.  But I do mean to suggest that we have our hands and heads around information that is absolutely toxic to the credibility of the whole of Washington culture.  As such, this is an emotion-laden issue that will require some communication skill to untangle.

I think the folks at "911WeKnow" have started us on the right path.  The presenter of the information sounds like every person's fantasy-mother as she speaks difficult truths to our childlike mind's.  Presenting difficult information by understanding the communication problem the information presents is more effective than just doing a "core dump" into the public domain.

Please remember that as we go after the remaining 15% who want to believe in lies rather than believe that they could be responsible for their own realities.

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:14:20 AM

  (0+)

any legitimacy the movement might have. I am officially on the fence regarding anything more than the administration being negligent on the warnings and then manipulating the aftermath to attack Iraq.

This kind of hurling crap against the wall and seeing what sticks will not help. Of that I assure you.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:36:20 AM

  (0+)

Third eye blind refers to you. You will not see because you can not find it in your power to, or over come the fear!

No body wishes that it were true. Yet, what is reality we must accept or forever be untuned to the frequencies of our universe.

I believe you will find a way to over come your dis-abilities through love and understanding.

Wolfie knows he is in the prescence of G-D when he shows his fidelity to Steven.

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 1:10:04 PM

  (0+)

"I am officially on the fence regarding anything more than the administration being negligent."

Mr. Leser, please take the time to watch this brief youtube video and then ask yourself what was it that caused those huge explosions? Secondly, how did these men know that Building 7 was about to come down?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0&NR=1

What is most troubling and this has been validated, the Bush administration had been spying on the American people three months prior to 9/11. And now, after such a horrendous attack and if this administartion is so dam! worried about "keeping us safe" why are the borders of this country so porous?  Why? Beacuse it was never about "terrorism." It's been one huge scam.

We needed a new Pearl Harbor in order to start the illegal war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Caspian Sea pipline and taking control of the flow of Middle Eastern oil as to then dictating policy in the region. 9/11 was the PNAC plan and a credulous America cowering in fear fell for the lies.  Meanwhile our liberties are being taken away from us right under our noses. What a brilliant plan! Keep the sheeple fearful and then take away their freedoms i.e. habeas corpus.

America, we hardly new ya!

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 2:30:05 PM

  (0+)

...which is why the Catholic Church and other men in funny hats have been able to get huge swaths of people to believe incredibly stupid s*t for over 2,000 years.

So, by your standard, no one should ever present any information since the gold standard is, "easy debunkability."

Truth is controversial since, by its very nature, requires no defense from anyone at any time.  It doesn't even require a democratic majority to believe in it in order for it to be what it is.

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 3:34:44 PM

  (0+)

I can't believe it. Are you ignoring people like Mike Ruppert and Indira Singh? Besides the fact that the official story is full of holes, do you think that any kind of Boeing that isn't carrying bombs could take down one of those buildings? Measured in BTUs, there is not enough energy in the aircraft to knock down the buildings. Period. There has to be an additional energy source.

by GitarChris (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments) on Thursday, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:03:03 PM

  (0+)

Well said Richard.

"What folks in 911 Truth don't realize is that it's not an information issue that we are dealing with here...it's a Communication issue."

This is precisely what Jon Gold at 911blogger is attempting to convey. Now it's just getting this reticent and complict corporate media to do their dam job. This is what pisses me off most, knowing the facts are there to report, but this corporate media refuses to do so.

I would imagine this media would like keep all of the pertinent information from the credulous people who continue to believe the "official" story, the one we were spoon fed. Because hey, that is what they we were told and we're suppose to believe it. Why would they lie to us? Really! It's not as though they have an agenda? Or do they!

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 1:19:37 PM

  (0+)

This is like saying "The Democrats need to get one story straight or they lack credibility." There are all sorts of Democrats everywhere. They have different positions. While unity of purpose in general is required (would be nice;), lock step unity is not and will never occur.

The 911 Truth movement is no different. It's a label that you apply. It can refer to a wide variety of orgnaizations that post all sort of things but call it "911 Truth" and it's a convenient target. I'm not saying you're doing that intentionally but that's the outcome whenever it's done. 

I want 911 Truth which means I want a real investigation not one coreographed by Phillip Zelikow and managed by two "don't rock the boat" politicians, one with a record of coverups (Hamilton-Irangate).

I don't just want it, I demand it (not that that matters;).

These investigations leave gaping holes. The 911 Commission in particular relied on a director, Zelikow, who had worked in the Bush administration before he assumed the role with the commission and was very close with Condi Rice, who is guilty of lying at least (to the nation-we'd never suspect plans would be used as weapons).

Here's a charge. It's got enough specifics to it to investigate. Why not have an investigation of these specifics and settle the issue?

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 484 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 2:32:41 PM

  (0+)

First I had a gut feeling that something was seriously amiss with the "official story" -an informed gut feeling, to be sure, but my own eyes and basic horse sense told me that those towers couldn't have just fallen the way they did. Later I continued to find discrepancies and unanswered questions all pointing in that direction, and the invasion of Iraq confirmed my worst fears about the Neocons'  motives.

Of course, I was not encumbered by delusions about what's been going on in this country either, so I didn't have any emotional block, except my outrage!

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:27:51 AM

  (0+)

9/11: UNITED 93 DATA PROVIDED BY US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT OBSERVED EVENTS

by rob balsamo (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 37 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 12:03:01 PM

  (0+)

& I'll try to be brief (as always) --

buried in plain sight in this story is another topic no one has mentioned, which in and of itself is reason for suspicion and tantamount to an admission of guilt!

* the Bushitler regime found it necessary to have one (or more) of their own operatives ON the 9/11 commission (Zelikow?) - and to have review and editing power over what was said in the final report...

* the Bushitler regime delayed any investigation and then underfunded it AFTER stacking the panel with it's own co-conspirators... they first wanted Kissinger to head it!

* the Military Industrial Complex is behind the whole affair and their thinking patterns and tracks are evident all along the trail -- when a weapons platform like a jet or helicopter is in danger of being targeted they blow out "chaff" which is designed to confuse the targeting system of the opposing force... A lot of the stories blown out by the propaganda operation behind this are just that... chaff. Glittering debris meant to confuse the folks who are hot on their tail...

by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 1:14:11 PM

  (0+)

The official 9-11 story line, orchestrated by Zelikow (think shiny brown nose), has turned out to be a pure fairy tale, complete with ghosts and goblins.

Student hijackers on expired visas not on any manifest list, planes and dwindling fires bringing giant skyscrapers straight down into their own footprints at free fall, skip building 7, coming down all by itself in 6.5 seconds and not even getting hit, the stuff a teacher's pet might make up in 3rd grade class for the students to hoop and holler about.

Once the scientific facts are officially revealed to the nation (think controlled demolitions in all 3 buildings) their fairy tale will finally be evaporated in thin air.    

by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 2:57:24 PM

  (0+)

...Pilots for 911 Truth has refused to answer a simple question I put to them, long ago, as to the purpose of putting forward pictures of two different Flight Data Recorders (FDRs) and representing them BOTH as absolutely the same one used in Flight 77 (the one that hit the Pentagon).  I have the videos ordered from "Pilots for 911 Truth" that demonstrably show two similar, but different, presentations of the FDR data, but with two different FDR models displayed.

Until they answer my question as to which FDR is which, I wouldn't trust a damn thing they say as a primary source.

So respect healthy skepticism in all these matters.  Disinfo takes many forms and has many uses -- not the least of which is simply running out the clock on any investigation.

Also...be understanding of people who simply will not see the obvious because they will NOT believe that which requires knowledge of information that is simply, "beyond belief."  Perception REQUIRES belief in order to function correctly.  The devastation of psychological trauma is that it makes perceptions extraordinarily difficult to accept, much less believe.

And also know that psychological trauma cuts in both directions -- you can believe nonsense in the absence of credible information to the contrary.  So fight to keep your mind open and supple until the evidence for shutting it on an issue becomes impossible to reject.

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 3:04:25 PM

  (0+)

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your comment, however i dont remember getting any questions about the specific pictures we used in our film. The pictures were just generic pictures to show what Recorders looked like. However, if its the information you seek, why not contact the NTSB yourself for your own copy of the information?

Many common arguments/claims against our work are addresed here.

You are specifically looking for the NTSB Contact information in Claim 4.

However, i'll post it here as well.

4. Claim - The Information that P4T has analyzed may not be from the NTSB (P4T may have fabricated the information and claims it came from the NTSB)

csv file download and cover letters provided by Undertow
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=64

Raw data decode provided by Undertow
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=4574

Animation cover letters/envelope provided by Snowgrouch
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=375

Animation cover letters provided by Mick Harrison
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=6205

Reserved - More forthcoming

Animation provided by Third party on google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6529691284366443405&q=AA77+Animation

George Washington University NTSB Data
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

NTSB FOIA Website
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/foia_fri.htm

NTSB FOIA Contact - Melba D. Moye
202-314-6000

NTSB FOIA Request form -
http://www.ntsb.gov/pubmail/pubmail.asp

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Rob

by rob balsamo (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 37 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:05:31 PM

  (0+)

Just answer the one question, please don't blast a commercial at us about how or why your research group is credible/cooperative.

