NEW HAMPSHIRE 9/11 TRUTH

Applying Common Sense to New World Order Conspiracy Theories

2012-02-13T12:51:00.004-04:00

by Scepcop, Sun Feb 05, 2012

Much of all this info regarding conspiracies is ambiguous. One can only speculate regarding the agenda behind conspiracies because it's all a secret of course. However, let's try to apply some common sense here.

All this conspiracy stuff is too black and white, almost like a religion. The elite can't be all "evil forces of darkness" vs. us the "innocent good guys". That is too black and white, with an "us vs. them" mentality, and more like what religions preach.

In reality, the world is very complex and is not that black and white. There must be some good people among the elite. They can't all be "the bad guys" like characters in some movie, can they? People in real life are not all good or all bad (like in the movies); they are a mixture of the two.

It's also hard to believe that so many people could be in on something and agree to it. In reality, it's very hard to get a lot of people to all agree without dissent to being in on the same agenda, especially people in power and high places since these types are used to getting their way, not being told what to do. The elite have very big egos, so imagine how much harder it would be to get them to all agree on some secret agenda.

Humans tend to fight and disagree, especially since they are governed by an innate moral conscience which is both in their DNA and in the "morphic resonance" energy field (coined by Rupert Sheldrake) that all living things share.

It's too far fetched to believe that these "shadow elite" are all some collective hive mind that is plotting sinister things against the world, as though they were all "minions of the dark side of the Force".

Nevertheless, conspiracies do exist in that powerful people do get together and make plans in secrecy. No one disputes that. The only question is: What kind of plans, secrets and conspiracies are they? Are we talking about mundane secrets - such as "under the table" deals and alliances, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of arrangements, and covert operations involving power and profits?

Or are we talking about a secret Illuminati plan of world domination and microchipping the population under a New World Order global government? Is there a fantastic conspiracy involving UFO's, Aliens and secret technology? Or just politicians with mundane dirty secrets involving money laundering scams, under the table deals, arms deals, sex scandals, and other mundane types of unethical behaviors?

Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the elite's long-time geostrategists, has admitted on public TV in an interview with Charlie Rose that "dirty secrets" and "under the table deals" exist among the elite, but denies that there is any "Illuminati NWO plot" to take over the world and instate a one world government. If there is a NWO plot though, then is every country in on it?

Or just the US and UK elite and the Zionists behind them? It's too far fetched to believe that the governments of all 200 countries of the world would all agree to be in on something.

All we know for sure are:

- The media and government often lie and fabricate things.

- There is definitely a shadow government that works outside of the democratic process and public scrutiny, to implement big changes that the elite think tanks want that would take too long if the public were involved. The Iran Contra Scandal revealed that shadow governments do exist. This shadow government is involved in a lot of sinister operations, but for what purpose, we don't know.

- The US military industrial complex and elite class, or whoever runs the USA (it's certainly not the common people), are definitely war mongerers who have a history and pattern of starting ridiculous unnecessary wars that don't make sense. (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, etc.)They do not tell the public the truth about why they start them, but only give BS copout excuses that don't add up. So we can only speculate and guess on their true motives. All we know for sure is that they love getting involved with wars for some reason. Whatever their true reasons are, they are likely to be very disturbing.

- Too many important figures who would have changed the world for the better had they lived, have been murdered by too many lone nut cases (e.g. JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon). Had JFK and RFK lived, the Vietnam War would probably have never happened, millions of lives would have been saved, people would trust their government more, and the CIA/Federal Reserve/Military Industrial Complex (which Eisenhower warned about) may not have hijacked the USA as it has today. So two lone nuts changed the tide of world history for the worse? Yeah right.

Also, if Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election in 2000, the Iraq War and War on Terror may have never happened, since Al Gore is not a war monger type, and millions of live may have been saved. (assuming of course, that the election was real and that Gore really wanted to win) I wonder how Ralph Nader sleeps at night, knowing that he could have prevented the Iraq War mess had he not stolen votes from Gore.

How can one stupid act from one stupid man change the course of the world like that and destroy millions of lives? It's just too convenient.

- The formation of the European Union and attempt to create a North American Union as well, are indicators of a NWO plan, since the formation of these unions would be a logical step they would take in order to consolidate power into an eventual one world government.

However, the key unanswered questions are:

- What is the true agenda of the elite? Are they really seeking to establish a NWO and one world government and have the population microchipped? Or do they just enjoy mind-blank everyone and reveling in the chaos they create and set up, which they derive a form of "dark ecstasy" from? (a theory proposed by conspiracy researcher and podcast host Jeff Grupp)

- What do they want? Is it just about power, control and profit? Don't they have enough of that? What more do they need? Do they have a more sinister and hidden motive?

- Are the elite of all countries involved in the NWO? Or is it just the US and UK?

- Could the whole NWO thing just be a diversion? Why else would they allow millions of videos about it on YouTube and millions of websites/forums about it to stay up? Is it all part of their plan to incite us into a revolution? And why would they let conspiracy leaders such as David Icke and Alex Jones spread conspiracy knowledge to so many disgruntled people and expose the plans of the elite? Icke travels the world doing public seminars to spread his message, yet nothing ever happens to him. Isn't that odd? Are they shills? Or is what they do part of the elite's plans? Or do the elite view them as too small of a problem to bother with, especially since anything that happens to a conspiracy leader will be interpreted as a "silencing act" by the elite?

- Even if a NWO or one world government succeeded, how long would it last? History has shown that Empires don't last long without public support. Not even Alexander the Great or Napoleon could hold an Empire together long term. Empires are easily toppled by a combination of many market forces. No elite group can stop that. The elite must know this. Any NWO would be short lived. So I gotta wonder what their real agenda is.

All of this is inconclusive and ambiguous. It's hard to say if there is a NWO plot or not, and if there is, what the plot is really about. The motives don't seem to make any sense.

HUMOR: Al Qaeda Says "9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous"

2012-02-11T21:57:00.003-04:00

From The Onion: An Al Qaeda representative says that claims the U.S. government was behind the attacks on Sept. 11th are "demeaning" to Al Qaeda.

Sometimes there is much truth in humor.

'Shadow Government' News To Congress

2012-02-10T17:21:00.002-04:00

Reprint, February 11, 2009 by Francie Grace:

(CBS) Key congressional leaders say they didn't know President Bush had established a "shadow government," moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.

Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.

An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.

Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.

Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.

Mr. Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee "the continuity of government," adding, "This is serious business."

Such an operation was conceived as a Cold War precaution against nuclear attack during the Eisenhower administration but never used until now. It went into effect in the first hours after the terror attacks and has evolved over time, said senior government officials who provided details of the plan.

Without confirming details of the government-in-waiting, Mr. Bush told reporters in Iowa: "We take the continuity of government issue seriously because our nation was under attack. And I still take the threats we receive from al Qaeda killers and terrorists very seriously."

"I have an obligation as the president and my administration has an obligation to the American people to put measures in place that should somebody be successful in attacking Washington there is an ongoing government," Mr. Bush said. "That is one reason why the vice president was going to undisclosed locations. This is serious business. And we take it seriously."

Under the classified "Continuity of Operations Plan," which was first reported by The Post in its Friday editions, high-ranking officials representing their departments have begun rotating in and out of the assignment at one of two fortified locations along the East Coast.

The Post said the first rotations were made in late October or early November, a fact confirmed by a senior government official late Thursday.

Officials who are activated for the duty live and work underground 24 hours a day, away from their families, according to the Post. The shadow government has sent home most of the first wave of deployed personnel, replacing them most commonly at 90-day intervals.

A government official who spoke to The Associated Press said President Bush does not foresee ever needing to turn over government functions to the secret operation, but believed it was prudent to implement the long-standing plan in light of the war on terrorism and persistent threats of future attacks.

The team, drawn from every Cabinet department and some independent agencies, would seek to prevent the collapse of essential government functions in the event of a disabling blow to Washington, the official said.

The underground government would try to contain disruptions of the nation's food and water supplies, transportation links, energy and telecommunications networks, public health and civil order, the Post reported. Later, it would begin to reconstitute the government.

The government-in-waiting is an extension of a policy that has kept Vice President Dick Cheney in secure, undisclosed locations away from Washington. Cheney has moved in and out of public view as threat levels have fluctuated.

As next in line to power behind Mr. Bush, he would need help running the government in a worst-case scenario.

"We take this issue extraordinarily seriously, and are committed to doing as thorough a job as possible to ensure the ongoing operations of the federal government," Joseph W. Hagin, White House deputy chief of staff, told the Post, though he declined to discuss details. "In the case of the use of a weapon of mass destruction, the federal government would be able to do its job and continue to provide key services and respond."

According to the Post, the backup government consists generally of officials from top career ranks, from GS-14 and GS-15 to members of the Senior Executive Service. The White House is represented by a "senior-level presence," one official said, but well below such Cabinet-ranked advisers as Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Many departments, including Justice and Treasury, have completed plans to delegate statutory powers to officials who would not normally exercise them, the Post said. Others do not need to make such legal transfers, or are holding them in reserve.

The report said civilians deployed for the operation are not allowed to take their families and may not tell anyone where they are going or why.

The two sites of the shadow government make use of local geological features to render them highly secure, the Post said. They are well stocked with food, water, medicine and other consumable supplies, and are capable of generating their own power.

Link to original

High Speed Massive Projectiles from the WTC by David Chandler

2012-02-06T14:17:00.001-04:00

Subtitles in German

"Shear" Ignorance: NIST and Building #7

2012-02-05T01:06:00.006-04:00

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) LIED about the collapse of WTC Building #7.

To access these images, you have to right click and 'save as'

Drawings used in this video:

E12/13 link: http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/9155/wtc7frankele1213.png

S810 link: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8417/wtc7cantors810.png

S820 link: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8043/wtc7cantors820.png

Drawings showing more shear studs detail:

S24a link: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7158/wtc7cantors24a.png

CIT publishes response to David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement about the 9/11 Pentagon Attack

2012-01-30T16:02:00.005-04:00

Editor Note: The following is a summary of an attack by David Chandler & Jonathan Cole. (Frank Legge has made his own attacks on CIT). However new attack papers just keep on rolling in...but I am pleased to report that CIT can certainly defend themselves.

One wonders if those who appear to have recently signed on to marginalize, ridicule, misrepresent and attack CIT, refuse to debate why they support the official govt. official story of the Pentagon... might possibly be part of an intelligence infiltration team?

Some of these people were considered "heros" for telling the truth about the WTC attacks and they would make great agents for the "official govt story regards the Pentagon".

Unfortunately they fool a lot of truthers who have come to trust them. The group that now controlls 911blogger has also "gone over to the dark side" I wonder how much the government cover-up department pays for this kind of work? I assume it is plenty.

"We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work.

Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.

Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.

While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over 911Blogger.com, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.

Given these circumstances, and the wide-ranging nature of our response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, we ask you to please set aside AT LEAST an hour or two to read our response in full so that you can hear our perspective. Unlike Chandler and Cole's essay, our response is heavily sourced, so if you can set aside extra time to REALLY dig into its contents and follow the links and sources, even if you do so over the course of several days, this will give you a MUCH more detailed look at the intricacies of what is going on here, and we feel that the reality of the situation will become that much more clear to you. This is an especially important thing for you to do if you are a regular reader of 911Blogger, since this means that you have likely spent hours over the past months or even years reading the frequent bogus attacks against us which we are forbidden from responding to.

I'd like to thank our webmaster for his critical help with writing this response and putting it together. Please pass it along to anyone you can and encourage them to read it. Thank you for paying attention to both sides of this manufactured controversy by reading our entire response":

http://www.CitizenInvestigationTeam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement

Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team

CIT Controversy for Dummies

2012-01-30T13:58:00.006-04:00

This isn't rocket science folks. It's pretty simple:

THE OFFICIAL GOVT STORY: The Red Line indicates the path of a "hijacked" plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. As it flew on a path to the South of the Citgo Station, it hit and knocked down five light poles (yellow lines).