The presenter, not you, made a point of stating that the FDR's displayed in his powerpoint presentation were the EXACT FDR's used in Flight 77.  And they were two completely different FDR's.

I realize that none of this dismisses the fact that the FDR data presented showed Flight 77 some 100+ feet over the top of the Pentagon at the end of the recording...nor does it explain away the presence of the E4B hovering over DC on 9/11, as opposed to being near the President who was reading, "My Pet Goat" in Florida at the time. 

However, the presenter of the information in your films was obviously British, obviously interested/involved in the information/research, and nowhere mentioned on your site (that I could see) when I purchased those films for viewing. 

The whole matter wreaks of a disinformation campaign designed to lead otherwise intelligent people down the bunny trail.

For example, if the actual collision that took place was, in fact, a Skyhawk under remote control (via the E4B flying in the area), what better way to distract attention away from the truth than to produce a complicated, not easily decipherable FDR data file (that could readily be faked by an expert of which there are precious few) and add unexpected details that contradict the official story in self-contradicting ways.

It's much, much easier to throw out the whole line of research in this area than it is to concern ourselves with which angle of approach Flight 77 took on its way into the Pentagon.  In the first place, Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.  That little bit of inconvenient information must be tacitly accepted before we even begin to examine the premise of the information P4T presents: that the government provided prima facie evidence of conspiracy through an FIOA request submitted by members of your group.

Nothing the size of Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11.  Insufficient debris field and insufficient impact damage evidence slams that door completely shut.  Ergo, there is a government conspiracy to coverup the events of 911.  Period.  End of story.  If you and your group want to expend hundreds of person hours inserting yourselves into the Truth Movement out of the kindness of your hearts, feel free. 

What I know is that I asked a simple question on multiple occasions and I've received complicated answers EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Looks good to everyone but the person who asked the simple question that could be readily dismissed with a simple explanation in the first place.

Clever, cute, but it doesn't make your group a credible primary source of 9/11 information.

WHAT THIS COULD MEAN IS THIS: Pilots for 911 Truth is a government group whose purpose is the gathering of intelligence on the movement itself and assessing the threat it poses to how Washington DC is doing business these days.

And that means we have them spooked, which is where they should be.  Anyone who can justify participating in the systematic murder of 3,000+ innocent human beings, and then another 5,000+ warfighters to no good end, needs to spend the rest of their natural lives SPOOKED and looking over their fetid shoulders.

Enjoy yourselves and the money you have never controlled the value of, ever.

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:27:48 PM

  (0+)

Thanks again for your comment.

The presentation you speak of was done by Calum Douglas (aka Snowygrouch on internet forums) and has been a member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth since our inception in Aug 2006. Calum is listed on our core member page under researchers. Calum is a UK researcher and an engineering student and Oxford-Brookes University (he isnt a pilot) who initially obtained the animation from the NTSB and alerted me regarding the information through the old Loose Change Forums (this was before P4T even existed). If you go to the NTSB website, you can download the pdf's of the pictures Calum used. You can also find them in the above links. It is the NTSB who claims these "black boxes" came from AA77, not P4T.

By the way, one theory regarding the pentagon attack is of a "Skywarrior", not a Skyhawk.. If you are going to promote a theory, you should perhaps know the type.

Pilots For Truth does not endorse the A-3 Skywarrior theory. We do not offer any theory. We find conflicts within data provided by the govt and record them on the phone seeking answers (among other petitions). If that makes us disinfo in your eyes, i dont suppose anyone who doesnt subscribe to your particular theory will pass your "disinfo" litmus test.

Regards,

Rob

by rob balsamo (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 37 comments) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:02:17 AM

  (0+)

...you have Calum saying, with conviction, that, "this is the exact model of FDR," in two different slide presentations, providing no background as to why the models differed, and now you want to blame the government for this bit of sophistry??

Bottom line: Flight 77, a Boeing 757, did NOT crash into the Pentagon.  What crashed into the Pentagon I do not know, but I do know that alot of people jumped on the "Skywarrior" bandwagon based on PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE.  These were folks who knew about BRIDAS and the oil deal that the Argentinians were cheated out of in the Summer of 2001. 

All of the sudden none of that painstaking photographic evidence and research mattered anymore as one of the more credible proponents of the A-3 Skywarrior theory had a son in harm's way in Iraq.  But that is all I know on that subject.

Again, Pilots for 9-11 Truth seem to be able to obtain amazing amounts of FOIA information and access from one of the most secretive, lawless administrations in American history.  This suspicious access coupled with P4T's complete inability to start with obvious, photographic matters of fact lead me to believe that you guys are just looking for leaks in the military industrial complex so that you can "plug" them.

It's nothing personal, Rob, I just don't trust you as a primary source of information and I don't think anyone in the movement should, either.

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:16:56 PM

  (0+)

There were no signs of bodies, blood, baggage, or identifiable parts of large aircraft found at either the Pentagon or Shanksville, and the 9/11 Commission Report accounts of Fights 77 and 93 can’t be squared with what Pilots for 9/11 Truth found out from the data from flight recorders alleged to have been aboard those flights. This leaves wide open the questions of what really happened.

I have hypothesized that both of those flights landed in Cleveland during the period the airport was closed for “a bomb scare” (whoever ordered that closure conveniently prevented witnesses from seeing those planes close up). And, yes, this means Barbara Olson lives (quite comfortably I’m sure). As David Ray Griffin documents in his latest book, 9/11 Contradictions – An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, Ted Olson contradicted the initial version of his story and later on the FBI contradicted both versions.

So how might insider conspirators (with high level Air Force connections) have pulled off the 9/11 attacks? Go here to find my detailed hypotheses of how it was likely done in the cases of Flights 77, 93, 11, and 175:

http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/publish/dlgriscom/911Research

by David Griscom (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 51 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:03:16 PM

  (0+)

.  .  . that Flight 93 was shot down, if it was, that was a good thing!

If Flight 93 was shot down, the only casualties were the unfortunate people on the plane.  If it had proceeded to whatever target it had, thousands more could have been killed.

You have just held that the government reacted more responsibly and capably than the 9/11 Commission said it did; with rather little warning, they scrambled the jets, intercepted the aircraft, and executed the drop order.  You'd think that, if that had happened, Vice President Cheney would want to take credit for it. 

by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 193 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:20:10 PM

  (0+)

It is amazing that 7 years later we still have to repeat that 9/11 was not carried out by 19 Arab terrorists armed with boxcutters who hated our freedom nonsense. Osama Bin Laden (OBL) had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 as he himself stressed it on Al Jazeera immediately after the atttack. The criminal government of USA made a blackout on his message so as no one in Western hemisphere was allowed to learn about it. Then, 2 months later the gangsters came up with a video purporting to show OBL admitting the attack and gloating about it. However, as 'Loose Change 2' reveals, the boogeyman of CIA's video does not resemble the real OBL in various aspects. So much for accusations and lies and fearmongering.
Concerning accusations , as Francesco Cossiga, Italy's former president and a CIA agent expert in false flag ops, stated in his November 30th interview with Corriere Della Serra, 9/11 false flag, masterminded by Zionists and the CIA, was intended to stoke hatred towards Muslims and Arabs and pave the way for the illegal invasions of their land to steal oil/land/water or whatever there is to be stolen.
Back to flight 93. There were no hijackers aboard and no passengers neither and the plane was going nowhere. It was a decoy for diversion and story-telling and movie making and putting the sheeple into sleep with the cult of heroism lullaby sort of trash. Everything had been planned in advance Hollywood style and, as usual, nothing had been left to accident.
The last thing is about the dishonest government's 'Negligence' claim. The criminals are cornered and are desperate for an 'honorable' exit. Hence the compromise : O.K, we had some hints and clues that it was about to happen but we slept on it out of pure negligence. We apologize for it and we promise to be much more vigilant next time.
This is pure propaganda and nonsense and bullshit. The massmurderers had been planning their new Pearl Harbor and demolitions way ahead at the time of PNAC's publication in 1997. Everything had been perfectly rehearsed. Phony messages had been sent to foreign embassies and secret services abroad that an attack was imminenet, to make it sound as if it was an external threat.
What the criminals had not figured out was the protracted war in Iraq and the power of the Internet in connecting honest and intelligent and concerned citizens together and help bringing out the Truth.
Those who post on this site and uphold the government's phony and misleading 'negligence' and 'Let It Happen' theory are nothing but dishonest individuals working for the gangster government. The moment has come to lift the veil from their ugly faces.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 4:29:45 PM

  (0+)

Flight 93 crashed in that Penn field, and flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Anyone who willfully ignores overwhelming evidence supporting this, simply has another agenda entirely. What's disturbing and confusing, is just why in the world so many people find the simple, admitted to reality that Muslim terrorists seek to destroy lives and property so hard to accept. If they really did shoot down the plane, good for them. But as pointed out earlier, it doesn't make any sense, given the characteristic of the impact. I would suspect that someone is playing with Madsen, or he's playing with us.

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 5:29:37 PM

  (0+)

What is disturbing and confusing is just why in the world so many people find the simple admitted to reality that Z I O N I S T terrorists seek to destroy lives and property so hard to accept.

I would suggest someone is playing with Alan Williams, or he is playing with us.

Go to www.The7thfire.com

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 6:01:35 PM

  (0+)

O.K. .... I guess we know where you're coming from.  Thanks for the insight!!

He said ...... Zionist.......tee hee hee 

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 6:22:44 PM

  (0+)

Don't tell me you missed out on the part about the Z-i-o-nist Mossad agents dressed as Arabs, celebrating and videoing the attack from the Jersey shore?

They were caught on the G Washington Bridge, identity established, and then quietly ferried back to Israel by none other that "Of the Devil" Chertoff, he of dual citizenship with Israel, whose Mom was an original Mossad Zionist.

Silly!

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:39:13 AM

  (0+)

I read 35...then I read 44.  I read that some of the passenger lists don't represent who was actually on each flight...the whole thing stinks of a black operation.

Wayne Madsen, on one or two occasions, has had to leave the country, incognito, because his life has been threatened by the members of the intelligence community that are sympathetic to the machinations of the neo conservatives.

19 Arab students with box cutters -- some of whom are still alive, for some reason -- can not commandeer a commercial airliner through the most protected airspace in the United States.

Mythology.  Easter Bunny level.

What is not mythology is that powerful members of corporate America and their affiliated families have tried, on multiple occasions, to take over the US government for their own purposes.  They may well have succeeded in 1963 with the assassination of a duly-elected President of the United States.

Their first serious attempt at takeover occured during FDR's first term.

The messages, "deregulation is good," "government is bad," are just two of the messages that have been given far too much uncritical airplay since the time of Reagan.  Bureaucracies have their problems regardless of whether they are government-sponsored, or sponsored from within a large company.  But it does NOT follow that government of the people, by the people and for the people is a BAD thing.

However, government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation is, decidedly, toxic to biotic life on this planet.

The ONLY way that corporatism -- fascism -- has a chance at survival is if it stays in control of all the weaponry and information that only a governmental authority could legitimately -- or surreptiously -- obtain.

9/11 was a major power grab on the part of the fascists against the democratic system of governance both in the US and elsewhere.  That is my thesis and that is my understanding of the events of 9/11 and their subsequent coverup.

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:15:06 PM

  (0+)

The "overwhelming" evidence used to paint the White House scenario is actually cherry-picked and disputed to the hilt. Read this article to see what I mean:

by ROWLAND MORGAN - More by this author » Last updated at 12:27pm on 19th August 2006

Comments (34)

Let's roll: but was Flight 93 shot down? Click on image for another scene from the film and an aerial view of the crash site.

The heart-thumping moment came when when passengers on board one of the hijacked 9/11 jets fought back against the ruthless fanatics hellbent on crashing the plane into the heart of America.

Jumping out of their seats to a rallying cry of ‘Let’s roll!’, they charged towards the front of the Boeing 757 and began smashing down the cockpit door to reach the hijackers at the controls.

Amid the desperate commotion, the plane rolled violently from right to left and pitched up and down as the rogue pilots tried to throw the passengers beyond the door off balance. As the struggle continued, the cockpit voice recorder captured the hijackers urgently discussing whether to ditch the plane. ‘Is that it? Shall we finish it off?’ asked one of the fanatics.

‘No, not yet. When they all come, we finish it off,’ was the reply. Minutes later, at10.03am, with the same voices shouting in Arabic, ‘Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest,’ the plane headed down, banked hard right and rolled on to its back. It smashed into an empty field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at its top speed of 580mph and exploded into a massive fireball.

Evidence suggests a sinister twist

The flames set nearby woods on fire as the impact sprayed body parts and other debris into the trees and up into the sky, to float to earth as far as eight miles away.

This, then, is the legend of United Airways Flight 93, one that has been vigorously promoted in a stream of books and films, most recently in the £9.6 million Hollywood movie United 93. It is the story of how 33 innocent passengers and seven crew gave their lives to save countless others as their plane flew kamikaze-style towards the White House or the Capitol in Washington.

To a nation still reeling from the attacks on New York’s World Trade Centre and the Pentagon that same September morning, these were men and women every bit as heroic as those who had fought at the Alamo.

Yet my own exhaustive investigations have led me to conclude that the story of Flight 93 is far from being the straightforward account of supreme courage that the authorities would have us believe.

Instead, the real story is mired in cynical manipulation and warmongering propaganda. I am convinced there is evidence to suggest a wholly sinister twist to the tale that already holds pride of place in American folklore. For I believe that Flight 93 may well have been deliberately shot down as a means of stopping it from reaching its ultimate target — even at the expense of the 40 blameless people on board. It is a suspicion that was held even by the FBI, but was swept aside as a shaken America clung on to the official version of selfless sacrifice and raw patriotism.

Today, with the approach of the fifth anniversary of 9/11, some will still say that such speculation only serves to lend comfort to terrorists and does a disservice to the dead.

Others, however, will feel there are too many disquieting circumstances and unanswered questions to simply ignore.

But let us examine the evidence — so that you can come to your own conclusion. The massive impact caused the entire plane to disappear 30ft deep into the earth, telescoping down on itself and crushing everyone and everything inside the fuselage beyond recognition.

Why did the engines go missing?

However, the absence of any significant debris — including tailplane and wings — bewildered witnesses, relatives and, more importantly, some crash experts.

They found it hard to believe that an airliner up to 155ft long, with two engines each weighing more than six tons, could have penetrated the ground so completely as to utterly disappear. Had it, in reality, been blown to pieces in mid-air?

Certainly it is unclear how a single piece of fuselage the size of a dining room table could have been recovered from a marina in Indian Lake, a couple of miles away from the crash site — unless it fell from the sky during an aerial break-up.

But a bigger mystery is why the engines went missing.

Considering their weight, they should have plunged deep into the earth along with the rest of the airliner.

Yet they weren’t in the crater and only a one-ton segment of an engine was ever recovered, again more than a mile from the crash site. The FBI said, unconvincingly, that it had ‘bounced’ there.

The FBI also claimed metal fragments found up to eight miles away could have been carried there by the wind, even though the breeze was very light.

Witnesses said nothing was left at the crash site, yet the FBI belatedly claimed to have made two sensational discoveries — a red bandana and a passport allegedly belonging to the hijackers.

Very conveniently, these turned up as prosecution evidence earlier this year at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the socalled 20th hijacker and only terrorist to be convicted over the 9/11 atrocities.

If flight 93 was shot down, there must have been a fighter jet in the skies to unleash a guided missile.

The U.S. government has admitted that two F-15s were flying above New York City before 9am on September 11 and three F-16s were patrolling over Washington by 9.40am. They could have reached Shanksville in minutes.

According to investigative writer David Ray Griffin, several witnesses saw two F-16s tailing Flight 93 minutes before it went down.

Twelve eyewitnesses state seeing another jet nearby.

They claim they saw an F-16 move closer in and fire what were probably two Sidewinder missiles, one of them catching at least one of the Boeing’s huge engines, after which the ‘plane dropped like a stone’.

Someone else ‘heard a loud bang’ and saw the airliner plummet. A Vietnam War veteran said he ‘heard a missile’, a sound he knew well. It is debatable how seriously we should take these reports. But there are numerous and highly credible witness accounts of a mysterious white jet being seen after Flight 93 went down.

Jim Brant, owner of the Indian Lake marina where debris was found, said he heard the roar of jet engines overhead, then saw a fireball rise into the air. He looked up and noticed a white plane circling the wreckage. ‘It reminded me of a fighter jet,’ he said.

Another resident, Tom Spinelli, said: ‘I saw the white plane. It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something. I saw it before and after the crash.’

He said it had high tail wings and no markings on it. John Feegle, another witness, said: ‘It didn’t look like a commercial plane. It had a real goofy tail on it, like a high tail. It circled around, and it was gone.’

Dennis Decker and his friend Rick Chaney were also close to the impact site. ‘As soon as we looked up we saw a mid-sized jet flying low and fast,’ said Decker.

‘It appeared to make a loop or part of a circle, and then it turned fast and headed out.’ Decker and Chaney described the jet as white with no markings. Decker added: ‘It was a jet plane, and it had to be flying real close when that 757 went down. If I was the FBI, I’d find out who was driving that plane.’

A total of 12 eyewitnesses are on record as having seen the white jet. One witness, Susan McElwain, complained that the FBI told her there was no plane and did not note down her account.

However, amid the growing furore over the sightings, the FBI was forced to offer an explanation, which again many found unconvincing.

It claimed the jet was a passing civilian Fairchild Falcon 20 that was asked to descend to 5,000ft some minutes after the crash to give co-ordinates for the site. The plane and pilot have never been produced or identified.

The military’s role in 9/11 is a mystery.

One commentator pointed out: ‘The reason why this seems so implausible is that, first, by 10.06am on September 11, all non-military aircraft in U.S. airspace had received orders more than half an hour earlier to land at the nearest airport.