One of the light poles that got knocked down by the airplane went through the windshield of cab driver, Lloyde England.

CIT EVIDENCE (Blue Line) PROVES THE OFFICIAL STORY TO BE A LIE: Citizen's Investigation Team (CIT) went to DC and found dozens of eye-witnesses to the Pentago attack who had been standing at the nearby CITGO gas station and Arlington National Cemetery on the morning of 9/11.

All of these eye-witnesses independently confirm the (blue line) flight path to the North of the Citgo Station.

CIT found and interviewed the cab driver on tape. If you watch it, anyone can see that Lloyde England’s account is not at all credible and he is unable to offer a remotely plausible story (i.e., he is lying - and did it badly).

So what does the CIT evidence suggest?

The plane passing to the north side of the Citgo Station proves the light poles could not have been knocked down by an airplane* and that the Pentagon was an inside job.

All of the witnesses prove the North path - namely the officers at the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications. Ditto federal employees at the Cemetary.

The witnesses CIT interviewed would have a better idea than any others to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station....and all agree that it was a North path.

About those five downed light poles:

With the CIT proof of a North path plane, these light poles could not have been knocked down by the plane as claimed in the official story.

Planted debris could have been in there before the explosion. Remember the section that was “hit” was under “renovation” and much of he area was unoccupied. This has been covered over and over.

Again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don’t need to find witnesses who saw light poles being planted as we have proof that they WERE planted (thanks to Lloyde England's lies).

Again, it was likely done in the middle of the night using vans or trucks under the guise of securing the area for the presidents arrival scheduled sept 11 afternoon. The foundations were likely busted when they took down the original light poles. Not hard to do. Light pole removal accomplished over weeks or months would go unnoticed as it would appear to be normal highway work. Nothing that would be memorable.

Why is CIT controversial?

It isn't controversial. It is rock-solid evidence.

So why the big flap over CIT?

For starters, no genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these eye-witness accounts, especially when many of these witnesses including police officers, would testify to it.

It is interesting to note that no detractor of CIT will agree to a live debate (and what does that tell you)? It is also interesting that CIT and all of its supporters have been banned from 911blogger.

Those who marginalize and ridicule and misrepresent CIT, and minimize the importance of their evidence are most likely part of an intelligence infiltration team.

So what can you do about it?

You have to ask yourself why these so called truthers won’t let the witnesses speak for themselves and let the chips fall where they may.

Look at the CIT evidence for yourself and decide. If you want the truth about 911 to come out, don't "go along to get along" in this effort to marginalize CIT.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/

http://thepentacon.com/

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement/

What Happened to Russell Pickering's Website Pentagonresearch.com?

2012-01-30T12:31:00.007-04:00

* Editor note: Both Craig Ranke and Also Marquis deserve to be "rock stars" - but they stumbled onto some "truth" that a bunch of people deeply embeded in the truth movement do NOT want you to consider. Their rock-solid evidence completely destroys the entire "official story" about the Pentagon attack (continued at the bottom of this post)...

Russell Pickering is a former 9/11 Pentagon event researcher who was present with Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) on their first research trip to Arlington, VA in 2006.

Craig Ranke, CIT: "This bit of history explains how he eventually let it slip that he initially withheld from us the information about the north of the Citgo witness account of station employee Robert Turcios.

When he realized we would likely find out about Robert on our own when we visited the station the next day, Russell hastily informed us of the witness at the last minute but tried casting doubt on the source (the station manager) by falsely suggesting she bizarrely changed her story within minutes, having allegedly claimed Robert was a female at first."

For some more interesting details, please read the following article by Citizen's Investigation Team, January 27, 2012 (also reprinted below):

What Happened to Russell Pickering's Website Pentagonresearch.com?

Russell Pickering was arguably the most well known 9/11 Pentagon event researcher for a few years prior to December 2007 when he dramatically "quit" the truth movement as documented here. He was the creator and owner of the now defunct website pentagonresearch.com that is cited numerous times in David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". An archive of his site from February 2007 can be found here:

www.web.archive.org/web/20070207221439/http://pentagonresearch.com -cached backup

Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) spent a few days with Russell in person during our very first research trip to Arlington, VA in late August 2006 while we were volunteering as research consultants to the 9/11 documentary "Loose Change Final Cut" by Dylan Avery.

We respected some of Russell's work that he had already published at the time even if we disagreed with his conclusions. The relationship started out amicable but turned progressively ugly after we returned to Arlington a second time (without him and Dylan) in November of 2006 to obtain the witness interviews at the former Citgo proving that the plane flew north of the gas station and therefore did not hit the light poles or Pentagon.

Russell had a reputation for being professional, logical, and even-tempered, but after we obtained this evidence he started emotionally spiraling out of control while desperately working to cast doubt on our findings with an aggressive campaign against us personally.

Before we met Russell in person on our first research trip he had already proclaimed to us his belief that a large airplane hit the Pentagon. He suggested that it was not piloted by alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour as claimed by the government but that it was likely "remote controlled" into the building. He had no evidence to support this claim and merely asserted it as his unsubstantiated belief.

During this 2006 research trip Russell started expressing concern and frustration with his research as he states in the following two minute video:

Listen to audio here (1.81 mb).

Download video here (28.5 mb).

Despite this dramatically expressed extreme uncertainty with his findings and conclusions, only a few days after we returned he was all of the sudden more sure than ever of a large plane impact. September 18th, 2006 he said:

"My official statement now on the Pentagon is that something with a wingspan of greater than 100 feet but less than 140 hit the building. [...] If I were asked what my belief is, it is that a 757 hit the building..."

-screenshot
-original source -cached backup

Notice how Russell does not cite anything new to explain what lifted the frustration he expressed in the video less than 30 days prior. His certainty in the official impact narrative only continued to grow as we proceeded to uncover overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. Instead of providing counter-evidence, he responded with steadily increased personal attacks against us, a reaction that discredits him as a logical 9/11 truth seeker.

He was further discredited in August 2007 when he let it slip that he found out about the north side witness a day before we all visited the Citgo station together. This is explained and sourced here. This is significant because all of us (including Dylan) remembered that Russell first mentioned the witness after we arrived at the station.

This means he withheld that information for a day until he knew we would likely find out about it ourselves and he felt he had no choice but to tell us. We were supposed to share all of our findings with each other as the trip progressed in order to keep each other honest, yet Russell withheld key information likely hoping that we would go home the next day without ever discovering it.

Russell was well aware that a plane on the north side could not possibly have created the damage trail, obviously making this critical information that he should have immediately shared with us.

Pickering eventually removed his entire website with all of his "research" from the internet and, as already mentioned and sourced in the beginning of this essay, he quit 9/11 research all together. The only thing we are aware that he has published regarding 9/11 since then was titled "My Pentagon Manifesto (In Retrospect)" which was published in the beginning of 2011 at a variety of websites (archived here).

If you search the title you may notice that in some places his name has been removed. It seems as though Russell has made an effort within the last few weeks to erase his name from the internet in an attempt to hide his significant history with the 9/11 truth movement.

In light of this effort, this essay is meant to document for the historical record our experience dealing with his subversive behavior. As made clear in his "manifesto", Russell authoritatively states that be believes with "100% certainty an aircraft hit the Pentagon" and even goes so far as to call it a "physical fact".

Of course he ignores the fact that we have continued our investigation and have provided an overwhelming amount of additional evidence validating our initial findings since he "quit" at the end of 2007.

Since Russell has removed himself from the discussion we have had to deal with several other entities who claim to be part of the 9/11 truth movement but dedicate a significant amount of energy to fraudulently casting aspersions on our findings and our characters.

Details regarding much of that and responses to their arguments are provided in a comprehensive essay that can be found here. We highly recommend that everyone who may have heard about these accusations takes the time to read that essay in full in order to get both sides of the argument. This will help you to understand the scope and context of the numerous attacks against us from those who have followed Russell Pickering's lead.

The fact that CIT is still around exposing the 9/11 deception while our detractors keep falling by the wayside only to be replaced by other shadowy entities says it all. Respected media critic Barrie Zwicker put it best in his endorsement of our work:

"Arguably no single group is being targeted more toxically than the honest citizen detectives of CIT. That this disinformation campaign is being waged is a signal tribute to the historic importance of CIT’s work -- work that must be supported unflaggingly."

*Editor note continued: The thing we find bizarre is that many of CIT’s detractors support the official government claim that a 757 did hit the Pentagon on 9/11. This ignores most of the physical evidence: Where’s the wreckage? Where’s the damage caused by the wings hitting the building? Where are the wings? What caused the punch-out hole? What caused the destruction and deaths in the Pentagon’s innermost ring?

We have strong evidence that explosives were planted inside, and, according to the Flight Data Recorder that was supposedly found inside the building, the plane would have been too high to hit the building and its trajectory would also have had it missing the five downed light poles.

Both Ranke and Marquis (CIT) have turned up numerous credible eyewitness testimony that proves the "official story" wrong - and consequently they have been banned from 911Blogger so they can never answer the constant stream of attacks (many personal) levelled at them.

Is this criticism out of proportion with the facts? Does it ring true? Or is there another agenda? Who are the CIT detractors really working for? It does not appear to be the TRUTH.

This is an excellent video that explains how CIT began (and thank heavens it did).

HUMOR: Jersey Shore's Snooki speaks out on 911 Truth

2012-01-18T12:00:00.002-04:00

Here is somebody's creative way to get the message out. Who knows? It might work.

"Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator" - A Feature Film in Development

2012-01-15T12:23:00.005-04:00

Take a look at this video by Ed Asner who plays the new investigation's Chairman:

Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator is a dramatization of the first day of the President's New Investigation of 9/11.

The movie will show that the Bush-Cheney administration is guilty of conspiring to cover-up the truth about 9/11 - whatever it is.

This includes making false and misleading statements in their official reports - and misusing government agencies - for the purpose of deceiving the public - and the Congress - into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted.

For leaders of the Bush-Cheney administration to have been involved in such a cover-up is treasonous.

The film simply proves the official reports aren't true. It does not speculate as to what might have really happened.

That's for a REAL new investigation to find out.

WTC- Collapse FOIA Release

2012-01-11T00:56:00.003-04:00

This is a good video of the lower destruction wave....pulverized concrete being ejected....tube box column structure blown outward....repeated all of the way down:

FOIA Release January 5, 2012

News on the Day BEFORE 9/11/2001: $2.3 Trillion Dollars Missing from Pentagon

2012-01-06T12:28:00.007-04:00

Its been 10 years since the 9/11 tragedy and still so many unanswered questions remain.

Whether you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or not most educated people will admit that there are flaws & inconsistencies in the "official" 9/11 story & anyone that has done their research understands that the 9/11 commission was hindered from finding the truth from the very outset.

This video covers an issue related to 9/11 that many people are unaware of:

The fact that Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech to a large group of Pentagon employees on Sept. 10th, 2001 basically declaring war on the institution of the Pentagon itself. He also spoke about the fact that $2.3 TRILLION in pentagon spending could not be accounted for.

The very next day on 9/11/2001, the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed housed ALL the computers & accounting documents containing information relating to the Pentagon's "financial mismanagement" of those missing funds.

Of course after 9/11 missing money was the last thing Americans were concerned about.

And not long after that Bush increased DOD spending by billions of dollars to fund the "War on Terror."

FAKING IT: HOW the Media Manipulates the World into War

2012-01-05T11:27:00.002-04:00

As the US and Iranian governments escalate tensions in the already volatile Straits of Hormuz, and China and Russia begin openly questioning Washington's interference in their internal politics, the world remains on a knife-edge of military tension.

Far from being a dispassionate observer of these developments, however, the media has in fact been central to increasing those tensions and preparing the public to expect a military confrontation.

But as the online media rises to displace the traditional forms by which the public forms its understanding of the world, many are now beginning to see first hand how the media lies the public into war.

Ron Paul Claims "Israeli Mossad Behind 1993 World Trade Center Bombing"

2012-01-04T21:50:00.007-04:00

ED NOTE: We found the source of the persistent rumors that the Israeli Mossad attacked the WTC. It is from an old Ron Paul newsletter published in April 1993.

He made this and many other extreme homophobic, racist and anti-semitic claims over a period of 25 or so years...and currently says that (after making millions off of these newsletters) "I don't know who wrote my newsletters."

From the Ron Paul Survival Report, April 1993 (PDF):

TRANSCRIPT: "It was only a few days after the World Trade Center bombing before Mohammed A. Salameh was arrested. Is he guilty? Who knows? Some people think this a frameup by anti-Arab interests. Recall that shortly after the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended and accusations were made. We're still sorting that one out. From my point of view, it's hard to believe the perpetrators could be as stupid as the authorities maintain.

We now know what one homemade bomb can do to a large city—one billion dollars of damage. Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little. The cities have become centers of violence, whether through the daily and routine terrorism of crime, political bomb terrorism, or the terrorism of mob behavior as in Los Angeles."

SOURCE ARTICLE:

10 Extreme Claims in Ron Paul's Controversial Newsletters:

New York City renamed "Rapetown," AIDS spread by a "malicious gay," how to gun down an "urban youth," and more.

By Andy Kroll, Mother Jones Magazine, Tue Jan. 3, 2012

Taxi driver comes close to admitting he was part of 9/11 cover story

2011-12-31T12:20:00.006-04:00

By Craig McKee, Truth and Shadows, 12.27.2010

If there is an Achilles heel to the official 9/11 cover story, it has to be Lloyde England.

The Washington D.C. taxi driver is an essential part of the official story that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. His car is supposed to have been hit by one of the light poles knocked over by the plane right before it hit the Pentagon. This story was supposed to offer rock solid confirmation of the Pentagon government account. Instead, it’s the weakest link.

Not only is England’s version of what happened to him that day not supported by the witnesses or the physical evidence (as we shall see), but in an unguarded moment in the film National Security Alert (by Citizen Investigation Team), England came very close to admitting he had been a part of the conspiracy.

England told CIT (he didn’t realize the camera was running, but he clearly understood he was talking “on the record.”) that there was a lot more to the 9/11 events than meets the eye:

“When people do things and get away with it, eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me, it’s going to be so big. So it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.

“This is too big for me man. This is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening. I’m just a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I’m not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff. Well, I not supposed to be involved with this, I don’t have nothing.

“People with money – this is their thing. This is for them.”

People with money? Does that sound like he’s describing Al-Qaeda? If this was a case of a hijacking that briefly touched on him (as the result of his cab being hit), he wouldn’t have said, “…it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.”

Is he talking about covering up the truth at the beginning before too many questions are asked? He certainly doesn’t sound like someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a fundamentalist Muslim plot to attack America unfolded in front of him.

He goes on to say that what we’re led to believe happened by historical accounts isn’t necessarily true.

“History is ‘his story.’ It’s not the truth. It has nothing to do with the truth.”

England's own drawing of the pole through the windshield of his cab.

England says he stopped his car after it was impaled by the pole. The pole was supposedly wedged all the way in his back seat and protruding from the front of the car. He says he flagged down a man in a van who pulled over and helped him pull the pole out of the windshield.

To date, not one witness claims to have seen the pole hit the cab or anyone pulling it out of the car. And the physical evidence just doesn’t support his story.

England was interviewed in National Security Alert, a remarkable bit of investigative journalism by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of CIT. The film features interviews with a number of witnesses who contradict the official flight path of Flight 77. And that flight path is critical to the official story because of the downed light poles.

What makes these witnesses particularly important (in addition to the fact that two of them are Pentagon cops) is where they were positioned when they say they saw the plane. All the witnesses in the film were situated to the west of the Pentagon – in the vicinity of the Citgo gas station or the Navy Annex building – and were in a position to see whether the plane passed to the north or to the south of both. Both cops were at the station when the plane passed them; a third witness worked at the station.

The cops and all the rest of the witnesses that CIT interviewed confirmed the plane had passed to the north of the station and to the north of, or directly over, the Navy Annex. Not only does this contradict the official version (which had the approach on the south side) but it also means that the light poles that were allegedly hit by the plane (there were five) could not have been.

The pole evidence had to have been staged.

That brings us back to Lloyde England. If the pole evidence is fake, then he must have been part of the deception. And if he’s shown to have lied, then the official story crumbles.

By the time of the National Security Alert interview, England already knew of the witnesses who contradict the flight path “evidence.” He seemed to try to overcome this by insisting that he had been right beside the Pentagon instead of to the south where the poles were downed. Despite dozens of attempts by Ranke to show him photographic proof of where his car was, he continued to insist he was somewhere else. If he were being honest would he not have shown even a shred of doubt in the face of clear proof?

Photographs, including the one at the top of this article, show that the windshield of the cab is smashed. They also show that there was no damage to the hood of the car. Was the pole lying on the hood, England was asked? “Ya, ya. But there’s no scratches on the hood.”

The piece of the pole we see lying on the ground is more than 20 feet long. And England confirms that it was the curved and thinner end that was in his back seat. The majority of the length of the pole protruded well beyond the front of the car (the heavy end). Somehow, the pole stayed impaled in the car without damaging the hood. Interior damage to the car also was not consistent with a huge pole becoming embedded in the back seat (no more than a tiny rip in the upholstery).

After the plane had just smashed into the Pentagon to his left and a light pole had come smashing through his windshield, England made an odd decision. He decided he needed to remove the pole immediately.

England flagged down a man driving a van. He claims he lifted the pole out of the car with the help of the stranger, who then drove off without a word. Apart from how unlikely this all sounds, the idea that this long, heavy pole would stick out of the front of the car without crashing down on the hood is simply unbelievable. England even agrees with this, pointing out the lack of hood damage even before interviewers could point it out.

He also makes a point that there didn’t seem to be enough of a hole in the Pentagon to accommodate a 757. Did he say this to muddy the waters, to make himself sound more like he had no hidden agenda?

England’s wife, Shirley Hughes England, adds to the mystery. She was working for the FBI in 2001, and in an interview with CIT, she states that she knows why the FBI didn’t take the cab in for a forensic examination, but she won’t say more. Later in the film, she says the car was taken in “for a day or two.”

Ranke recounts how he told Hughes how the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon but continued on. She said, “ya.” He said, “What?” She said, “Ya, what you said. I’m not going to say anymore.”

There is obviously a great deal more to the England story than just having a pole hit his cab. He seems uncomfortable with his role in the whole thing. If the government had any real interest in finding the truth, then an attempt would be made to either verify or disprove England’s account.

We’ll just have to add this to the list of critical areas that have been ignored by any and all investigations into 9/11.

Source

Everything Happening Now Was Planned Before 9/11

2011-12-17T16:46:00.001-04:00

Special preface to folks in the military, law enforcement and intelligence and other government servants: You are sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, and the facts below may help you do so.

We’ve been told that “9/11 changed everything” and that we’re living in “a post-911 world”.

We’ve been told that what our government is doing now has been rendered necessary by the urgent post-9/11 threat from terrorists.

In reality, however, virtually everything happening now was planned before 9/11. Please see for yourself:

The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And seethis)

The Patriot Act was planned before 9/11 (and see this). Indeed, former Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig:

After 9/11 the government drew up the Patriot Act within 20 days and it was passed.
The Patriot Act is huge and I remember someone asking a Justice Department official how did they write such a large statute so quickly, and of course the answer was that it has been sitting in the drawers of the Justice Department for the last 20 years waiting for the event where they would pull it out.
(4:30 into this video).

Government plans, exercises or drills to detain American citizens who opposed war were also drawn up before 9/11, as was a bill allowing the permanent detention by the Attorney General of aliens convicted of no crimes, with no judicial review

The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11 (see this and this)

The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. Top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change even before Bush took office. And in 2000, Cheney said a Bush administration might “have to take military action to forcibly remove Saddam from power.” And see this.

Cheney made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And the Sunday Heraldreported: “Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq … to secure control of its oil.” (remember that Alan Greenspan, John McCain, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, ahigh-level National Security Council officer and others all say that the Iraq war was really about oil.)

The decision to threaten to bomb Iran was made before 9/11, and the Christian Science Monitor notes that the U.S. has been claiming for more than 30 years that Iran was on the verge of nuclear capability

Wars throughout the Middle East and North Africa to effect regime were planned before 9/11

Cheney dreamed of giving the White House the powers of a monarchy long before 9/11

Cheney and Rumsfeld actively generated fake intelligence which exaggerated the threat from an enemy in order to justify huge amounts of military spending long before 9/11. And see this

The government knew that terrorists could use planes as weapons — and had even run its own drills of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, using REAL airplanes — all before 9/11

America played dirty games to justify wars before 9/11

Psychologists Explain 9/11 Denial

2011-12-11T20:19:00.006-04:00

The government's lame explanation about what happened on 9/11 cannot - by any stretch of the imagination - possibly be true.

So why do most people remain blissfully unaware of the Big Lie? Here's why:

NEW FOIA INFO: It Is Conclusive - Two 9/11 Aircraft Were Airborne Well After Crash

2011-12-07T13:57:00.019-04:00

United 93 In The Vicinity of Fort Wayne, Indiana and Champaign, Illinois at Time of Shanksville Alleged Crash

United 175 In The Vicinity Of Pittsburgh and Harrisville PA at Time Of Alleged Crash Into the South Tower

PART ONE: South Tower UA 175

from Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft.

Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa.

ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York.

How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

These are the 'text' (ACARS) messages in question -

The format for these messages is pretty straight forward. To limit the technical details, we will explain the most important parts of the messages, however, for full Message Block Format Code standards, click here.

The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft, the time and date in which the message is sent (111259, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flight number (UA175), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N612UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA SFOLM CHI58R SFOFRSAM
.SFOLMUA 111259/JER
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUSFOLMUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
I HEARD OF A REPORTED INCIDENT ABOARD YOUR ACFT. PLZ VERIFY ALL
IS NORMAL....THX 777SAM
SFOLM JERRY TSEN

;09111259 108575 0543

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA 111303/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
HOW IS THE RIDE. ANY THING DISPATCH CAN DO FOR YOU...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111303 108575 0545

This message was also sent on Sept 11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA CHIYR CH158R
.CHIYRUA 111303/AD
CMD
AN N612UA/GL MDT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
NY APROACH LOOKIN FOR YA ON 127.4
CHIDD AD ROGERS

;09111303 108575 0546

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).

DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages.

What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received.

Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received.

An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages.

However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received -

Mr. Ballinger stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

According to the above statement made by Mr. Ballinger, all of the above messages were received by the aircraft.

The 9/11 Commission has claimed which messages have been received by the aircraft. According to a another Memorandum For The Record (MFR), four ACARS messages were sent between 8:59AM and 9:03AM on the morning of Sept 11, to United Flight 175.

The MFR reads as follows(3) -

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged stating "I heard of a reported incident."
1259:29 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1259:30 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, was received by the aircraft, but not crew acknowledged, which is not required as technical acknowledgements are automatic. This is referring to the message noted above sent through MDT by Jerry TSEN (First coded ACARS message at top).

The second (1259:29Z) and third messages (1259:30Z) referenced in the MFR were not provided through the FOIA. The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission.

However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp. The coded Rogers initiated ACARS message is included above, third from the top.

Of course, the 9/11 Commission cannot admit if the last message was received by the airplane as that would immediately indicate to anyone that the airplane did not crash into the South Tower at 09:03am.