‘Second, such was the density of emergency phone calls from people on the ground in the Shanksville area as to the location of the crash site, that aerial co-ordinates would have been completely unnecessary.

‘Third, with F-16s supposedly in the vicinity, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that, at a time when no one knew for sure whether there might be any more hijacked aircraft still in the sky, the military would ask a civilian aircraft that just happened to be in the area for help.’

The military’s role in 9/11 is shrouded in confusion, ambiguity and inconsistency.

A news report on September 20, 2001, said: ‘America’s defence establishment has disclosed that it ordered its fighter jets to intercept all the passenger aircraft hijacked in last week’s attacks on New York and Washington.’

The report also stated that military intelligence was aware of the hijackings before any of the aircraft had hit their targets.

Three years later, however, the military said it hadn’t heard about Flight 93 until after the plane had crashed — a line accepted by the official 9/11 Commission, which published its findings in July 2004.

The official inquiry said the Federal Aviation Authority — responsible for the security and safety of U.S. civilian aviation — had been incompetent in failing to alert the U.S. Air Force.

But the FAA had already acted quickly in ordering more than 4,000 aircraft to land at the nearest airstrip to avoid any more hijacks. And the military would have learned of Flight 93’s hijack via teleconferences set up by the FAA, the White House and the U.S. Defence Department as events began to unfold on September 11. Richard Clarke, who ran the White House video conference, stated that at 9.27am, the FAA informed both Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, Chief of Defence Staff, of a number of ‘potential hijacks’ including ‘United 93 over Pennsylvania’. Therefore, more than 25 minutes before Flight 93 went down, both Rumsfeld and Myers knew all about it. No wonder the military’s claim to have learned about Flight 93 only after it crashed is dismissed by many as a bare-faced lie.

The FBI was in charge of the investigation.

In other air crashes, information from the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder — the black box recorders — were dealt with in an open manner, with crash investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board discussing the progress of their inquiries with reporters. But in the case of Flight 93, the Transportation Safety Board was not in charge of the investigation — the FBI was.

The black box recorders were reportedly found buried 25ft deep inside the crater. But a threeminute discrepancy in the crash time led to suspicions of foul play.

Seismic records, consolidated from four seismology stations in the region, originally pegged the impact time at 10.06am. It was only later that the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission decreed that the correct impact time to have been at 10.03am.

But Terry Wallace, who heads the Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory and is considered the leading expert on the seismology of man-made events, was puzzled.

He complained: ‘The seismic signals are consistent with impact at 10.06am and five seconds plus or minus two seconds. I don’t know where the 10.03 time comes from.’ So there were two crash times.

Sceptics note that a lot could happen in three minutes — minutes that could be removed from the end of a flight-deck recording to delete evidence of an attack by U.S. jets.

The FBI kept the contents of the voice recorder secret until it was forced by bereaved relatives to play the tape under heavy security at a hotel in April 2002.

The family members later reported they heard sounds of an on-board struggle beginning at 9.58am, with a final ‘rushing sound’ at 10.03am, when the tape fell silent. Could the ‘rushing sound’ have been made by the plane being holed? And what of the moment when the plane hit the ground?

‘There is no sound of the impact,’ said Kenneth Nacke, whose brother Lou had been on Flight 93. There is a further twist. In 2006, when the judge at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui ordered a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, it ended with the sound of the hijackers shouting praises to Allah.

Just where had those praises been in 2002 when the tape was first played to relatives? For many, their sudden appearance confirmed suspicions of tape tampering.

At first, the FBI was keen to show it was keeping an open mind over the fate of Flight 93.

Within days of the crash, Reuters reported from Shanksville: ‘Federal investigators said they could not rule out the possibility that the United Airlines jetliner that crashed in rural western Pennsylvania during this week’s attacks on New York and the Pentagon was shot down.’ ‘We have not ruled out that,’ FBI agent Bill Crowley told a news conference when asked about reports that a U.S. fighter jet may have fired on the hijacked Boeing 757. ‘We haven’t ruled out anything yet.’

Why did Crowley later retract his statement — and on the same day as the U.S. Air Force issued its official denial of any involvement?

At the crux of the legend of Flight 93 are the phones calls passengers are said to have made to their loved ones after the hijackers took control.

These are said to have alerted the passengers to the fact that they were victims of no ordinary hijacking, but a co-ordinated mission by fanatics to strike at the heart of America in New York and Washington. At the same time, a number of passengers allegedly told relatives of their resolve to fight back. Interestingly, phone contact from passengers on the two hijacked planes that hit the Twin Towers and a third jet which crashed into the Pentagon that same morning was scarce to non-existent.

Yet officially there were 35 calls made among the 40 passengers and crew on Flight 93, with callers using either mobile phones or GTE Airfones fitted into the backs of the aircraft seats.

The use of mobile phones is suspect anyway because telecommunications experts say that — given the technology of 2001 — calls at an altitude of six miles could have only occurred by fluke at best. Just as baffling, the FBI insisted there were 13 mobile phone calls — of which there were no billing records — yet reduced this number to just two at the trial this year of Zacarias Moussaoui when the evidence risked being exposed to the harsh light of law.

Why had the FBI failed to put the record straight over the previous four-and-a-half years?

One answer is that it suited the heroism legend to keep silent as the Pentagon banged the drum for war in Iraq.

Mrs Beamer only learned of her husband’s final call four days later.

The 9/11 Commission claimed that five of the calls described the intent of the passengers and crew to revolt against the hijackers. One caller, the Commission said, ended her message with the words: ‘Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.’ But all this begs the question: why did the hijackers allow such a free-for-all of phone calls as they attempted to terrify their hostages?

After all, the hijackers would have realised that experts would have been able to locate the lost aircraft if people were using their mobles.

The most intriguing of the calls is the one said to have been made by Flight 93’s most famous passenger Todd Beamer, whose ‘Let’s roll!’ phrase became a byword for the victims’ heroism and patriotism.

Beamer’s call was said to have been taken by a telephone supervisor working for the Verizon Corporation, owners of GTE Airfones, the gadgets on the airplane seats.

At the time, Verizon had a contract worth £750million for installing a high-security telecoms package across U.S. government departments, including the Pentagon.

One of its supervisors, Lisa Jefferson, an evangelical Christian like Beamer himself, retains a vivid recollection of her 15-minute conversation with him.

After discovering that she shared her first name with Beamer’s wife, they apparently talked about his two little boys and the new baby on the way, Beamer’s fear that he might not make it home, and his faith.

Faced with the awful prospect of dying on board Flight 93, Beamer supposedly recited the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 23 with Mrs Jefferson. He also asked her to promise to call his wife. Mrs Jefferson received a Verizon Excellence Award from her bosses for her handling of the call. To some this may have seemed inappropriate.

She had not taken a recording of it, contrary to convention. She had not gone through the routine questions in her distress-call manual. She had not connected this agitated man to his wife waiting anxiously at home. Nor had she informed his wife subsequently of the call as promised.

Mrs Beamer only learned of her husband’s final call four days later, when a representative of United Airlines got in touch.

She says the United Airlines representative told her: ‘The FBI had been keeping the information private until they’ve had the opportunity to review the material. But now they’ve released it, I have a written summary of the call.’

But later Mrs Beamer learned that the FBI had not kept the call so secret after all. Her husband’s boss at his computer company had already spun the story of Beamer the hero aboard Flight 93 before anyone else knew of his phone call.

As for Lisa Jefferson’s evidence, it was single-sourced, unsubstantiated hearsay of which there was no record. For spooks inside a sprawling empire of wires like Verizon, rigging up a phone call to Lisa Jefferson’s headset would have been simple.

‘Let’s roll!’ became the war on terror’s recruitment slogan.

She had no idea what Beamer’s voice sounded like, and she would never hear it again to judge whether he had actually been speaking to her. This year, Lisa Jefferson published a book entitled Called — the story of seeing ‘her life transformed, simply by answering Todd Beamer’s call’.

The blurb added: ‘Jefferson sends a stirring challenge to all of us whether it comes during quiet obscurity or international adversity, we must be prepared to answer God’s call.’

Evangelical Christians throughout America rallied to that call. But one puzzle remains: Todd Beamer’s wife later said she had never before heard of his reciting the Lord’s Prayer in pressure situations. Nor, she added, was Psalm 23 something he often recited.

Todd Beamer's ‘Let’s roll!’ phrase became the war on terror’s recruitment slogan.

President Bush had launched the legend in a speech on September 20, 2001 as he declared his unprecedented ‘war on terror’. Beamer’s story of selfless patriotism, according to the President, was a ‘defining moment’ in American history. Alongside President Bush on this occasion was Todd Beamer’s wife Lisa.

Nobody, of course, would begrudge Mrs Beamer her celebrity, given her tragic circumstances. But her presence undoubtedly helped President Bush’s cause.

The President again invoked her evangelical Christian husband’s courage in another speech a month later.

‘We will no doubt face new challenges,’ said the man widely regarded as having taken office fully intending to attack Iraq. ‘But we have our marching orders. My fellow Americans… let’s roll!’