It is interesting to note that the Commission ignores the 9:03am ACARS message sent by Ed Ballinger routed through MDT (second ACARS message printed above), yet claims the 9:03am message sent by Rogers as not being received.

Based on sequential numbers of the messages themselves, it is clear Ballinger's 9:03 message was sent before the Rogers message (0545 for Ballinger message, 0546 for Rogers, printed on bottom of the message), yet the Commission ignores Ballinger's message. Why would they ignore Ballinger's message, yet acknowledge Rogers?

Is it because Ballinger's message was received by the airplane and they realized that an aircraft cannot receive an ACARS message at that distance and such low altitude? This message is more evidence the aircraft was in the vicinity of Harrisburg, and not NY.

At least 3 ACARS messages were routed through MDT between 8:59 and 9:03am, and received by the airplane, according to the technical acknowledgement time stamps at the bottom of the messages.

The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed through Pittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well. Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not.

ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T.

When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Comprehensive List Of ACARS Remote Ground Stations Worldwide - scribd source link - Page 100

If you get on an airplane in say Chicago, headed for NY, you turn off your cell phone and off you go. When you arrive in NY, you turn on your cell phone and see you have a message waiting. Was this message routed through a cell tower in Chicago?

No, you would never receive it, nor be alerted that you have a message waiting. It is routed through a cell tower in NY. How does the cell network know where you are?

Although not exactly the same, but similar to how cell phones track your phone based on location, choosing the best cell towers to route messages to your phone, ACARS networks track the aircraft in flight and know where the aircraft is in order to route messages to the aircraft (or vice versa) through the best remote stations on the ground.

When a message is sent from the ground or in flight, it is routed through a Central Processing System. This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location. Two types of flight tracking (or flight following) protocols are used for this process. Category A and B(5).

First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only.

When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft.

After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically.

The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight.

If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight path based on this flight tracking protocol, tracking the aircraft.

The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX.

However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft.

On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS.

Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.

Some have further gone on to speculate that United Airlines Dispatchers routed the messages themselves based on flight planned route. Flight Tracking protocol as described renders this argument moot as the Dispatcher does not have control over ARINC routing of ACARS messages through remote ground stations.

This type of premise is the equivalent of saying that when you call someone from your cell phone, you have the capability to choose which cell tower around the world you want your call to be routed. It's absurd. But for the sake of argument, we will explore this hypothesis.

Dispatch Operations Centers monitor flight tracking of the aircraft in near real time on an Airspace Situational Display (ASD). The United Airlines ASD is refreshed every 60 seconds according to another Memorandum For The Record released by the 9/11 Commission(4)

When asked about the technical capabilities of the ASD (airspace situational display) program used by the dispatchers on their monitors to track planes, all United representatives conferred that the program's display refreshes every 60 seconds.

McCurdy recollected that at the time of the crash into tower 2, the display on Ballenger's monitor still showed UAL 175 at 31,000 ft, having just deviated from the normal flight plan and heading into a big turn back east.

The reason Dispatchers have an ASD is due to the fact the aircraft across the globe deviate from their cleared flight plans daily due to weather, traffic, etc. With an ASD, Dispatchers can keep track of their flights and alert for weather (or other adverse conditions) along the route.

Even if Dispatchers had the capability to choose which specific ground station to route a message, why would they choose MDT and then later PIT if the aircraft is diverting back to the east on their monitors? The answer is, they wouldn't.

The hypothesis that Remote Ground Station routing is based on original flight plan is completely absurd and usually attempted by only those who obviously are not interested in the facts, instead need to speculate to hold onto their beliefs. As described, the Central Processing System routes messages through remote ground stations based on Flight Tracking Protocol(5).

These are the ACARS remote ground station locations as compared with the flight path of United 175, including the diversion from the flight planned route due to the alleged "hijacking".

An overlay of the RADES Radar data, also provided through FOIA, has been included to show the location of the Target Aircraft (TA) for the time when the first message was sent through Harrisburg. PA (MDT) and received by the aircraft, at 08:59:AM.

"Converged with Target Aircraft" radar track showing where the tracks actually converge with "UA175" can be viewed in 9/11 Intercepted, or here based on the RADES Radar Data provided through FOIA

Distances from the Target Aircraft to the relative Remote Ground Stations (RGS) are included.

As you can see, there are many stations surrounding the Target Aircraft which are much closer to the aircraft than MDT out in Harrisburg, PA. Twelve stations to be exact,

1. ABE
2. EWR
3. MMU
4. JFK
5. LGA
6. TEB
7. PHL
8. HPN
9. ISP
10. ILG
11. ACY
12. AVP

All of which are nearly half the distance to the Target Aircraft than MDT is presently at 08:59 AM.

There is no possible reason for the Central Processing System (CPS) to have chosen MDT for routing purposes based on Flight Tracking protocol described above, if this Target Aircraft truly were United Flight 175, N612UA.

The twelve other stations would have had to been skipped over, and for some reason the CPS chose MDT way out in Pennsylvania. Another argument (read: speculation) is that all those other stations were "congested" at the time which is why the CPS chose MDT.

First, in order for this to be true, all those stations would have to be "congested" at least four times over. As demonstrated by the MFR referenced above, as many as 4 messages were routed through MDT. What are the odds that all 12 ground stations were "congested" each and every time?

This argument, if not absurd, is moot as when the CPS determines the best ground station based on flight tracking protocol, the message is placed into a queue routed through the best station and then sent in the order it was received. ACARS messages are not very large in terms of bytes.

Multiple messages can be sent in less than a second. It is logical to queue the messages at a remote ground station which is closer to the aircraft than to route a message through a ground station much further away in which the aircraft may not receive based on distance and altitude.

Ground stations can send messages up to 200 miles, but this is only guaranteed if the aircraft is above 29,000 feet, as stated in the MFR sourced above.

When asked how the ACARS network chooses a Remote Ground Station for routing messages to an aircraft, FDR, Radar, ACARS Expert and Electrical Engineer Dennis Cimino had this to say,

The aircraft are constantly in contact with whatever ground station is nearest to it, more or less in 'data link' mode, sending acknowledgements back and forth. In cases where multiple stations on the ground are within range, the dropped packet numbers decide which ground station gets the priority. It's not as sophisticated as N.T.D.S. (naval tactical data systems) but pretty close to that.

On a more 'system' level, the ground stations are more or less in spread spectrum constant transmit mode like cell phones now use, so they won't step on each other continually.

When an aircraft receiver's MDS (minimum discernible signal) sensitivity is achieved or reached out of the 'tangential' noise floor level, the aircraft's receiver then begins to try to data frame sync with the ground. then once that happens and two way 'ping pong' as data link persons refer to it, happens, then any queued messages get shipped to the receiving system and data relative to the aircraft's flight get sent back down to the ground.

This corroborates the Flight Tracking Protocol as outlined above based on a July 2002 Newsletter published by ARINC titled The Global Link(5).

Now that it is understood there were many ground stations which should have been chosen by the CPS before routing messages through MDT, why would the Central Processing System ever choose PIT as the next ground station for routing purposes if the aircraft was being tracked by the ACARS network to NYC? The answer is, it wouldn't.

It is possible all messages can be fabricated, but that would attract multiple felony charges as well considering the information was provided through the Freedom Of Information Act and used as evidence to support the claims made by the 9/11 Commission.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth encourage readers to contact an ARINC Specialist in your area to confirm or refute the above evidence offered. Contact information for an ARINC office near you can be located through a simple google search. Feel free to direct them to this site and article.

Based on Flight Tracking protocol, the only reason the Central Processing System would choose to route messages through the ground stations located at MDT, then later PIT, over the numerous ground stations much closer and surrounding NYC, is due to the aircraft being in the vicinity of MDT, and then later, PIT. This means that the aircraft observed to strike the south tower, was not United 175.

"Converging Aircraft " radar tracks showing the targets converging can be viewed in
9/11 Intercepted, or here based on the RADES Radar Data provided through FOIA

All aircraft converging above can be viewed in the RADES Data or 9/11: Intercepted

This evidence strengthens previous evidence uncovered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth that a standard 767 cannot remain in control, stable or hold together at the speeds reported by the NTSB for the South Tower aircraft(6).

So, if UA175 was somewhere out in Pennsylvania when an aircraft was observed to strike the south tower, and a standard 767 cannot perform at such excessive speeds as reported, then where did the airplane come from which was observed to strike the South Tower?

That is a great question and the reason we are still here after 10 years attempting to get answers for the day that changed our world, and will never go away until those questions are answered.

The Pilots for 9/11 Truth organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack along with other information provided by several government agencies through the Freedom Of Information Act.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store to help support Pilots For 9/11 Truth continued operations and research.

(1) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf - 12.9mb pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/t-0148-911MFR-01090.pdf (bottom of page 6) - 1.3mb pdf
(3) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Miles_Kara_MFR.pdf - 681kb pdf
(4) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/mfr-dispatch-track-asd.pdf - 900kb pdf
(5) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/GLOBAL_LINK.pdf - Use Of Tracker Messages In Category A ACARS Networks, page 6, 174kb pdf
(6) 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

PART TWO UA 93 SHANKESVILLE CRASH

by Pilots for 9/11 Truth

UNITED 93 IN THE VICINITY OF FORT WAYNE, INDIANA AND CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS AT TIME OF SHANKSVILLE ALLEGED CRASH

More information has surfaced which conclusively demonstrates the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11, were airborne well after their alleged crashes.

This article supplements our last, "ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH" in which the ACARS system is explained as well as how to determine if a message were received by the aircraft, along with how ground stations are selected through Flight Tracking Protocol based on messages routed to United 175, N612UA.

We now have further evidence which places United 93, N591UA, in the vicinity of Champaign, IL, 500+ miles away from the alleged crash site in Shanksville, PA. This information is further corroborated by a (now former) United Airlines Manager of Flight Dispatch Michael J. Winter.

On January 28, 2002, Mr. Winter gave an interview to the FBI at United Headquarters near Chicago, IL(1). During this interview, Mr. Winter reviewed a list of ACARS messages explaining the contents and which messages were received or rejected.

The messages provided below are the most significant and fatal to what we have been told by the 9/11 Commission. Two messages were routed through the Fort Wayne, Indiana remote ground stations (FWA), followed by two more messages which were routed through Champaign, IL (CMI).

The remote ground station used to route the message to the aircraft (FWA or CMI), the time and date in which the message is sent (eg. 111351, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1351Z or 0951am Eastern), the flight number (UA93), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N591UA), are all highlighted in red.

The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane. Although the first two appear to be identical, the message number denotes that they are in fact two separate messages, which is highlighted in blue. The messages are as follows -

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111351/ED
AGM
AN N591UA/GL FWA
- UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
LAND ASP AT NEAREST --NEAREST AIRPORT.ASP .ASP ON GROND.ANYWERE.
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111351 108575 0669

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111351/ED
AGM
AN N591UA/GL FWA
- UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
LAND ASP AT NEAREST --NEAREST AIRPORT.ASP .ASP ON GROND.ANYWERE.
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111351 108575 0676

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111410 108575 0706

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R
.CHIAKUA 111410/ED
CMD
AN N591UA/GL CMI
- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111411 108575 0707

As described in our first article on this topic based on Category A and B flight tracking(3), this aircraft would not have had messages routed through the above remote ground stations if it were enroute to crash in Shanksville, PA. Many other stations are much closer if in fact United 93 crashed in Shanksville.

In order to follow the messages based on remote ground stations, we have included the Google Earth File used to construct the various stations and associated messages, with an overlay of the United 93 Flight path according to the National Transportation Safety Board(2).

There are 10 remote ground stations closer to the flight path than FWA, even more if including CMI ground station in Champaign, IL which is nearly 500 miles from the Shanksville crater. However, according to Mr. Winter, United 93 received messages from CMI remote ground station in Champaign, IL more than 7 minutes after the alleged crash(1). Mr. Winter explains :

"Printer" and "Screen" indicate the printer on the flight deck and the flight management computer screen, respectively, as is described in the sourced documentation(1).

Based on Category A and B flight tracking(3), it can be determined that TOL and FWA are not the best stations for routing messages, however routing through CMI is completely absurd if the aircraft in fact crashed in Shanksville.

Furthermore, according to the NTSB animation reconstruction, the aircraft allegedly crashed in Shanksville at 10:03am(4). How can the aircraft possibly receive a message activating an audible signal in the airplane at 1410 (10:10am Eastern)?

It can't if it crashed in Shanksville, it can if were in the vicinity of CMI. Finally, there is no possible way that an aircraft can receive a message from a remote ground station which is 500+ miles away. The range for remote ground stations is 200 miles, and that is only guaranteed above 29,000 feet(5).

We now have several levels of corroboration demonstrating the aircraft were still airborne after their alleged crashes -

- From our first article, the logs themselves showing time sent and received based on statements made by Ed Ballinger,
- Ground station routing based on flight tracking protocols,
- Expert statements,
- And now, messages that were received well out of range from Shanksville, PA after the time of the alleged crash.

It is conclusive, the 9/11 Aircraft were airborne long after their alleged crashes.

Send this evidence to your Congress Representative, your Senators, Judges, Lawyers, print it out and hand it to your pilots when boarding a flight (Pilots love reading material while in cruise). Call into talk shows, tell them about this evidence. Grab our DVD's and make copies, hand them to friends, family, co-workers, etc.

Demand a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The 9/11 Families, The 9/11 Victims, The American People, The World, deserves to know Truth about what happened on September, 11, 2001.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack along with other information provided by several government agencies through the Freedom Of Information Act.

The data does not support what we have been told. Government Agencies refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth continues to grow and exist only through your continued support. We thank you!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store to help support Pilots For 9/11 Truth continued operations and research.

(1) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box11_FBI302s_ACARS.pdf - page 55-57, 2.4mb pdf
(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/UA93_RGS_messages_wNTSB_overlay.kmz - Google Earth File, 27kb
(3) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/GLOBAL_LINK.pdf - Use Of Tracker Messages In Category A ACARS Networks, page 6, 174kb pdf
(4) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/NTSB_Animation_UA93_100307.jpg - Image from NTSB Animation Reconstruction based on Flight Data Recorder
(5) Google Search For "acars 200 mile range" - Click

Stabilized Video of Molten Metal Pouring from the South Tower Just Before "Collapse"

2011-12-07T13:27:00.006-04:00

Here's a stabilized video of molten metal* pouring from the south tower just before it "collapses."

Stabilized WTC South Tower video. Thanks to Ben Reisman for sharing his video with the public.

* Indicates the use of explosives hot enough to melt metal (which jet fuel cannot accomplish)

Gofer and Trout: Questions on Two Flights Out of Andrews AFB on 9/11

2011-12-05T18:21:00.005-04:00

By Kevin Ryan, 4/12/11

Due to the incredible number of coincidences proposed by the official reports on the events of September 11, 2001, it makes good sense for citizens to question any improbable claims related to that day. We have been given at least two such odd stories about flights that left Andrews Air Force Base that morning. One represents a highly improbable flight path and the other has produced a contradiction in official accounts.

The first of these flights concerns a large military cargo plane, a C-130H, called Gofer 06. This plane was from the 133rd airlift wing of the Minnesota Air National Guard. The 9/11 Commission Report claims that the Gofer 06 pilot and crew were first-hand witnesses to the demise of both Flight 77 and Flight 93.

It was said that the C-130H pilot, Lt. Col Steve O’Brien, was returning from delivering supplies to the Carribean, which more specifically meant the U.S. Virgin Islands. Air Force Magazine recently reported that seven other crew members were on board, including copilot Maj. Robert Schumacher and flight engineer MSgt Jeff Rosenthal.[i]

The official timeline of this improbable flight begins as follows: Just after 09:30, Gofer 06 took off from Andrews AFB and Flight 77 flew “right in front of [it], a mile and a half, two miles away.”[ii] Air traffic controllers (ATCs) from Reagan National Airport (in Arlington, VA) asked the C-130H pilot to identify and follow the “suspicious aircraft.”[iii]According to the Commission report, Gofer 06 identified the aircraft as a Boeing 757 and, seconds after impact, Lt. Col. O’Brien said — “it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.” In the recent Air Force Magazine article, Rosenthal claims that – ”We saw it crash into the Pentagon.”

Therefore, thirty minutes after millions of Americans had witnessed a second aircraft crash in the World Trade Center (WTC), routine flights were taking off from Andrews AFB, the military base with several interceptor jets at the ready only 10 miles from the Pentagon. The interceptor jets would not take off from Andrews until approximately 90 minutes later. This was all happening just minutes after a series of exchanges between Vice President Cheney and a “young man,” which Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta witnessed and testified were focused on “the plane that came into the Pentagon.”[iv]

Numerous questions come to mind when reading just this small part of the official narrative.

Why would Andrews AFB launch a cargo plane instead of interceptor jets at a time when three airliners had been hijacked and two of them had crashed into the WTC 30 minutes earlier?
How could civilian ATCs expect an unwieldy cargo plane, which had a cruise speed of 336 mph (and a maximum speed of 366 mph), to keep up with a Boeing airliner which the official report says was traveling at 530 mph?
Even if Gofer 06 had time to reach its maximum speed immediately, the difference in speeds would have put the two aircraft 3 miles apart for every minute that passed.
Some reports state that copilot Schumaker looked down on Flight 77.[v] How could he look down on something that was at first right in front of him, at a distance of two miles, and five minutes later was up to 15 miles (more than was possible) further ahead of him?
And if military cargo planes could take orders from civilian ATCs, why didn’t the ATCs ask Andrews AFB to launch its at-the-ready interceptors, which could travel several times faster than the errant airliner?

It was reported that Lt. Col. O’Brien turned on the news after he witnessed Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and that’s when he and his crew finally learned what most of us already knew — that the nation was under attack. It was claimed by MSgt Rosenthal that, at this time, “We circled. We loitered briefly.”[vi]

One of the documents released by the 9/11 Commission in response to FOIA requests is the flight tracking strip from Andrews AFB for September 11, 2001. This tracking strip indicates that Gofer 06 took off from Andrews at 9:33 am.[vii] Given that the flight engineer for the cargo plane stated that they circled after witnessing the crash, and a large aircraft takes a few minutes to circle, we must assume that Gofer 06 could not have left the vicinity of the Pentagon any earlier than 9:41 am.

Originally the crew had planned to return to their home station in Minnesota. But then they decided “the prudent thing to do was to get to a safe haven and take a time out.”[viii] They did not go to the nearest safe haven, however, but instead continued on in an improbable path that ended in landing at Cleveland airport, approximately one hour later.

One problem with this new self-determined route taken by the Gofer 06 crew was that Benedict Sliney, the FAA’s national operations manager, had issued a ground stop at 9:42 am, just as Gofer 06 was leaving the Washington area. Per the 9/11 Commission Report, this meant that all aircraft were ordered to land at the nearest airport. Gofer 06 did not land as required by the FAA. Instead, it flew for another hour and passed over numerous airports in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Of course the truly amazing thing is that Gofer 06 is credited for witnessing not only the crash of Flight 77, but the smoke from the crash of Flight 93. At 10:05, just 27 minutes after seeing the Pentagon crash, the crew of Gofer 06 witnessed black smoke from United 93 at a distance of only 17 miles.

The Andrews AFB flight tracking strip does indicate that Gofer 06’s approved flight plan was from Andrews to the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. A direct route between these two points would take the cargo plane right by Meyersdale, PA, which is in a direct line to Minneapolis/St. Paul and about 17 miles away from Shanksville.

The direct distance, as the crow flies, between the Pentagon and Shanksville is 127 miles. If we accept that Gofer 06 “circled and loitered” for only 3 minutes starting at 9:38, then it would have had just 24 minutes to reach Meyersdale, PA at 10:05, which is the time that its crew is said to have seen the black smoke from United 93 at a distance of approximately 17 miles. At its rated cruise speed of 336 mph, Gofer 06 would have needed 23 minutes to make this trip. So it is just barely possible.

One might ask a few more questions about this though.

For example, of all the flight paths that an aircraft taking off from Andrews AFB might have taken, what are the odds that the one plane that was asked to tail Flight 77 just happened to be vectored directly toward the crash site of Flight 93? Just taking the radial probability of all possible flight paths away from the Andrews/Pentagon area would seem to put the odds at 1 in 360, or about 1 in 180 for only land-based paths.

What are the odds that this one plane that happened to be vectored directly between the crash of Flight 77 and the crash of Flight 93 would have just exactly the time needed to fly between these two historic events? Most military aircraft and any commercial airliner would have been traveling much faster and would have missed seeing the smoke from Flight 93. Therefore, since a C-130H is an unusual type of plane and is relatively slow, the probability would seem to drop considerably lower.

Why did the crew of Gofer 06 immediately respond to a civilian request to follow Flight 77 but then, for nearly one hour, ignore the FAA’s national operations manager’s order to land at the closest airport? It ultimately landed at Cleveland, another 181 miles (32 minutes at cruising speed) away, after passing by several cities including Pittsburgh.

It could be that these questions amount to nothing more than coincidence and that Gofer 06 really was just a spectacularly improbable flight on the most spectacular day in U.S. aviation history. But another flight that took off from Andrews that morning is the center of yet another paradox. And with regard to that flight, someone seems to either be lying or spectacularly mistaken.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, Hugh Shelton, was reported to have been one of the many national leaders who were absent or indisposed on that fateful morning. The official line is that he had taken off from Andrews AFB to fly to a NATO meeting in Hungary and was 1.5 hours out when he was told about the first WTC event. After being told about the second plane going into WTC 2, he told his crew to turn around and go back. Apparently he had to tell them again after they heard about the Pentagon crash, possibly because they had not yet gotten clearance to fly back.[ix]

In any case, Shelton’s plane, a modified C-135 called the Speckled Trout, was about two hours away from Andrews AFB when it turned around. Yet Shelton did not return to the National Military Command Center (NMCC), where his leadership was desperately needed, until 5:40 pm. The exact time that the Speckled Trout landed has not been officially reported although it was listed in the FOIA-released document noted above.

Upon return, Shelton’s plane landed at Andrews Air Force Base, and from there, three patrol cars and about a dozen motorcycle cops escorted him and his staff to the Pentagon. It was said that when Shelton got back to the Pentagon, he initially went to his office and then visited the site of the attack to see the wreckage. After re-entering the building, he finally headed to the NMCC.

Therefore, Shelton’s account appears to say that it took him about six hours to return to the NMCC, after taking only about two hours to return to Andrews on the Speckled Trout. It seems odd that he would spend six hours (8 minus the 2 needed to fly back) in his office and examining wreckage before reporting to the command center when he was in charge.

He wrote — “Ten minutes later they called back with confirmation that we had been officially cleared to fly through the shutdown airspace. One of our pilots stuck his head out of the cockpit and announced, ‘Sir, our flight path will take us right over Manhattan, if you’d like to come up here about ten minutes from now.’”

Shelton’s 2010 autobiography, coincidentally named “Without Hesitation,” confirms this timeline and adds a few more details. On page 433, Shelton describes what happened after his initial order to return to the U.S., when he learned of the second WTC crash.

Furthermore, Shelton elaborated on the return journey in that he claims to have flown right over the WTC site just minutes after the buildings were destroyed. “We flew directly over what had been the Twin Towers, just a few minutes after they collapsed,” he wrote. And then — “We vectored directly back to Andrews.”