Such a phrase couldn’t fail to chime with the President’s gung-ho admirers — nor with the 40 million evangelical Christians in the so-called ‘red’ states where the Bush regime had its most fervent support.

Later U.S. Navy personnel would spell out the words 9/11 LET’S ROLL by forming themselves on the deck of a warship bound for Iraq.

Lisa Beamer, always a staunch ally of the White House and its war on terror, had herself photographed unveiling a ‘Let’s Roll’ logo on the side of a U.S. Air Force F-16.

She even sought to have ‘Let’s Roll’ trademarked and signed a six-figure book deal which, along with her seven-figure compensation cheque, made her a rich woman. And in August 2002, just in time for the first 9/11 anniversary, she published her memoir entitled — predictably — Let’s Roll!

The front cover showed the author with the Stars and Stripes and the publisher issued a staggering one million copies in hardback.

Secrecy is the first instinct of any war.

Truly, the Let’s Roll slogan had become a call to arms — just at a time the White House needed it most.

Bush administration not admit its guilt? It could surely have argued that the poor souls lost in the airliner were a tragic but necessary sacrifice in order to prevent horror and destruction on a larger scale in at the Capitol Washington.

Air Force scrambles had been frequent enough in the past. One report said there had been 129 within the U.S. during 2000.

But secrecy is the first instinct of any war department, especially amid reports flooding in of a passenger revolt on the plane.

Any admission of a shooting down must have been ruled out politically because those brave passengers just might have retrieved the controls from fanatical hijackers.

For the U.S. military to have snatched victory from their grasp was unthinkable.

There are countless theories and areas of evidence to examine. There is even a theory that the plane could have blown up because of a bomb on board.

Air traffic controllers on the ground reportedly heard an anonymous voice in the cockpit announce: ‘Ladies and gentleman. Here is the captain. Please sit down and keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit.’

But if Flight 93 had been blown up by a bomb at cruising altitude, its debris area would have covered at least 20 miles, as in the Lockerbie crash.

The 9/11 Commission speculated that the rogue pilot jolted the plane violently in the minutes before the impact to disrupt a passenger revolt.

This in turn led to claims that he might have succeeded in tearing a wing off, or otherwise wrecking the aircraft in mid-air, causing it to crash.

Boeing has refused to discuss this possibility. Such movements, however, could easily have been caused by the pilot attempting to avoid an approaching heatseeking missile homing in on its engines.

EYEWITNESS reports differed from the official story. Along the plane’s route, people confirmed that the Boeing came in from the north-west, but they said it was not nose-diving. Instead it was flying low.

Bob Blair and Linda Shepley saw the plane when it dropped to 2,500ft. Rodney Peterson and Brandon Leventry noticed it at 2,000ft. Terry Butler saw it at about 500ft. Eric Peterson saw the plane at ‘maybe 300ft’.

Lee Purbaugh, a scrap metal worker, was the closest. He told reporters: ‘I heard this real loud noise coming over my head. I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me.

‘It was coming down at 45 degrees and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke.’

Purbaugh’s account was perhaps the nearest of all the witness testimony to the official version of the story. Except for one important element.

Not once did Purbaugh mention the plane being upside down, as the 9/11 Commission, the FBI and the Pentagon all maintained it was.

With such a huge airplane roaring over his head, he could hardly have failed to notice which way up it was.

To some, this cast doubt on the credibility of his reported evidence. To others, it was merely another piece of the Flight 93 jigsaw that failed to fit.

• ADAPTED from Flight 93: What Really Happened On The Heroic 9/11 ‘Let’s Roll’ Flight by Rowland Morgan, published by Constable & Robinson on August 24 at £7.99. © Rowland Morgan 2006 To order a copy (p&p free), call 0870 161 0870.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 113 quicklinks, 240 diaries, 1413 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:59:03 PM

  (0+)

Todd Beamer and Mark Bingham went to the same high school and had connections to the same employer.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:27:14 PM

  (0+)

Alan Williams lives in LALA Land or is a Govt disinformation guy who's never looked at basic info especiallyt CNN footage and info released by the GOt on the Pentagon!
Oh Well...

IGNORANCE IS BLISS

by crispy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:28:39 AM

  (0+)

As a pilot that has flown for 30 years, and having personally witnessed several live military missile target shots. I know an aircraft can be knocked out of the sky by blowing off just a small chunk of a major control surface. Some can stay in the air if under the control of a skilled pilot.

Contrary to common belief, air to air missiles don’t blow an aircraft apart in mid air in to small chunks. The explosion you see in aerial battles from a missile hitting an aircraft is the fuel catching fire and exploding not the missile.

Is it possible? Absolutely.

This is one conspiracy that does have great credibility. Many more wacky conspiracies about 9/11are out there to confuse the general public, like to bombing of the WTC by the government. Yes, your government does do this too to confuse the general public and keep them looking the other way, so to speak.

In fact it is more probable that this aircraft was shot down considering not all the aircraft parts were found within a mile of each other. Yes, there was a smoking hole in the ground where the main aircraft nosed in just as in most catastrophic accidents where aircrat control was lost.

When I worked for the FAA I studied hundreds of crashes.

The current administration does not know exactly how the public would respond to knowing our government shot down one of its own civilian airliners. So they of course would not admit to doing such a thing.

What is very interesting and telling is the FAA controller tapes were destroyed on purpose by the FAA. This tells me there was definitely something there they did not want the public to see under the Freedom of Information Act.

In the military I worked at the Naval Air Test Center where all communication and radar events were recorded. I know, because it was one of my duties to change the tapes. When I worked for the FAA they did the same.

If there was not an accident the tapes were destroyed or recorded over every 30 days. If there was an accident these data tapes were to be kept forever. Everyone understood this order that had lawful access to the equipment, it was no “accident” these tapes were destroyed.

These data tapes would have been changed immediately after the accident or incident and new ones put in place to continue the data recording.

Something really stinks about the data destruction, but only someone that knows the process would understand how very odd this data destruction was and anyone that is still employed by the FAA dare not open their mouth or they face a fate worse than death.

I can personally attest, there is no such thing as Whistle Blower Protection for government employees if the current Administration was involved.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 6:57:55 PM

  (0+)

OK, let's accept that a plane (of some description) was shot down. There's a little problem with the physical debris -- there's just not enough of it. Flight93 was a 757-200 with a wing span of 124 feet. Yet an image of the crash site shows an impact zone only 60 - 75 feet wide. That's 50 feet too small for a 757. Don't believe me? Here's an image showing a car (15 feet long, at most) and the impact zone (5 car lengths = 75 feet). On the evidence available a Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. (see also here and here). On the physical evidence, a smaller plane was shot down -- but I can't say for sure. The EPA found no appreciable jet fuel residue at the impact site. And the real problem is the absence from the wreckage site of any recognizable portions of wings, tails, 100+ seats, luggage or massive engines. Just for comparison, in Aug 2006 a Russian plane, almost identical in size to Fl93, crashed in Siberia. They recovered 140 bodies and huge amounts a debris. But nothing like that at Shankesville.

Also keep in mind that modern, high temperature crematoria take 2 hours to burn bodies yet we are expected to believe that 4 tons of human remains disappeared ("vaporised") in an instant leaving only 500lbs of tissue shreds. The temperatures were simply not high enough to dispose of that volume of human remains in such a small time frame. And we still have a series of technically impossible cell phone calls from Flight 93, some of them from 30,000 feet (including the disturbing Mark Bingham phone call to his mother). There are TOO MANY unanswered questions about Flight 93. Even if the Air Force shot down a plane we still don't know if it was Flight 93. If that sounds unbelievable then let me just say it's a lot MORE believable than cell phone calls from 30,000 feet, a 75 feet impact hole for a plane that is 125 feet wide and a complete absence of wings, tail or fuselage. The public has been kept in the dark and are willing to accept one hypothetical account over another just because it contains a smidgen more believability. Don't the American public understand that they are entitled to KNOW what went on, to SEE all the evidence, to HEAR all the witnesses -- and not have to settle for guessing. Get Bush out of office and hold a real 911 Inquiry.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:05:50 PM

  (0+)

Electrical engineering in the areas of Radar, Navigation, and Communication (including Top Secret Crypto Logic systems) was my major military training and background and the main reason the FAA hired me as a systems specialist along with my skills as a pilot.

Cell phones are not permitted for use in flight because the signal will hit too many cell towers lighting them all up at once. The claim of interference with aircraft systems is weak and meant to scare you into not using them.

I don’t question the phone calls were made.

The cell phone calls however do make the destruction of the radar and communication data tapes more important. The exact time of the cell phone calls could be matched to the time stamps on the FAA radar and communication data. This would prove or disprove the attempts made by a passenger to take over the aircraft heard over the cell phone.

Military radar data can be CLASIFIED and withheld from the general public. Your government could not make the FAA civilian data classified and they could not timely manufacture false radar and communication data with any ease. Destruction was the only choice.

I don’t doubt your government shot the plane down. I’m sure they decided to cover it up because they did not know how the public would respond.