Shelton furthered described what happened when he arrived at Andrews. He claims that an entourage of DC patrol cars met him there and he was escorted immediately to the Pentagon, “which was still ablaze and spewing plumes of thick gray smoke.” And (interestingly) “...the smell of cordite was overwhelming.“

Suzanne Giesemann, an aide to Shelton who was on the Speckled Trout that morning, has confirmed Shelton’s account in her own book. In this account, she reiterates that the plane was routed over the WTC site seemingly just minutes after the towers fell. There is even a photograph of smoke rising from Ground Zero that is attributed to Shelton’s personal photographer, named Jones.[x]

Unfortunately, the September 2011 edition of Air Force Magazine, mentioned earlier, contradicts both of these accounts.[xi] Another article in this issue includes comments from Captain Rob Pedersen, who was the flight navigator for Shelton’s plane on 9/11. This article states that after Shelton instructed his pilot to return to the U.S., the crew didn’t get clearance to return for several hours. This article also claims that the plane did not have any destination and “so we went into a holding pattern near Greenland,” Pedersen said. The new report says that it was Pederson’s, job as the navigator, to come up with a list of alternative landing sites, the possibilities for which included Thule AB, Greenland and NAS Keflavik, Iceland.

The new article suggests that Speckled Trout finally came back through Canada hours later, but was still being denied entry to US airspace, and therefore it was placed in another holding pattern. Pederson states that – “It took a little bit of time, and I’m sure there were a lot of phone calls made, before they let us back in.” The article does mention that the return flight from Canada took the plane over the WTC site and that Pederson took his own photograph out one of the small windows. It is interesting that the route through Canada and the route back over the Atlantic would both go over the WTC site, but the new story concludes that — “By early afternoon, they had made their way to Andrews.”

The flight tracking strip from Andrews AFB indicates that the Speckled Trout, call name “Trout 99,” took off at 7:09 am ET (11:09 Zulu time). The official time that Trout 99 landed back at Andrews is recorded as 4:40 pm.

Many obvious questions arise when considering these contradictory reports.

Why does Pederson now claim that it took hours to get clearance to return when Shelton said in his book that it took only ten minutes?
If the Speckled Trout had flown over the WTC just minutes after the buildings were destroyed, meaning before 11 am, how could it have taken nearly six hours to land at Andrews AFB?
If Shelton’s account was true and the plane landed much earlier, what was he doing for the next six hours, before arriving at the NMCC at 5:40 pm?
If he did not fly back until hours later after having been in a long holding pattern over Greenland and then another in Canada, why did he not mention any of this in his autobiography? Did he not know what the plane was doing?
How could Shelton not know the difference between “just minutes” and a period of five or six hours?
If Shelton’s 2010 account was correct, why would Air Force Magazine make up a story in September 2011 about his plane having been delayed in Greenland for hours and not landing at Andrews until the afternoon?

These may or may not be the most critical questions to answer regarding the events of 9/11. But the story of Gofer 06 has been used to provide evidence for the official accounts, and the question of why so many of the nation’s leaders were absent on that morning should be of great concern to anyone who is interested in the truth. Getting to the truth will require that all such improbable scenarios and contradictions be investigated.

[i] Air Force Magazine, Airmen on 9/11, September 2011 edition, www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/…/0911airmen.pdf

[ii] Andrew Wackerfuss, The Air National Guard Responds on 9/11, New Patriot, July/August 2011. In this article, Lt. Col O’Brien gave details of this encounter — “By then, he [AA 77] had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away.”

[iii] The 9/11 Commission Report

[iv] See the videotaped testimony of Norman Mineta, given to the 9/11 Commission,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

[v] Bill Catlin, Museum features Air Guard’s history and role in the war on terror, Minnesota Public Radio, May 31, 2004,http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/05/31_catlinb_airguardmuseum/

[vi] Air Force Magazine

[vii] Flight tracking strip from Andrews AFB for September 11, 2001, 911 Working Group of Bloomington

[viii] Air Force Magazine

[ix] History Commons 9/11 Timeline page for Hugh Shelton,http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=henry_h._shelton

[x] Suzanne Giesemann, Living a Dream: A Journey from Aide to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Sull-Time Cruiser, Paradise Cay Publications, 2008, pp 26-27

[xi] Air Force Magazine

Source

South Tower Exploding Projectile

2011-11-19T00:26:00.001-04:00

Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, Provides an Extraordinary First-Hand Account about Government Lies

2011-11-11T23:36:00.008-04:00

Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government's lies about 9/11 and Iraq.

It casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the PATRIOT ACT as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents.

A terrifying true story of "black budget" betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging,

"EXTREME PREJUDICE" is a book by Susan Lindauer that reveals one Asset's desperate struggle to survive the brutal cover ups of 9/11 and Iraq.

Her book delivers a high tension expose of the real facts surrounding the CIA's advance warnings of 9/11 and Iraq's contributions to the 9/11 investigation.

I recommend that you watch the entire video - but if you want to cut to the chase, "The hijackings and a controlled demolition scenario" starts at 11:02 minutes.

9/11 Anniversary: Ten Years of Lies

2011-11-05T17:46:00.008-03:00

This info was uploaded to youTube by "AlienScientist." He writes:

"Ten years ago I was a freshman in college sitting in a physics classroom. I watched the 9/11 attacks on TV with my professors and classmates. When we first saw the towers go down, our initial conclusion was that they had been blown up. I left campus that day with a friend and drove out to the country expecting a scene like the movie "Red Dawn" to unfold. When nothing happened I went back to my normal way of student life and never thought about or questioned what I saw on TV that day until 4 years later when I watched a documentary about the attacks which piques my interest.

I began my research as a skeptic with scientific training and background, but soon began to uncover overwhelming evidence of a larger conspiracy. I decided to devote all my time towards uncovering and exposing the truth in order to bring justice to the thousands who lost their lives that tragic day."

"This video is a compilation of all the best evidence I have found in the past 6 years of research I have done into 9/11. My aim is to encourage viewers to support the victim's families plea for a new investigation of 9/11 and give them the specific areas and people who I feel should be investigated most."

John O'Neil (Able Danger) flight training:

1. Four hijackers' ID'd as al-Qaeda before 9/11, officer says http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-17-911-hijackers-identified_x.htm

2. 9/11 Commission's Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11intel.html

3. Former assistant director of the FBI and an expert on terrorism John O'Neill starts his first day of work at the WTC. (Sep, 10, 2001)

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/vic.oneill/

4. Officer Says Pentagon Barred Sharing Pre-9/11 Qaeda Data With F.B.I. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/16/politics/16cnd-intel.html

5. Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00 http://nytimes.com/2005/08/09/politics/09intel.html

6. Much Larger Able Danger Archive:

http://summeroftruth.org/atta2.html

Henry Kissinger:

1. November 29, 2002 - President Bush names former Secretary of State, former National Security advisor, and former Unocal consultant Henry Kissinger to head the "independent" 9/11 investigations. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/27/intelligence.probe/index.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/12/politics/main532794.shtml

2. December 12, 2002 - Democrats want Henry Kissinger to name his business clients. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/13/politics/main533036.shtml

3. December 13, 2002 - Henry Kissinger resigns as head of 9/11 commission. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/kissinger.resigns/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2574741.stm

Rumsfeld & Trillions of Dollars "gone missing":

September 10, 2001 (Note the date) - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon has "lost track" of $2.3 TRILLION DOLLARS of military spending.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html (DOD) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU (Live footage of the speech)

Ex. CIA-director, former President, and President Bush's Dad, George H.W. Bush, meets with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers at a Carlyle business conference in Washington D.C.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article881598.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2002/jun/16/features.magazine57
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1875084

9/11 - Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) and Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) -- the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees -- along with Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) and some other members of the House Intelligence Committee are in a meeting at the Capital building with the director of Pakistani intelligence (ISI), Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad, who authorized a $100,000 wire transfer to alleged lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohamed Atta.

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/14/human_spies/index.html

"Gonzo" Journalist Hunter S. Thompson Thought 9/11 was an Inside Job

2011-11-05T17:21:00.002-03:00

After the September 11 attacks, Hunter S. Thompson voiced skepticism regarding the official story on who was responsible for the attacks.

He speculated to several interviewers that it may have been conducted by the U.S. Government or with the government's assistance, though readily admitted he had no way to prove his theory.

In 2002, Thompson told a radio show host:

"You sort of wonder when something like that happens, well, who stands to benefit? Who had the opportunity and the motive? You just kind of look at these basic things [...] I saw that the US government was going to benefit, and the White House people, the Republican administration to take the mind of the public off the crashing economy. [...]

And I have spent enough time on the inside of, well in the White House and you know, campaigns and I've known enough people who do these things, think this way, to know that the public version of the news or whatever event, is never really what happened."

In 2004, Thompson, regarding politics, wrote: "Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for—but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush–Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him."

From Wikipedia

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions

2011-10-30T23:35:00.004-03:00

There is ample evidence, from both witnesses and recordings, of explosions associated with the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7).

NIST sidestepped investigating explosions and explosives by setting up an artificially high threshold of interest.

They swept aside any testimony or recordings of explosions that would not register 130-140 dB one kilometer away. They established this criterion using RDX (one of the loudest explosives) in a scenario that produced a far higher sound level than other possible uses of explosives to bring down the building.

Then they turned around and used sound level as the sole criterion for deciding whether the use of explosives was a credible hypothesis. By this maneuver, they sidestepped investigating the testimony of explosives or possible evidence of explosive residues.

This is just one more instance of fraudulent behavior on the part of the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center disaster.

See Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

MOVIE: 9/11: Press For Truth

2011-10-23T13:11:00.000-03:00

Possibly the best, and certainly the most professionally produced 9/11 video documentary is the moving story 9/11: Press For Truth. This highly engaging video traces the passionate journey of a small group of grieving families who waged a tenacious battle against those who sought to bury the truth of the events surrounding that fateful day.

In 9/11: Press For Truth, six courageous 9/11 family members, including three of the famous "Jersey Girls," tell for the first time the powerful story of how they took on the greatest powers in Washington – and won! Their tireless efforts eventually led to an investigation by the 9/11 Commission. Yet learn how the final 9/11 Commission Report then tragically failed to answer their most probing questions.

In this very well documented 9/11 video, these frustrated family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 take us on a harrowing quest as their initial explorations lead to ever deeper, more puzzling questions.

What actions were taken by top government officials who received dozens of specific warnings before the attack? Was Osama Bin Laden and his top al Qaeda leadership allowed to escape from Afghanistan? What has been the reason for the deliberate obscuring of evidence for complicity of elements within government?

And perhaps the most important one of all: Why, years later, are so many of the families' questions still unanswered?

Awakenings

2011-10-23T12:00:00.005-03:00

Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate awakenings:

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story," is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study, logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of that knowledge - and what it says about our media, politics and economic system today - is by far the harder awakening and requires an enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence.

Source of quote.

Some Protest Songs with Legs - let's adapt the words and use them to our advantage!

2011-10-17T17:34:00.007-03:00

People protest different things. But they often use the same songs. And no matter what the movement's goals are, the people in them sing.

Throughout American movements music has been a source of both personal and collective empowerment – a tool used to bridge the apparent distance between individuals, to remind each other we're stronger together than alone. Music can often reach the "other side of the brain" with our message and thus overcome resistance.

Whether activists gather about 9/11 Truth or a protest on Wall Street - music is again playing a vital role in collective empowerment. Whether quoting these timeless anthems on signs or developing their own rhythms to chant and songs to sing, the people gathering across the nation find music a necessary tool in their campaign.

With that in mind, here's a look at some of the most timeless anthems of movements for social change and how they've evolved through the years.

We Shall Overcome

We Shall Not Be Moved

Solidarity Forever

This Little Light of Mine

This Land Is Your Land

Which Side Are You On?

Ain't Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Around

Demolition access to the WTC Towers (Based on the Work of Kevin Ryan)

2011-10-06T19:10:00.005-03:00

Most of the material for this video was adapted from Kevin Ryan's landmark article on who had "Demolition access to the WTC Towers":

Tenants:
http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

Security:
http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html

Convergence:
http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html

Clean Up:
http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

For blueprints of the WTCs with a list of all the suspicious tenants and connections check out:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-10/explosive-connections-initial-draft-rel...

Links and sources for things mentioned in the video:

Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials, The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1 / March, 2009, http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

Niels H. Harrit, et al, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol 2, 2009, doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7T...

Kevin R. Ryan, The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nanothermites, Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2008, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

Website for In-Q-Tel, http://www.iqt.org/technology-portfolio/index-by-practice-area.html

Wikipedia page for Jerome Hauer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Hauer

Peter Jennings interview with Jerome Hauer, ABC, on 9/11, 14:53, available on You Tube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0Rz9ZsDAg

Akzo's International Paint is the maker of Interchar http://www.international-pc.com/pc/pds/963to_uk.pdf and http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2006/ps_3.html

Taku Murakami, US Patent 5532449 - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete, http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html

Steven E. Jones et al, Extremely High Temperatures During the World Trade Center Destruction, Journal of 9/11 Studies, January 2008 http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Albert Gibson et al, Integral low-energy thermite igniter, US Patent number: 4464989, http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=rKl1AAAAEBAJ&dq=US+4464989

Skull and Bones is a secret society at Yale University, founded in 1832. Members have included George H.W. Bush, his father Prescott Bush, his son George W. Bush, his brother Jonathan J. Bush, and many other powerful people. For LMI's mission, see its website - http://www.lmi.org/aboutus/aboutus.aspx

Michael C. Ruppert, Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks, October 9, 2001, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html

Kevin R. Ryan, Mahmud Ahmed's itinerary from his Washington DC visit the week of 9/11, 911blogger.com, 11/27/2009, http://www.911blogger.com/node/21978

The agreement between LLNL and Savannah River can be found here - https://www.llnl.gov/str/News597.html

Savannah's reference to developing sol-gels can be found here - http://srnl.doe.gov/mat_sci.htm

SEC document for Washington pre-payments - http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.4G1Vx.c.htm

The Ties That Bind, Descended from family business empires, six huge business groups dominate the Japanese economy, Multinational Monitor, October 1983 - http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1983/10/ties.html

Securacomm Consulting Inc. v. Securacom Incorporated, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 20, 1999, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1444; 166 F.3d 182, http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1099498

Wikipedia page for Stratesec, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratesec

SEC filing for Stratesec, May 2, 1997, http://www.secinfo.com/dS7kv.82.htm

Kroll Inc website, http://www.kroll.com/about/

Wikipedia page for the Quill and Dagger Society, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_and_Dagger

The History Commons, "Wolfowitz Doctrine", http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=us_international_relations_41 Aaron Dykes, Wolfowitz Warns of 'Surprise like Pearl Harbor' Months Before 9/11 Attacks, Jones Report, February 9, 2007 http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/070207_wolfowitz.html Wolfowitz's meeting with Mahmud Ahmed was documented in a FOIA response obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington - http://911workinggroup.org/

Plaintiffs'' Opposition to Defendant Terrence R. McAuliffe's Motion to Dismiss, Case No: 1:98CV02859 (RCL), W.L. Meng et al vs. Bernard L. Schwartz and Loral Space et al, US District Court for the District of Columbia, http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/chinagate-loral/loral12500d.htm

BARBARA OLSON Said to Call from Flight 77, but Account Is Full of Contradictions

2011-10-05T02:07:00.005-03:00

So what really happened to Barbara Olson? The one thing we know for sure that is true about the "official story"- is that Barbara Olson is really dead.

But how and why? After all of his lies, we doubt that Ted Olson will tell us.

A passenger on Flight 77, Barbara Olson, calls her husband, Theodore (Ted) Olson, who is solicitor general at the Justice Department.

Ted Olson is in his Justice Department office watching news of the attacks on the World Trade Center on television when his wife calls. A few days later, he will recall: “She told me that she had been herded to the back of the plane. She mentioned that they had used knives and box cutters to hijack the plane. She mentioned that the pilot had announced that the plane had been hijacked.”

He tells her that two planes have hit the WTC.

Barbara Olson says she feels nobody is taking charge.

Ted Olson doesn’t know if she is near the pilots, but at one point she asks: “What shall I tell the pilot? What can I tell the pilot to do?” Then the call is cut off without warning.

Ted Olson's Recollections Vague - Ted Olson’s recollection of the call’s timing will be extremely vague. He will say the call “must have been 9:15 [a.m.] or 9:30 [a.m.]. Someone would have to reconstruct the time for me.”

Other accounts place the call around 9:25 a.m.

The call is said to last about a minute.

By some accounts, Ted Olson’s message to his wife, that planes have hit the WTC, comes later, in a second phone call.

According to one account, Barbara Olson calls her husband from inside a bathroom.

But in another, she is near a pilot, and in yet another she is near two pilots.

Conflicting Accounts of Type of Phone Used - Ted Olson’s accounts of how his wife makes her calls are also conflicting. Three days after 9/11, he will say: “I found out later that she was having, for some reason, to call collect and was having trouble getting through. You know how it is to get through to a government institution when you’re calling collect.” He says he doesn’t know what kind of phone she uses, but he has “assumed that it must have been on the airplane phone, and that she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards. Otherwise, she would have used her cell phone and called me.”

Why Barbara Olson would have needed access to her credit cards to call him on her cell phone is not explained. However, in another interview on the same day, Ted Olson will say his wife uses a cell phone and her call may be cut off “because the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”

Six months later, he will claim she calls collect, “using the phone in the passengers’ seats.”

However, it is not possible to call on seatback phones, collect or otherwise, without a credit card, which would render making a collect call moot. Many other details in Ted Olson’s accounts are conflicting, and he will fault his memory and say he “tends to mix the two [calls from his wife] up because of the emotion of the events.”

Call Supposedly Made through Secretary - According to official reports, Barbara Olson is able to reach her husband through a secretary, Lori Lynn Keyton, twice, at around 9:15 a.m. The first call is collect and comes through a live operator, while the second is direct.

You can see all of The Passenger Phone Calls, with sources, on the History Commons Timeline.

Video inside the world trade center while it collapses

2011-10-05T01:47:00.002-03:00

Higher quality video available here.

Video Compilation of 52 Clips of the WTC 2 - South Tower as it Falls

2011-10-05T01:38:00.003-03:00

The largest compilation of WTC 2 "collapse" footage - 52 clips starting with southern views, then eastern, northern and western views:

See the full collection of video clips here.

WTC- Collapse (rare view)

2011-10-05T01:23:00.004-03:00

I do not know the history of this video:

Michael Moore Calls for a New Investigation into 9/11 and Says Some Very Interesting Things about the Saudis

2011-10-04T13:19:00.008-03:00

In his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore explored the complex ties between Bush administration officials and as sociates, the Saudi Royal family, and those believed to have carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Today, Moore is backing former Florida governor and senator Bob Graham's call for President Obama to reopen the investigation into 9/11 after new information emerged about the possible role of prominent Saudis.

According to recent news reports, a wealthy young Saudi couple fled their home in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida, just a week or so before Sept. 11, 2001, leaving behind three cars and nearly all of their possessions."

There are many unanswered questions and they should be answered," Moore says.

He also was targeted by his critics for this film. Moore talks about how the Bush administration worried the movie would hurt Bush's re-election chances, and how he found out that he ranked second behind then-President Bush on the number of discovered plots to attack him.

NOTE: This movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, first showed us the footage of Bush reading My Pet Goat during the 9/11/2001 attacks.

Barbara Honegger, Senior Military Affairs Journalist Claims Bomb Exploded in Pentagon BEFORE Plane Hit

2011-10-04T12:59:00.005-03:00

THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS: Seven Hours in September: The Clocks that Broke the Lie

Barbara Honegger* M.S. is Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School (1995-present), the Navy's graduate science, technology and national security affairs university.

The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100th anniversary of The Great Earthuake of 1906 with a series of front-page articles headed by a single icon—a charred clock frozen at 5:12 am, the exact moment "The Big One" hit.

A century after that devastating event, the stopped clock serves as both the ultimate evidence and the symbol that "captures it all."

Again, almost 100 years later, clocks frozen in time at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 both "capture it all" and are the ultimate evidence that shatters the "Official Lie" of what happened that terrible morning.

The Pentagon was first attacked at 9:32 am, much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official cover story claim. (In this summary of evidence, the more precise time of 9:31:40 am is "rounded up" for ease of reference.)

In the Air Force's own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11 was too late.

Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.

This fighter jet—not Flight 77—is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller's screen making a steep, high-speed 270-degree descent before disappearing from the radar.

In fact, when the Air Traffic Controller responsible for the plane and her colleagues watched the extremely difficult 270-degree maneuver on her screen, they were certain that the plane whose blip they were watching perform this extremely difficult feat was a US military aircraft, and said so at the time. It almost certainly was.

Because the real modus operandi at the Pentagon and WTC are so similar, it is logical to deduce that the same domestic-US terrorists were responsible for pre-placing and detonating the bombs—both inside the WTC and inside the Pentagon. That is, a single group of US-domestic conspirators—not al Qaeda or any other outside terrorists—must have planned both the WTC and Pentagon attacks and controlled both the approaching planes and the inside-the-building explosions in real time on 9/11.

by Barbara Honegger, M.S.
Sept. 6, 2006

* This research, as all of Honegger's research and publications on September 11, are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement. Honegger served as Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President and White House Policy Analyst(1981-83); was the pioneering Irangate author and whistleblower on the October Surprise (October Surprise, Tudor, 1989; and Iran-Contra expose documentary film "Cover-Up"); and was called as a researcher/witness at both the October 23, 2004, and August 27, 2005, Los Angeles Citizens 9/11 Grand Jury hearings held at Patriotic Hall in Los Angeles, Calif. Much of the information and analysis contained in this evidence summary was presented at the L.A. Citizens Grand Jury hearings and at the 9/11 Emergency Truth Convergence conference held at American University in Washington, D.C. in July, 2005.

The US government and al-Qaeda Al Qaeda Agree: "Stop Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Theories"

2011-09-30T13:15:00.014-03:00

Just in case you didn't know that the US government and al-Qaeda are on the same page.... it is indeed a tangled web that is being woven:

The terror group al Qaeda has found itself curiously in agreement with the “Great Satan” — which it calls the U.S. — in issuing a stern message to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: stop spreading 9/11 conspiracy theories.

In the latest issue of the al Qaeda English-language magazine “Inspire” (pix above), an author appears to take offense to the “ridiculous” theory repeatedly spread by Ahmadinejad that the 9/11 terror attacks were actually carried out by the U.S. government in order to provide a pretext to invade the Middle East.

“The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government,” an article reads. “So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?”

Though Iran was the first of the two to use the “Great Satan” as a synonym for the U.S., the author claims that Iran sees itself as a rival for al Qaeda when it comes to anti-Americanism and was jealous of the 9/11 attacks.

“For them, al Qaeda was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world,” the article says. “Al Qaeda… succeeded in what Iran couldn’t. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories.”

Iran continues to spread the conspiracy theory, al Qaeda says, because doing otherwise would expose their “lip-service jihad” against the U.S.

The magazine also includes a short article allegedly written by al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden before his death at the hands of U.S. Navy SEALs in early May in which bin Laden advises his fighters not to let American soldiers “become great in your eyes.”
Apparently looking to bolster their ranks of the “Inspire” news desk, al Qaeda included at the end of the magazine a solicitation for contributors to the magazine “with any skills – be it writing, research, editing, or advice.”

Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on 9/11:

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly claimed that the U.S. was behind the 9/11 terror attacks, recently during the somber observance of the tenth anniversary of those attacks and then again in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly last week. That speech triggered a walk-out by the U.S. and several other delegations.