As for NTSB reports, I’ve personally been ordered to withhold information from them that implicated the FAA as a factor in crashes. NTSB reports are as good as toilet paper.

Misinformation is king in confusing an enemy or the general public. Just as the military has admitted they enjoy the ET (extra terrestrial) /UFO conspiracy around area 51 don’t think for a minute your government would not use the same misinformation or wacky conspiracy story to divert attention or cover up  the truth by making it look like a another wacky conspiracy.

In the back of everyone’s mind, they know there is a very good possibility that aircraft was shot down. Just as everyone knows the twin towers were not bombed by the government and that that is a wacky conspiracy. Your government just cannot admit to this, if it was true.

The problem is, if they will hide this dirty secret from you, what else is your government hiding from you?

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:19:41 PM

  (0+)

You say you are an expert -- "I don’t question the phone calls were made." I doubt this very much. I've never heard or seen anyone able to make cell phone calls on planes except near landing or takeoff. Calls from 30,000 feet or at high speed don't sound possible. Since Qualcomm and American Airlines were first developing cell call technology for planes in 2004 one has to assume that it was not possible before then. Is there any independent scientific evidence you can produce for this claim?

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:38:35 PM

  (0+)

I'm willing to testify before congress or in court.

I don’t know what cell experts you’re talking too but they must be using average ground test range for their estimations and probably at the lower digital transmitter power limits used today.

In 2001 most cell phones were still analog. I still have and use my cell phone from 2003 and it is dual band.

I don’t know of any civilian cellular technicians that were permitted to test or operate cell phones while airborne. How they came up with limitations they claim is beyond me.

In late 1994 I was making cell phone calls from the middle of the Bahamas at 10,000 ft in my own aircraft. This was at least 7 years earlier using analog cell phone signals. Note- in 1994 there was one Batelco cellular outlet in the central Bahamas on the island of Exuma. I was over central Long Island, BH when I made the call so this call was over 50 miles range.

I knew in detail the Batelco system (Bahamas Telecommunication) and their use of the topo-scatter telecommunication system used throughout the Bahamas. It was studied by myself in great detail for replacement with 15 meter SAT Comm. systems for wider communication bandwidth to transfer long range surveillance radar data back to the Miami Air Route Traffic Control Center  (ARTCC) tracking and communicating with traffic flying between the U.S. main land and Porto Rico.

It doesn't take an engineer to recognize cells operate line of sight. 30,000 ft, if the aircraft was that high, is 5.2 miles. Even the little .5 watt walky-talkies are good for that range line of sight. From mountain top to mountain top they will work, some claim 12 miles.

Over the U.S. there must have been hundreds of cell sites in range to make those calls.

Still my question is why did the FAA destroy the evidence?

Why were the flight radar tracks and communications destroyed?

What did they really show?

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:20:52 PM

  (0+)

Who the hell is Michel Chossudovsky?

And what the hell does he know about cell phone capabilities?

I have serious questions as to his practical knowledge or experience with cellular or for that matter any communication systems.

You’re pointing out this guy as your “evidence” that cell phones don’t work at altitude. Where are this guys credentials?

He never states weather he has even tried to use a cell phone at altitude or if he is educated in the area communication systems. I truly doubt this guy has even attended a basic electronics course.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:55:23 PM

  (0+)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Welcome to his WEBSITE: Global Research .CA (in CAnada, but place is no matter

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

... when the work is GLOBAL in scope and comprehension.)

THAT is who is Michel Chossudovsky.

Who asks, by the way, who the hell is Gallaher???

---

One quick (recommended) brief in Global Research's potent distillations is sure to amuse you with its pretensions: Al Qaeda -- the Database, by Pierre-Henri Bunel, Global Research, November 20, 2005.

Meet "Al Qaeda"

"Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden's personal property . . .

"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for ...

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:27:56 PM

  (0+)

you stated: "In the back of everyone’s mind, they know there is a very good possibility that aircraft was shot down. Just as everyone knows the twin towers were not bombed by the government and that that is a wacky conspiracy. Your government just cannot admit to this, if it was true."

Sorry to disappoint you. Making a statement like that is simply disingenuous and, to put it baldly, crap. Oh... 'Everyone knows..." If you are to retain credibility you might want to consider leaving such statements out. Over three hundred architects and engineers believe they were demo'd. I believe they were demo'd (and I guess I'm 'wacky' too). And many many more folks who have studied the evidence extensively have very good reason to believe they were demo'd. I just love the technique where some truth is acknowledged by a writer but other truths are dismissed with prejudice.... Techniques in Ridicule 101, eh?. 

As far as Shanksville goes, I recall seeing that footage from, I think it was German reporters flying over the scene wondering where all the debris spread over miles came from. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:06:06 PM

  (0+)

E.T. does exist in area 51.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:36:02 PM

  (0+)

couldn't stop. 

When that is all you can offer in rebuttal, (more ad hom - and not terribly clever ad hom) , the game is revealed. Never really left the service, eh?

It is a wonder what rationalizations, what mental gyrations in support of denial, one must go through to continue to serve the Empire. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 5:24:05 AM

  (0+)

"Just as everyone knows the twin towers were not bombed by the government and that that is a wacky conspiracy."

You lost me there.. who is "Everyone"?

 One of the things they hid from you was the War Games going on that day.

There was a mention of them on the Norad site we checked that day;  GONE two days later.

Why is it that you find it so hard to believe that Bush/Cheney would do this to serve their obvious Agenda and their "Base"?

Is it their Obvious Integrity LOL!! 

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:05:51 AM

  (0+)

The highly improbable was flight 77 since the engines of roughly 4 tons each with a velocity of 245 yards a second didn't damage the windows either side of the small hole. Just work out the Kinetic energy in those engines.

 The impossible was the cell phone calls, this claim is so ludicrous it wouldn't get a microsecond's consideration by a Radio engineer, I know because I'm a retired Radio Engineer.

Flight 93 was probably directed to land at a military base under the ruse of some dangererous circumstance., it's your guess what happened to the passengers.

by douglas kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 83 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 7:59:27 PM

  (0+)

Yes, I had suspected that there was going to be needed a plan so devestating and powerful that only I, Wolfie, could  pull it off. It was not any Afghan hounds at all. It was Dachshunds Eagerly Waving their tails on the other side of the globe. I had read where Mao wanted to cause earthquakes in North America by having a million Chinese jump into the air simultaneously, thereby causing havoc on the other half of the globe.

Then I got to thinking that we dogs could bring down steel structured high rises by the force of winds driven across thousands of miles by confident, strong minded german brown shirted low to the ground canine Kabala trained pooches.

We went to Lhasa Apso near the deli on the corner across from the monks tailors ( where we got the shirts wholesale ). Here we ate corned beef on rice cakes and did the deed.

Wolfie will take the fall for this low down, low to the ground mutt-iney of the ages! 

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 9:36:31 PM

  (0+)

...It was the one redeeming act of his VP career. If, while the president was reading "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren after being informed by Andy Card our nation was "under attack", VP Cheney ordered flight 93 to be shot down, preventing it from crashing into the White House, then for that he should be applauded, and deserves our gratitude at least, if not admiration.

by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:08:45 PM

  (0+)

Yes, it should have been shot down.

But why lie?

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:26:34 PM

  (0+)

The white House deleted 28 pages of the Congressional investigative report prior to release.  Why?

Bush and cronies fought the formation of the so called "911 Commission" for 14 months.  Why?

Bush agreed to meet with the Commission only behind closed doors, with Cheney at his side and no transcript or notes were allowed.  Why?

NORAD and Pentagon officials changed their story about their failures materially 3 times and perjury charges were considered but stopped.  Why?

FAA chief Norman Mineta's testimony that sharply contradicted Cheney's crucially important account of the events on 911 was omitted from the report.  Why?

Sibel Edmund's 3 1/2 hour testimony about FBI deliberate supression of key evidence and covering it up is omitted from the report.  Why?

The Pentagon's sophisticated missle defense system did not respond on 911.  Why?

The widely used claim that no one could anticipate hijacked airliner being used as missles, by Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice, (under oath), is patently absurd.  Yet remains a non-factor.  Why?

Highly unusual activity in the WTC Towers months and weeks before the attacks was unaddressed by the Commission.  Why?

Each tower was struck by a commercial airliner precisely at a large, highly secure and crutial computer center, both with recent, extensive repairs and upgrades.  Unaddressed by the Commission.  Why?

Marvin Bush, the presiden't brother and principle in the company providing security to the WTC Complex, Logan International Airport and United Airlines and is unmentioned in the report.  Why?

Three of five of the so-called "dancing Israelis", (having set up video equipment to cature the 911 WTC attacks before the event), admitted in a foreign television interview that they they were sent to document the attacks, yet is unaddressed by the Commission.  Why?

Philip Zelikow, the Commission's director, has repeated phone conversations with Karl Rove and other White House officials during the investigation.  Why?

Number of documents requested by the 911 Commission from the White House: 11,000. Actually received, (many of which were redacted and partially blacked out): 2,766.  Why?