Source.

BEWARE: This WTC#7 video is a FAKE

2011-09-18T14:42:00.007-03:00

A new FAKE short Building 7 video showing very clear explosions appeared on the Web recently and is going viral, so we have decided to warn you about it.

We think this video was released with the clear intention to hurt the 9/11 truth movement’s credibility and this is why we are publishing this article.

Please do not spread the video around. When you believe lies ~ you give your power away ~ and our power is telling the truth.

Uploaded by David S Chandler on Sep 15, 2011:

Someone uploaded a supposedly new video of WTC7 taken with home video that has flashes and sounds of explosions. The video is clearly and provably fake.

1. It is reversed frame-by-frame. It could not be the other side of the building because that side was shrouded in smoke. Also (as others have noted) the other side doesn't look like this). I have here decomposed the video into jpg images, batch reversed them, and recomposed them into a video. How would home video footage become flipped in the first place? There may be some software that does this, but I don't know what it is. Why would any legitimate video be processed this way?

2. The pattern of window breakage does not match other videos. One pattern of broken windows under the east penthouse is clearly duplicated a few floors lower like a crude Photoshop copy. This is not seen in other videos.

3. In documented footage the east penthouse completely disappears before the west penthouse starts to disappear. In this video the west penthouse is completely gone while a corner of the east penthouse is still visible.

4. After the east penthouse falls, with the accompanying window breakage under it, there is a significant delay before the west penthouse falls. The windows under the west penthouse do not break until after collapse begins, yet in this video the window breakage, with flashes, occurs while a corner of the east penthouse is still visible.

5. And so forth. Someone put way too much effort into faking this video in comparison with how crude it is.

Review:

Important points showing us this is a 100% fake:

Video too short

No source to corroborate it

Blurry / Fuzzy / Jerky / Digitally zoomed

The poster took another Building 7 footage, edited and mirror-inverted it. (side-by-side comparison with original footage)

The audio explosion seems to be dubbed in, and the overall audio is of very poor quality.

Last but not least, the poster of the video even took time to add a “flying saucer” which can be seen at 0:15 and 0:30 in the video (on top of the building). This is subtle and most people won’t see it while watching the video only a few times. But it’s there.

BBC NEWS 9/23/01: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

2011-09-11T11:08:00.005-03:00

From original BBC News Article that appeared on September 23, 2001:

A man called Waleed Al Shehri says he left the US a year ago

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

Mistaken identity

Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports.

Abdelaziz Al Omari 'lost his passport in Denver

He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver.

Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News.

The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says.

Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi.

Khalid Al-Midhar may also be alive

He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.

And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive.

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

WTC 7 - See/Hear Man Inside Yelling for Help

2011-09-10T01:54:00.001-03:00

Inside World Trade Center During Attack - 9/11 before & after North Tower

2011-09-10T01:38:00.003-03:00

This footage was taken on 9/11, shortly after south tower collapsed.

Some very rare and interesting footage of journalist Mark Laganga who enters the lobby of World Trade Centre 7 at approximately 10AM-12PM on September 11th, 2001.

He begins by walking around just outside the crippled building, then sprinting inside after another man, to be confronted at the top stairs by a secret service police officer who is the "last one[s] in the building".

The collapse of WTC 7 is not shown in this clip. This video has subtitles for better understanding of what is being said (some is very difficult to hear).

Follow the link for a rare brochure from 1984 of the Trade Center. The title reads "The closest some of us will ever get to heaven."

A picture of what the lobby looked like inside South Tower in 1984.

The North and South tower from street level. Taken in 1984.

IMPORTANT INTERVIEW: GENERAL STUBBLEBINE

2011-09-07T14:05:00.004-03:00

General Stubblebine was the head of US Intelligence gathering when he retired and is the highest ranking person to investigate on 9/11.

Here is what he has to say:

"The Pentagon was NOT hit by a plane" and

"The WTC buildings were blown up - they didn't fall down."

See why:

KEVIN RYAN: Playing the “Get into Saudi Arabia free card”

2011-08-29T15:22:00.002-03:00

By Kevin Ryan, co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Kevin's personal blog can be found at Dig Within.

8.28.2011

Recent developments among supporters of the US government’s version of events indicate that they plan to begin blaming Saudi Arabia for the attacks of September 11, 2001. There is, in fact, much evidence suggesting complicity by some elements within the Saudi government. But that fact only further implicates western powers due to the close relationship between the Saudi royal family, which runs the Saudi government, and deep state controlling interests that have partnered with and manipulated the Saudi royal family for many decades. Blaming Saudi Arabia would, however, make a lot of sense if seizing resources, including the world’s greatest oil reserves, was what the war on terror has always been about.

Two weeks ago I spoke to NPR producer, Alex Kingsbury, who asked if I felt the release of the 28-pages of redacted material from the Joint Congressional Inquiry might help to solve the mysteries still surrounding 9/11. Those redacted pages, and much of the 9/11 Commission report that followed, have always seemed to be a kind of "Get into Saudi Arabia free" card for the powers that be. Kingsbury was interested in knowing whether the redacted pages, which are thought to contain significant references to Saudi Arabia, were of interest to me personally. Of course they would be, I said, but we should remember that the government of Saudi Arabia is far from representative of its people.

Similarly, a recent interview with “Counterterrorism Czar,” Richard Clarke, has been the subject of considerable discussion. Ostensibly, Clark’e objective with this interview was to make the controversial suggestion that two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were targets for recruitment by the CIA. What many have failed to emphasize, however, is that Clarke was simultaneously suggesting that the two alleged hijackers were actually working for the government of Saudi Arabia at the time of the attacks.

About a month ago, military intelligence officer and 9/11 staffer, Miles Kara, wrote to me asking if I was aware of the publication of a book called The Eleventh Day by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. Kara declared that this new book was – “the definitive work, to date, on 9/11.” Having since had a chance to borrow a copy of this book from the library, I can say that it is a malevolent piece of propaganda that attempts to persuade the ill-informed of three things.

The first thing that the Summers and Swann book attempts to do is malign the 9/11 truth movement. For example, the authors suggest that the movement is well represented by people like video-fakery and Star Wars beam advocate, James Fetzer, and it has been well answered by government employees and simple-minded contrarians like Ryan Mackey. Summers and Swann also state that well-sourced samples of World Trade Center dust, collected using completely appropriate chain of custody forms, are not good sources of information yet long-time propagandist, Gerald Posner, and Weekly Standard contributor, Thomas Joscelyn (who recently tried to link Iran to 9/11), are excellent sources.

The second goal of the book is to propose that the partial release of documents by the 9/11 Commission in the last few years has answered all the unanswered questions about the attacks. It’s not clear if the authors had a chance to look at many of those documents though. For example, one of them says that the training school for Hani Hanjour, whom the 9/11 Commission called “the operations most experienced pilot,” questioned Hanjour’s pilot certificate because he had “no fundamental skills / poor English” and they “wondered if the cert was false.”[1] This is but one of many examples in which these newly released documents directly contradict the 9/11 Commission report, instead of supporting it as Summers and Swann claim.

Most importantly, this new book attempts to blaze a new trail for Saudi complicity in the attacks of 9/11. Unfortunately, although the book details a number of reasons why the Saudi government should be investigated for supporting the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, it paradoxically avoids many of the important Saudi links to 9/11. The authors appear to do this in an effort to accuse the Saudis while simultaneously covering-up evidence that western corporations and western government leaders were really behind many of the Saudi links.

Here are a few of the surprising connections between Saudi Arabia and westerners who were in one way or another related to the 9/11 attacks.

· Bernard Kerik, the New York City police commissioner and “9/11 hero,” spent three years working in Saudi Arabia in the 1970s for a company that occupied one of the WTC towers at the time of the attacks. He then spent another three years in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s as “the chief investigator for the royal family.” It was Kerik who first told the public that explosives were not used at the WTC, and it was his police department that was said to have discovered the magic passport which fell from one of the towers to conveniently provide evidence identifying one of the alleged hijackers.

· One of two primary companies to manage the clean-up of Ground Zero, Bovis Lend Lease, had previously built the Riyadh Olympic stadium in Saudi Arabia.

· The other primary clean-up company at Ground Zero, AMEC, had just completed a $258 million refurbishment of Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, which is exactly where Flight 77 impacted that building. AMEC is a major international player in the oil and gas industry, as well as in other natural resource industries. AMEC had a significant presence in Saudi Arabia dating back to the late 1970s, providing support to the national oil company Saudi Aramco.

· The company that designed the security systems for the WTC complex, Kroll Associates, had strong connections to Saudi Arabia. For example, Kroll board member Raymond Mabus was the US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the mid 1990s.

· All four of the primary contractors that were involved in rebuilding the security systems for the WTC had done significant business with the Saudis. Electronic Systems Associates' parent, S&H, designed King Saud University, and E.J. Electric worked for Saudi Arabian Airlines. Ensec was owned by a former arms dealer to the Saudis. Stratesec, which had contracts not only for the WTC but also for Dulles airport, where Flight 77 took off, and United Airlines which owned two of the three other planes, worked under "a joint venture agreement with Ahmad N. AlBinali & Sons Co., a large Saudi Arabian engineering and construction company, to develop and conduct business in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."

· The Bush and Bin Laden-financed Carlyle Group owned, through BDM International, the Vinnell Corporation, a mercenary operation that had extensive contracts in the Middle East since 1975 and trained the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Several of Stratesec’s key employees, including COO Barry McDaniel, came from BDM. In 1995, BDM’s Vinnell was one of the first targets of al Qaeda, in Saudi Arabia.

· In the 1990s, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), run by Dick Cheney protégé, Duane Andrews, trained the Saudi Navy and brought Saudi military personnel to company headquarters in San Diego for further study. SAIC played a large part in the NIST WTC investigation after 9/11, but was also involved in the investigation of the 1993 WTC bombing, boasting that -- "After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible." SAIC was paid huge sums to rebuild the NSA and FBI systems that supposedly failed before 9/11.

· While SAIC was training the Saudi Navy, the Carlyle/BDM subsidiary Vinnell Corp was training the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Simultaneously, Booz Allen Hamilton was managing the Saudi Marine Corps and running the Saudi Armed Forces Staff College.

· Former FBI director Louis Freeh, whose agency investigated al Qaeda-attributed terrorism from 1993 to 2001, is now the personal attorney for Saudi ambassador "Bandar Bush."

· Salomon Smith Barney, the company that occupied all but 10 floors of WTC building 7, was taken over by Citigroup in 1998. Citigroup had recently been saved from bankruptcy by Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia, in a deal brokered by The Carlyle Group. It is believed that the money, and more, came from the terrorist financing network, BCCI, as it was dissolving. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney joined the advisory board at Solomon Smith Barney at that time and were on the board until they resigned to join the Bush Administration in January, 2001.

· The Saudi government was sued by thousands of 9/11 victim's family members due to the suspicion that Saudi Arabia helped to finance al Qaeda. The Saudis hired the law firm of Bush Administration insider, James Baker, to defend them in that lawsuit.

Summers and Swann seem to have missed these interesting connections between US government officials and corporations, and Saudi Arabia. That seems odd for a book that pretends to be the definitive work to date. Despite this inconsistency, it is doubtful that Richard Clarke, 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara, NPR’s Alex Kingsbury, or any other supporter of the government’s reports, will say anything about it.

[1] See FOIA response “5 AWA 356” received by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington http://www.911workinggroup.org/p/foia-research.html page 71 of 447

Source: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/08/playing-get-into-saudi-arabia-free-card.html

REPORTER ON 9/11: "Underground! Underground! We Thought The Ground Below Was About To Explode!"

2011-08-27T00:06:00.004-03:00

On 9/11/2001, at 10 AM, ABC News Reports Underground Explosions at Building #7 - thought that the ground was going to explode:

Please note the time: 10 am