Two of the future hijackers settle into the San Diego area in September of 2000, and are aided by numerous Arab men on the Saudi Government's payroll, in addition to being tied to a Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles, working out of the consulate. Vigorously investigated and documented by the 911 Commission yet completely ommited in the final report.  Why?

Bush's family has long established ties with Saudi Arabia, where 15 of 19 alleged hijackers are from, yet is ignored by the Commission.  Why?

$100,000 was wired to allleged lead suicide hijacker Mohamed Atta from Saeed Sheikh, an agent for Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), under the direction of the head of ISI General Mahmud Ahmed. Ignored by the 911 Commission.  Why?

General Mahmoud Ahmad was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committee at the moment that WTC 1 was struck on 911.  Ignored by the Commission.  Why?

The 911 Commission's conclusion that "..the financing of the 911 suicide hijack operation is ultimately of little consequence..."    Why?

Dick Cheney calls Tom Daschle during the 911 Commission investigation, (then) the Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, suggesting that the Democratic party would pay a real price if it attempted to air some of the pre-9/11 intelligence issues in public.  Why?

The claim that Flight 77 flew almost for 40 minutes and over 300 miles through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar - unaddressed by the 911 Commission.  Why?

Only one of the multiple war drills being conducted on 911, the critical, central factor affecting the failure to respond, is mentioned in a single footnote in the report.  Why?

The suddenly missing and publicized 2.3 trillion dollars that the Pentagon couldn't account for on September 10, 2001 - forgotten, undiscussed, a non factor, post 911.  Why?

The federal government has sealed all public access to any debris and physical evidence collected at the Pentagon, even disallowing the NTSB and FAA from access.  Why?

One government video tape and two civilian video tapes showing the Pentagon impact are immediately confiscated - and remain classified.  Why?

Prior removal of Richard Clark, the chief anti-terrorism expert under four presidents, from the president's inner circle before 911 is unmentioned by the Commission.  Why?

Unprecedented and repeated warnings from at least eleven foreign intelligence agencies, warning of unprecedented attacks on US soil, including Russia, Egypt, Germany and Syria.  Ignored by the Commission.  Why?

Cheney was given complete command and control of all US air defenses four months prior to the attacks - an unprecedented deligation of presidental authority. In Bush's absence, acting Commander in Chief Dick Cheney was directing the response to the 911 attacks by the FAA and NORAD.  Why?

The Oct 10 scheduled military war games were moved up to Sept 10, 2001. By whom? Why? Never addressed.   Why?

An FAA manager deliberately destroyed, (and scattered), the records of the false radar blips and other details that were ostensibly part of the war drills on the morning of 911 - he was never interviewed nor mentioned by the 911 Commission.  Why?

Pasquale D’Amuro, the FBI’s counterterrorism chief in New York City before 9/11, is promoted to the bureau’s top counterterrorism post after 911.  Why?

Commanding Generals at the helm of the failed response to the 911 attacks are promptly promoted.  Why?

Numerous puddles of once molten steel are found throughout the remains of the towers and WTC7, as a result of unexplained, intense and sustained temperatures far exceeding those possible by jet fuel in the towers.  Unaddressed by Commission.  Why?

The FBI's halting of investigations into at least two of the future suicide pilot's training at flight schools - by the same FBI supervisor - received a promotion soon afterwards. Why?

Not one of the alledged hijacker's names appears on any of the flight's passenger lists - yet the FBI assembled and presented a detailed list, including photographs of all 19 suicide hijackers, including their alleged association with bin Laden, within hours.  Not addressed by the Commission.  Why?

The central factor, the sine qua non of the crime is why.  That element of the mass murder was unaddressed by the Commission.  Why?

Each of these central points and aspects of the 911 attacks and so called investigation gives pause to any sensible person seeking the truth. Taken in tandem, a stunning sequence of miraculous coincidences accompanied equally stunning, unexplained, ignored and supressed ineptitude throughout the top US political structure and military air defenses, namely, command and control.

The fix was in from the start with the 911 Commission. Attempting to sidestep or deny it would be supporting a position of remarkable banality.

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:40:52 PM

  (0+)

"The suddenly missing and publicized 2.3 trillion dollars that the Pentagon couldn't account for on September 10, 2001 - forgotten, undiscussed, a non factor, post 911.  Why?"

The missing money was incorrectly recorded in the federal budget.

My wife accidentally stumbled on this when reviewing the Air Force budget looking for the amount businesses were paying for leasing property from military. I wanted to know how much a building was being rented for by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

There are hundreds of Bases and on each military base companies like McDonalds lease land or buildings from the military. This goes on the “Income” statement vs. the “expenditure” statement.

The budget personnel made a very big bo bo by adding three 0’s to the “income” statement for years. No one noticed the amounts to be entered on the income statement were in thousands of dollars. A lease that was $500 per month was recorded as 500 which showed up on the budget as $500,000 per month.

OOOOPs!

There was one building being rented by the BOP at Max Well AFB was showing a lease income of $6,000,000 per year on the Air Force budget. This was in 2004 and the BOP could not account for almost $60 million dollars of over expenditure that year. The military rents buildings to the BOP on several bases.

He, He.

As you can see this can add up to the Trillions quickly.

LOL

Go America f*ck Yea!

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:35:10 AM

  (0+)

You say: "A lease that was $500 per month was recorded as 500 which showed up on the budget as $500,000 per month" -- give me an ****ing break!!! $2.3 trillion goes missing and you do some quick hand waving and declare it was just an "accounting error". Not only are you not using a crystal ball you can confirm that you are correct because: "My wife accidentally stumbled on this when reviewing the Air Force budget." Oh, for heaven's sake, please spare us your back of an envelope, evidence free nonsense. Advancing a hypothetical explanation plucked from the air is neither legal evidence nor scientific proof. I suppose Congress would be pleased if you (and your wife) were to sort out a $2.3 trillion "accounting error" but there is no reason whatsoever to believe you.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:55:33 AM

  (0+)

Norm Mineta's testimony before Congress where he recount's Cheney's behavior on 9/11.  That's why.  Cheney was hip deep in the whole shebang.

The pilot who shot down Flight 93, it is rumored, was given a medal.

However, if we forget our military intel training for a moment and open our minds to the evidence...it's pretty clear that shooting down Flight 93 was probably a perfunctory exercise to everyone except those frightened passengers who were onboard that doomed aircraft.

Meaning that if Cheney chose to dispense with a few dozen Pentagon employees in charge of overseeing the spending habits of his friends at Halliburton KBR, rather than shooting that aircraft out of the sky when he had the chance, why would he order Flight 93 down?  What assessment had to be true on that day in order for him to end this exercise?

Don't even go there with the, "government didn't plant bombs in the WTC or otherwise demolish those buildings." That's pabulum. 

You can NOT vaporize 110 stories of concrete and steel in less than 12 seconds without the guidance and assistance of a professional demolitions unit.  The physics is not there and the evidence of the use of professional demolitions materials is.  Period.  End of story.

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 150 diaries, 477 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:01:55 AM

  (0+)

...he didn't go down onto the bunker until after the Pentagon got hit;

Norman Minetta's claim that Cheney was down in the bunker FROM the BEGINNING of the attacks sounds right to me!

Darth Vader running things from the bowels of the "Shadow Government"!

NO WONDER WE'RE IN SUCH SH*T! 

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 756 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:22:45 AM

  (0+)

Tony forest U need to review the public info : the coroner sent to site left the same day and stated there was no debris or body parts to be investigated: the FIRST crash without LARGE  plane parts and body parts.
1 call from a son to his mother started by " this is Chris + his LAST name" . Is this the way U'd call Ur mother?
Tests done on cell calls at  different altitudes show very few can get thru.

The crater is small AND EMPTY: no residents ever found any parts...

911truth movement sites and videos are too mny to give. Inforwars.com is a must and has links. conspiracy.com is  good.

Patriots question 911 .com is  agrat one by A miller " 25 military officiers challenge official version..." by A miller on OPednews Jan 14 08 and also another article from Jan 5 With former highlevel national Security officials on record (link at bottom of prvious article)

READ EVERYBODY!

by crispy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:58:25 AM

  (0+)

Steven Lesser please read above mentioned A miller's articles.

The fighters dispached for the last planes were sent hours later when the main job was sucessfully acomplished, and no need for more was needed.

Also remember U all NONE of the TERRORISTS' NAMES WERE ON PASSENGERS'LIST! UNDISPUTED.

by crispy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:07:43 AM

  (0+)

Before 9/11 I could have flown as Peter Pan.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 3:55:20 AM

  (0+)

It may have escaped your notice but people aren't going to fall in a heap and discard their ideas just because you've told them you're a radar or technology expert. We only have your word for it and, frankly, you could be a complete fraud. The only real test is in the quality of your ideas. Many people who post here are looking for serious ideas intelligently expressed about a tragedy where their leaders have either lied to them or deliberately withheld the facts. These are the same leaders who have overseen war crimes in the Middle East and the death of a million Iraqis. They are rank, stinking criminals of the worst kind regardless of whatever happened on 911. You could choose to help people -- if you believe you really can -- by writing a comprehensive, detailed, documented, scientific account of (1) exactly why the cell phone calls were real on 911 (2) why we know for sure that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon etc.... Somehow I don't think you're up to it. You seem to be stuck at the Peter Pan stage serving your own magnificence. And your arguments -- as one commentator correctly noted -- are largely ad hominems and isolated, non-verifiable anecdotes. I'm not impressed.

by ken (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 96 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 6:57:07 AM

  (0+)

Gallaher,

Nobody cares for your experience  as a 30-year pilot or your expertise in electrical engineering. We are not impressed with this kind of brags. The only thing that could impress us here is honesty , which is unfortunately in short supply in your blatherings. Yes you are dishonest and we can see through dishonesty.

The fact of the matter is that this site has been created by a highly intelligent individual in the service of intelligent people for promotion of the TRUTH and nothing but the Truth. It is not an accident that some of the best brains on this planet post comments here and honor us with their discoveries. Some of us have spent years researching in order to understand the world aroud us. Michel Chossudovsky is one of the best references we have on the Internet. Your contemptuous question as who is Michel Chossudovsky reveals your ignorance and the superficiality of your knowledge.

I have nothing to brag about but have spent 6 years of my life researching on the Internet in pursuit of the Truth. It started with Thierry Meyssan's 2002 groundbreaking 'Effroyable Imposture' translated 'The Big Lie',  then came along  Scholars For  9/11 Truth (www.st911.org) by Steven Jones and James Fetzer, followed by The Journal of 911 Studies  by Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan and Frank Legge. I am talking about basics. Of course one has to be perfecty familiar with David Ray Griffin's  works and those of Webster Tarpley's. Once you have done this you become BULLSHIT PROOF.

And this is my message to you : we here at OED are bullshit proof and impervious to lies and propaganda. So, gather the junk below and be away with as we have seen this sort of propaganda before :

"Many more wacky conspiracies about 9/11 are out there to confuse the general public, like to bombing of the WTC by the government"

"Just as everyone knows the twin towers were not bombed by the government.

Remember that we have developed the instinct to differtiate between Truth and propaganda. Never venture again in a field you are not familiar with otherwise you will end up making a fool of yourself.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 8:31:33 AM

  (0+)

As a "sky warrior" myself for many years, flying for business several times a month (before I lost count, over 400 times and that's ROUND trips), one of the most damning pieces of evidence to me is that all 4 planes were very sparsely populated with passengers.

I think many of you who fly a lot also know this: If there is only a small amount of people booked for a particular flight, that flight will most likely be mysteriously cancelled..... There will be a problem with the air conditioning... or the auxillary power unit.... or the toilets. Whatever. The point being that although it is illegal; flights with few passengers get the axe quite often; sending us swearing commuters into frenzies of trying to get another flight at short notice. That's why when we fly, it is so rare to get that full set of seats to stretch out in nowadays: Any flight like that is probably cancelled; unless they absolutly must have that plane in the other city. But since flights get cancelled all over; usually they can use another plane, and it's OK to screw those unfortunatly few passengers.

Believe me, they do this all the time, and always get away with it.  

But here are FOUR flights with much less passengers than normal on ALL of them. In the real world, at least one of those flights would have been cancelled... Sure as the sun rises on a profitable airline.

To me, this is one of the biggest pieces of evidence that the whole thing was phoney.

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM

  (0+)

AIM-9X Sidewinder Air-to-Air Missile

shanksville aerial view 

Q. would a sidewinder leave both wings intact? 

Q. could the Jumbo crash full speed, nose 1st into the ground after being hit by a sidewinder? 

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM

  (0+)

... a signal blaze. In the Nine-Eleven Op Truth blazing here, it is drawing the widest attention of the internet's politically astute and inquisitive minds -- who increasingly see the false hoax of Bushbutcher fascists made up the Santa Claus fairy tale about the Nine-Eleven Op, that was planned, rehearsed, managed and caused in, by, and for fascism -- over 60 percent of surveyed citizens now say they are talking with others describing the deceit in the phony Gov't myth, and over 80 percent are calling for new testimony -- all goes to explain so many outspeaking deniers trying to blind and gag and deaf-make LALALALA-I-CAN'T-HEAR-YOU-LALALALALA the discussion.

If 911Truth was not here, neither would the be the intractable idiot trolls.

Simply read through the comments and see that the trolls are here, out in force -- and so is, (and must be for them to feed on), the Nine-Eleven Op Truth.

The essential argument in troll-speak is in-your-face shouting: You HAVE TO BELIEVE in Santa Claus !!, or else you are anti-Nationalistic MasterRace'ist.

---

Wayne Madsen is the epitome of credible investigative reporting. The man is a legend -- look into it and support his work.

Wayne Madsen Report .com

All the 'intelligence community' whistleblowers' whistles are a special frequency tuned to Madsen's ears' acute hearing. The fascists cannot hear the ones squealing on them and cannot figure out who in the know in the inner circles 'who-all' is spilling the beans. Madsen hears the who.

You can be sure he lives fairly cleverly. Already (Aug.'05) insiders tipped him to take cover, since knowing the Bushbutcher fascists sent some to silence him. Madsen is ex-NSA himself, computer wiz doing intercepted signals analysis, (ping his website -- since he's recovered it after the crash that came on it -- and see a small sense of what I mean about the 'wiz' part). I do have some disagreement with him, which emerged in our conversations: He sees the fascism as an individual thing, certain bad persons gone evil, wormed in among good, worth-keeping, well-meaning persons, who all work in the 'intell' bureaucracy and 'community;' whereas I see the categorical 'it' as systemic in the very concept of 'intell' secrecy and its privileged-knowing 'need to know' beyond the reach of public (representative) oversight -- that is, in democratic self-governance it is secrecy itself which impregnates and germinates and grows into fascism. (Wayne, are you listening? Care to rebut? My 'ship' has come in, in some fashion, so the long-promised document is soon to arrive, I'm hoping in time for a special day honoring you and your constellation of stars ... you all know who I mean.)

Madsen is an epic hero, the brightest pinnacle of reportorial splendor, so much so that the commenter (upthread) who thought to demean his credibility, sounds as stupid as someone saying Warren Buffett ain't rich. Madsen deserves some sort of SuperPulitzer award, and infinite funding to report whatever he chooses to investigate. (His new book is about disabling Bushbutcher fascism with a budget of $15 a day! Operating in uber-expensive Washington, D.C.!!!) He has never had to retract a report for being false reporting, and when Barbara Bush started a lawsuit to try to smear him as if talking slander, simply the threat of his recourse against her and her flying monkeys for filing false suit was all it took to make her withdraw it and eat it.

***************** Yeah, people, OpEdNewsers Everyone, ***** get on over to Wayne Madsen's site (at the link) and tip him thirty bucks a year pittance -- you've got it to spend when you Cancel subscription and BOYCOTT Cable TV -- and enter into the know of Wayne Madsen Report and have the blinding scales fall from your eyes.

(One tiny example: Madsen reported the DC Madam Palfry's 'customer list' of johns for her 'escorts' includes phone calls from ABC/Disney executives' offices -- which information blackmail-coerced the ABC-Gibson and ABC-Stephanopolis dumb-and-dumber traitors, catapulting on-air their fascist propaganda last week. Suddenly all the senseless madness begins to be seen in its single-minded method and motive ... as scales fall from our eyes.)

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 4:00:38 PM

  (0+)

I have never known Wayne Madsen to be wrong. He has always demonstrated a great deal of integrity... unlike some I've read here.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 7:27:58 PM

  (0+)

Thank you ken , thank you meremark.

The community of Truthers has the obligation to act in tandem in exposing the trolls and covert agents who are here to derail and to obfuscate and to confuse. They masquerade as apologists, as experts, as 'negligenists', as 'Let It Happen'ists, as half truthers. A careful reading of their articles or comments is enough to discover discrepancies and inconsistencies that betray their real identity. Read Steven Leser's comments here and you wonder who the guy is working for nothwithstanding his numerous articles and comments.

Flight 93 was a decoy . The plane carried no passengers and no pilot and was going nowhere. It was designed to be exploded in the air so as some troll would glorify His Highness Cheney for having done the right thing to prevent another catastrophe. We can not be duped with Cheney's nasty tricks. He is the devil and should never be trusted or believed.

Were passsengers aboard other planes ? In the case of the attack on Pentagon it was a missile and not a plane. How about the planes that hit the towers 1 and 2 ? The only proof that the government has produced so far is Mohammad Atta's intact passeport that miraculously escaped the inferno while everything else vanished including the indestructible  black boxes themselves . This is flimsy evidence and in fact an insult to human intelligence. As for the invisible plane that hit WTC 7 the passengers were ghosts and not humans.

So, let us beware and stay alert and watchful. We are going to  identify and denounce and eject traitors among us. This is a new battle for Truthers.

by ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 793 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:59:19 PM

  (0+)

Crispy said:

Also remember U all NONE of the TERRORISTS' NAMES WERE ON PASSENGERS'LIST! UNDISPUTED."

by Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 858 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 22, 2008 at 9:11:03 PM

  (0+)